For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 18
To download, click/tap here: PDF
The Mishna on our daf teaches that when a signed document that needs to be authenticated, under certain circumstances the original witnesses who are brought in can say “yes, they are our signatures, but…
we were forced, [or] we were minors, [or] we were disqualified witnesses” they are believed.
In this scenario, a person comes to court with a document signed by witnesses. When his opponent claims that the document is a forgery, the witnesses are summoned to the court to testify to their signatures. The witnesses state that the signatures are indeed their signatures, but that nevertheless the document should not be upheld. This is for one of three reasons: they were forced to sign, they were minors when they signed, or they were disqualified witnesses (see Sanhedrin 3:4). In this case they are believed, and the document is invalid. This is because of the principle of “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits”.
We continue our exploration of consent, coercion, power and sexuality, including Jeffrie Murphy’s critique of Locke and Hume regarding will, freedom and binding agreements.