Commentary for Bava Batra 307:6

צריכא דאי איתמר ההיא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דאלימי עדים ומרעי שטרא אבל הכא הוא דלאו כל כמיניה אימא לא

are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By asserting that they signed under compulsion or when they were minors. ');">²¹</span> these are the words of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires no attestation of a document on the part of the witnesses in a case where the debtor himself admitted that he wrote it. The validity of the deed, which has been acknowledged by the debtor, cannot, therefore, be impaired by the statements of the witnesses. ');">²²</span> But the Sages say: They are believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A document, though admitted by the debtor to be genuine, requires the attestation of the witnesses before a court; and since the witnesses are, accordingly, the sole authorities for its validity, they are also to be believed when they declare it to be disqualified. Now, since the dispute between R. Meir and the Sages in the Baraitha depends on the same principles as those underlying their dispute in our Mishnah, why should a repetition be necessary? ');">²³</span> — [Both are] required. Because if [their] dispute] had been stated [in connection with] that [alone],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha. ');">²⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 307:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.