Commentary for Bava Batra 317:10

ומאי קושיא דלמא גזירת מלך היא דאיהו לא מהימן ואחריני מהימני ולאו משום דמשקר דאי לא תימא הכי משה ואהרן לחותנם משום דלא מהימני הוא אלא גזירת מלך הוא שלא יעידו להם ה"נ גזירת מלך הוא שלא יעיד על כתב ידו לחותנו

but others may identify his handwriting.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it has been said that he himself is not trusted, it is apparently assumed that he might have forged the document, why then should it be valid if others confirm his handwriting? Could not that very handwriting represent a record of an imaginary transaction? This then may have been the message sent from Palestine which presents a difficulty in civil law. ');">³⁶</span> What difficulty, however, [is this]? [Is it not] possible [that] here also [the reference is to] a case where his handwriting was endorsed at a court of law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' CF. mutatis mutandis, supra, n. 13. ');">³⁷</span> If, however [a message was sent to which] objection [is to be raised, it might be] the following.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 692, n. 10. ');">³⁸</span> 'If a person was in a position to tender evidence for one, before he became his son-in-law and he [subsequently] became his son-inlaw, he is not [permitted] to attest his handwriting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his signature on any document in favour of his father-in-law. ');">³⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 317:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.