Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 22, 2015 | 讙壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 20

讜讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛诐

And just as witnesses render other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses only in their presence, because with their testimony they render them liable to be punished, so too, witnesses contradict the testimony of other witnesses only in their presence. Since the signatories to the document are dead, their testimony cannot be contradicted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讜 拽诪谉 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 诇讛讜 讛讜讛 讛讻讞砖讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讛讜 讚讛讜讬 诇讛 注讚讜转 诪讜讻讞砖转 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讜讜 诇拽诪谉 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诪讛讬诪谞讬

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: If the first pair of witnesses was before us and the second pair would contradict their testimony, that is contradiction, and we would not consider their testimony and would not collect money with the document, as it is contradicted testimony. Now that they are not before us, and in a case where if they were before us perhaps they would have admitted to the second witnesses that the testimony of the second witnesses is correct, are they deemed credible, and the document that they signed valid?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽讬 转专讬 诇讛讚讬 转专讬 讜讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗谞讻住讬 讚讘专 砖讟讬讗 讚讘专 砖讟讬讗 讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬 讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诇讬诐 讝讘讬谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an said in the case where the testimony of the first witnesses is contradicted not in their presence, the ruling is: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict their testimony, thereby neutralizing both testimonies, and establish the money in the possession of its owner, just as it was in the case of the property of bar Shatya. As when bar Shatya, a man who suffered from periodic bouts of insanity, sold his property, two witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was insane; and two other witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was sane.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讜拽讬 转专讬 诇讛讚讬 转专讬 讜讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 讘专 砖讟讬讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘谉 讜讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘讬谉

Rav Ashi said in that case: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict the testimony of the first pair, and establish the money in the possession of bar Shatya. The Gemara notes: We say that the property remains in the possession of bar Shatya only when he has possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers. However, if he does not have possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers, but he acquired the property himself, we say: He purchased his properties when he was insane, and he sold them when he was insane. He does not have presumptive ownership of them. Therefore, the property remains in the possession of the person to whom bar Shatya sold it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谉 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 讜讛讝诪讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 谞讛讬 讚讛讝诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讻讞砖讛 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬讗

Rabbi Abbahu disagrees with the opinion of Rav Sheshet and says: Witnesses render other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses only in their presence, but witnesses contradict the testimony of other witnesses not in their presence. And with regard to rendering other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses not in their presence, although it is not effective in rendering them false, conspiring witnesses in the sense that they are punished for their false testimony, in any case, it is contradiction of their testimony.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Master said in the baraita cited previously: If there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and that was deemed valid in court, these witnesses are not deemed credible. The Gemara infers: From a document that one challenged, yes, the signatures are authenticated and the testimony of the other witnesses is not accepted; however, if one did not challenge the document, no, the document cannot be used to authenticate their signatures. This supports the statement of Rabbi Asi, as Rabbi Asi said: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses鈥 signatures only from a document that someone challenged and that was deemed valid in court.

讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 诪砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 [讗讜] 诪砖转讬 砖讚讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇讜诐 讘注诇讬讛谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘砖讜驻讬

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses鈥 signatures only from two marriage contracts or from the bills of sale for two fields that those witnesses signed. And those bills of sale are effective only in a case where their owner ate their produce for three years, the requisite period to establish presumptive ownership of the field, and in peace, undisturbed by protest. In that case we can rely on the signatures, and the documents are considered valid.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讘讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚 讗讞专 讗讘诇 诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转讞转 讬讚 注爪诪讜 讚诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讝讬讜驻讬 诪讝讬讬祝 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讝诇 讜讞讝讗 讗转讗 讜讝讬讬祝 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讻讜讬谉

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Authentication of signatures by comparison to other documents can be accomplished specifically when the documents emerge from the possession of another. However, when the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself, no, they may not be used to authenticate the signatures. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself that they may not be used to authenticate the signatures? It is that perhaps while the documents were in his possession he learned how to copy the signatures and forged them. If so, also in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of another, perhaps he went and saw the signatures, and came back and forged them. The Gemara answers: In that case, he would not be able to accurately reproduce the signatures to that extent based on memory alone.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜转讘 讗讚诐 注讚讜转讜 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪注讬讚 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讝讜讻专讛 诪注爪诪讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讝讜讻专讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谞讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚讬讚注讬 住讛讚讜转讗 讜诪谞砖讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 诪讚讻专 讞讚 诇讞讘专讬讛

The Sages taught: A person may write his testimony in a document and testify on its basis even after several years have passed. Rav Huna said: And that is the halakha only if he remembers the testimony on his own and he uses the document merely to refresh his memory with regard to certain details. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may rely on that written testimony even if he does not remember the testimony by himself at all. Rabba said: Conclude from this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to these two witnesses who know testimony in a certain case, and one of them forgot the testimony, one witness may remind his fellow witness of the testimony, as according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, even if the witness remembers the testimony only by means of an external stimulus, the testimony is valid.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诪讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the litigant himself reminds the witness of the testimony, what is the ruling? Rav 岣viva said: Even if the litigant himself reminds the witness, he may testify. Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: If the litigant himself reminds the witness, he may not testify. And the Gemara concludes that the halakha is that if the litigant himself reminds the witness of the testimony, the witness may not testify, due to the concern that the litigant influenced the nature of his testimony.

讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诪讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬讚讬注 诇讬讛 讘住讛讚讜转讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚讻讬专 诪专 讛讗讬 住讛讚讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讜诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讚讻专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗住讛讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞住诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 讗谞讗 讛讜讗 讚专诪讗讬 讗谞驻砖讗讬 讜讗讚讻专讬

And if the witness is a Torah scholar, then even if the litigant himself jogged the witness鈥檚 memory, the witness may testify. A Torah scholar would not testify if he did not actually remember the testimony himself, as in that case involving Rav Ashi, who knew testimony relating to Rav Kahana. Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: Does the Master remember this testimony? Rav Ashi said to him: No. Rav Kahana said to him: Didn鈥檛 the incident transpire in such and such a manner? Rav Ashi said to him: I don鈥檛 know. Ultimately, Rav Ashi remembered the testimony and testified for Rav Kahana. He saw that Rav Kahana was hesitant [me岣ssem] with regard to accepting his testimony, concerned that he had influenced the content of Rav Ashi鈥檚 testimony. Rav Ashi said to him: Do you think that I am relying on you? I made an effort, and I remembered the incident.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转诇讜诇讬讜转 讛拽专讜讘讜转 讘讬谉 诇注讬专 讜讘讬谉 诇讚专讱 讗讞讚 讞讚砖讜转 讜讗讞讚 讬砖谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讛专讞讜拽讜转 讞讚砖讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讬砖谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽专讜讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽专讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讬砖谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜讻专讛

搂 Apropos recalling testimony, the Gemara adds that we learned there in a mishna (Oholot 16:2): Mounds of dirt that are near either to a city or a path, whether these mounds are new or whether they are old, are ritually impure due to the concern that a corpse is buried there. With regard to the mounds that are distant from the city: If they are new they are ritually pure, as, were there a corpse buried there, someone would remember, and if they are old they are impure. The mishna elaborates: What is a mound that is near? It is one at a distance of up to fifty cubits. And what is a mound that is old? It is one that was there for more than sixty years; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A mound that is near is one that there is no mound closer than it. Old is referring to a mound that no one remembers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the parameters are not quantifiable.

诪讗讬 注讬专 讜诪讗讬 讚专讱 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讬专 注讬专 诪诪砖 讚专讱 讚专讱 诪诪砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讛专讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讬专 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讚专讱 讚专讱 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is a city and what is a path in this context? If you say city means an actual city and a path is an actual path and the mishna is referring to any city or path, the question arises: Do we presume the existence of ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael? But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say in explaining how the Sages, based on meager proof, deemed an area in Eretz Yisrael ritually pure where uncertainty arose with regard to its purity: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Apparently, one does not presume ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, does the mishna declare that every mound of dirt near a city or a path is impure? Rabbi Zeira said: The word city in the mishna is referring to a city adjacent to the cemetery, and the word path is referring to the path leading to the cemetery. Therefore, the concern that a corpse may be buried in the mound is a reasonable one.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讱 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诪拽专讜 拽讘专讜 讘转诇 讗诇讗 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讻讜诇讛讬 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讝诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a mound located adjacent to the path leading to the cemetery, there is concern that a corpse is buried in the mound, as sometimes one happens to go to bury the corpse on Shabbat eve at twilight, and to avoid desecrating Shabbat, it happened that they buried the corpse in a mound on the path. However, with regard to a city adjacent to the cemetery, everyone goes to the cemetery to bury their dead. Why would anyone bury a corpse in a mound adjacent to the city?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛谞砖讬诐 拽讜讘专讜转 砖诐 谞驻诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜讻讬 砖讞讬谉 讝专讜注讜转讬讛诐 注讚 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讞讜讚讛 讟驻讬 讚讘专讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讝诇讗 讛诇讻讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina said: The mounds could be impure, since women bury their stillborn babies adjacent to the city, as there is no funeral in that case, and because those afflicted with boils bury their arms that withered and fell from their bodies. Until a distance of fifty cubits from the city, the woman goes alone and buries the stillborn in a mound. More than that distance, she takes a person with her, as she fears going alone, and she goes to the cemetery. Therefore, we are not presuming the existence of ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. The case of the mounds is an exception, as there is basis for deeming them impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 住讛讚讜转讗 注讚 砖讬转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 诪讬讚讻专 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪讬讚讻专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专诪讬 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬

Rav 岣sda said: Conclude from the statement of Rabbi Meir, who established a time limit beyond which a mound is considered an old mound, that with regard to testimony, until sixty years have passed, it is remembered, and if more than sixty years have passed, it is not remembered. And the Gemara rejects that conclusion: That is not so. There, with regard to the mounds, it is a case where responsibility to attest to the status of the mound was not imposed upon him, and the matter is forgotten after the passage of sixty years. However, here, with regard to testimony in general, since responsibility to testify was imposed upon him, he remembers the testimony even after a greater period of time than sixty years has passed.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇爪专祝 注诪讛诐 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇爪专祝 注诪讛谉 讗讞专 讗诇讗 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬

MISHNA: If this witness whose name is signed on a document says: This is my handwriting and this is the handwriting of my fellow witness, and that witness says: This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow witness, these witnesses are deemed credible and the document is ratified, as together they provide testimony authenticating both signatures. If this witness says: This is my handwriting, and that witness says: This is my handwriting, and neither testifies with regard to the signature of the other, they must add another witness with them who will authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as otherwise, each of the witnesses would be testifying with regard to half the sum in the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: They need not add another witness with them. Rather, a person is deemed credible to say: This is my handwriting. The testimony of the two signatories about their own signatures is sufficient.

讙诪壮 讻砖转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬

GEMARA: The Gemara says: When you analyze the reasoning for the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m, say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

michelle speaking

Ketubot 20: Memory and Its Effect on Halacha – Young Israel of Jamaica Estates (USA Summer Tour)

Ketubot 20: Memory and Its Effect on Halacha Rabbanit Michelle Farber and Rabbi Seth Farber were scholars in residence at...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 14-20 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning key concepts of the Talmud, We will understand the concept of majority and when...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 20: Wherefore Mounds of Dirt?

More on witnesses, and how they prove themselves as reliable. What about when their signatures need validation? What if they...

Ketubot 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 20

讜讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛诐 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛诐

And just as witnesses render other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses only in their presence, because with their testimony they render them liable to be punished, so too, witnesses contradict the testimony of other witnesses only in their presence. Since the signatories to the document are dead, their testimony cannot be contradicted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讜 拽诪谉 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 诇讛讜 讛讜讛 讛讻讞砖讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讙讬讞讬谉 讘讛讜 讚讛讜讬 诇讛 注讚讜转 诪讜讻讞砖转 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讛讜讜 诇拽诪谉 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讜 诪讜讚讜 诇讛讜 诪讛讬诪谞讬

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Sheshet: If the first pair of witnesses was before us and the second pair would contradict their testimony, that is contradiction, and we would not consider their testimony and would not collect money with the document, as it is contradicted testimony. Now that they are not before us, and in a case where if they were before us perhaps they would have admitted to the second witnesses that the testimony of the second witnesses is correct, are they deemed credible, and the document that they signed valid?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽讬 转专讬 诇讛讚讬 转专讬 讜讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗谞讻住讬 讚讘专 砖讟讬讗 讚讘专 砖讟讬讗 讝讘讬谉 谞讻住讬 讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讗诪专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘讬谉 讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讞诇讬诐 讝讘讬谉

Rather, Rav Na岣an said in the case where the testimony of the first witnesses is contradicted not in their presence, the ruling is: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict their testimony, thereby neutralizing both testimonies, and establish the money in the possession of its owner, just as it was in the case of the property of bar Shatya. As when bar Shatya, a man who suffered from periodic bouts of insanity, sold his property, two witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was insane; and two other witnesses came and said: He sold it when he was sane.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讜拽讬 转专讬 诇讛讚讬 转专讬 讜讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 讘专 砖讟讬讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讛转讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘谉 讜讻砖讛讜讗 砖讜讟讛 讝讘讬谉

Rav Ashi said in that case: Establish two witnesses against the two witnesses who contradict the testimony of the first pair, and establish the money in the possession of bar Shatya. The Gemara notes: We say that the property remains in the possession of bar Shatya only when he has possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers. However, if he does not have possession of the property based on the possession of his fathers, but he acquired the property himself, we say: He purchased his properties when he was insane, and he sold them when he was insane. He does not have presumptive ownership of them. Therefore, the property remains in the possession of the person to whom bar Shatya sold it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗讬谉 诪讝讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 讜诪讻讞讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 讜讛讝诪讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讛谉 谞讛讬 讚讛讝诪讛 诇讗 讛讜讬 讛讻讞砖讛 诪讬讛讗 讛讜讬讗

Rabbi Abbahu disagrees with the opinion of Rav Sheshet and says: Witnesses render other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses only in their presence, but witnesses contradict the testimony of other witnesses not in their presence. And with regard to rendering other witnesses false, conspiring witnesses not in their presence, although it is not effective in rendering them false, conspiring witnesses in the sense that they are punished for their false testimony, in any case, it is contradiction of their testimony.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讻转讘 讬讚诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讛讬讛 讻转讘 讬讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讗讬谉 诇讗 拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 诇讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 诪砖讟专 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讜 注专注专 讜讛讜讞讝拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Master said in the baraita cited previously: If there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and that was deemed valid in court, these witnesses are not deemed credible. The Gemara infers: From a document that one challenged, yes, the signatures are authenticated and the testimony of the other witnesses is not accepted; however, if one did not challenge the document, no, the document cannot be used to authenticate their signatures. This supports the statement of Rabbi Asi, as Rabbi Asi said: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses鈥 signatures only from a document that someone challenged and that was deemed valid in court.

讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗诇讗 诪砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 [讗讜] 诪砖转讬 砖讚讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇讜诐 讘注诇讬讛谉 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讘砖讜驻讬

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses鈥 signatures only from two marriage contracts or from the bills of sale for two fields that those witnesses signed. And those bills of sale are effective only in a case where their owner ate their produce for three years, the requisite period to establish presumptive ownership of the field, and in peace, undisturbed by protest. In that case we can rely on the signatures, and the documents are considered valid.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讘讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚 讗讞专 讗讘诇 诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转讞转 讬讚 注爪诪讜 讚诇讗 讚诇诪讗 讝讬讜驻讬 诪讝讬讬祝 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讗讝诇 讜讞讝讗 讗转讗 讜讝讬讬祝 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讻讜讬谉

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Authentication of signatures by comparison to other documents can be accomplished specifically when the documents emerge from the possession of another. However, when the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself, no, they may not be used to authenticate the signatures. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself that they may not be used to authenticate the signatures? It is that perhaps while the documents were in his possession he learned how to copy the signatures and forged them. If so, also in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of another, perhaps he went and saw the signatures, and came back and forged them. The Gemara answers: In that case, he would not be able to accurately reproduce the signatures to that extent based on memory alone.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讜转讘 讗讚诐 注讚讜转讜 注诇 讛砖讟专 讜诪注讬讚 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖讝讜讻专讛 诪注爪诪讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讝讜讻专讛 诪注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛谞讬 讘讬 转专讬 讚讬讚注讬 住讛讚讜转讗 讜诪谞砖讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 诪讚讻专 讞讚 诇讞讘专讬讛

The Sages taught: A person may write his testimony in a document and testify on its basis even after several years have passed. Rav Huna said: And that is the halakha only if he remembers the testimony on his own and he uses the document merely to refresh his memory with regard to certain details. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may rely on that written testimony even if he does not remember the testimony by himself at all. Rabba said: Conclude from this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to these two witnesses who know testimony in a certain case, and one of them forgot the testimony, one witness may remind his fellow witness of the testimony, as according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, even if the witness remembers the testimony only by means of an external stimulus, the testimony is valid.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注爪诪讜 诪讗讬 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诪讜 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 注爪诪讜 诇讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注爪诪讜 诇讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the litigant himself reminds the witness of the testimony, what is the ruling? Rav 岣viva said: Even if the litigant himself reminds the witness, he may testify. Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said: If the litigant himself reminds the witness, he may not testify. And the Gemara concludes that the halakha is that if the litigant himself reminds the witness of the testimony, the witness may not testify, due to the concern that the litigant influenced the nature of his testimony.

讜讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注爪诪讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬讚讬注 诇讬讛 讘住讛讚讜转讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚讻讬专 诪专 讛讗讬 住讛讚讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讜诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诇住讜祝 讗讬讚讻专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗住讛讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讞住诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注诇讱 拽讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 讗谞讗 讛讜讗 讚专诪讗讬 讗谞驻砖讗讬 讜讗讚讻专讬

And if the witness is a Torah scholar, then even if the litigant himself jogged the witness鈥檚 memory, the witness may testify. A Torah scholar would not testify if he did not actually remember the testimony himself, as in that case involving Rav Ashi, who knew testimony relating to Rav Kahana. Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: Does the Master remember this testimony? Rav Ashi said to him: No. Rav Kahana said to him: Didn鈥檛 the incident transpire in such and such a manner? Rav Ashi said to him: I don鈥檛 know. Ultimately, Rav Ashi remembered the testimony and testified for Rav Kahana. He saw that Rav Kahana was hesitant [me岣ssem] with regard to accepting his testimony, concerned that he had influenced the content of Rav Ashi鈥檚 testimony. Rav Ashi said to him: Do you think that I am relying on you? I made an effort, and I remembered the incident.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛转诇讜诇讬讜转 讛拽专讜讘讜转 讘讬谉 诇注讬专 讜讘讬谉 诇讚专讱 讗讞讚 讞讚砖讜转 讜讗讞讚 讬砖谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讛专讞讜拽讜转 讞讚砖讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讬砖谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽专讜讘讛 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讬砖谞讛 砖砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 拽专讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 拽专讜讘讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讬砖谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讝讜讻专讛

搂 Apropos recalling testimony, the Gemara adds that we learned there in a mishna (Oholot 16:2): Mounds of dirt that are near either to a city or a path, whether these mounds are new or whether they are old, are ritually impure due to the concern that a corpse is buried there. With regard to the mounds that are distant from the city: If they are new they are ritually pure, as, were there a corpse buried there, someone would remember, and if they are old they are impure. The mishna elaborates: What is a mound that is near? It is one at a distance of up to fifty cubits. And what is a mound that is old? It is one that was there for more than sixty years; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A mound that is near is one that there is no mound closer than it. Old is referring to a mound that no one remembers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the parameters are not quantifiable.

诪讗讬 注讬专 讜诪讗讬 讚专讱 讗讬诇讬诪讗 注讬专 注讬专 诪诪砖 讚专讱 讚专讱 诪诪砖 诪住驻讬拽讗 诪讬 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 注讬诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讜讟讛专讜 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讬专 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讜讚专讱 讚专讱 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is a city and what is a path in this context? If you say city means an actual city and a path is an actual path and the mishna is referring to any city or path, the question arises: Do we presume the existence of ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael? But didn鈥檛 Reish Lakish say in explaining how the Sages, based on meager proof, deemed an area in Eretz Yisrael ritually pure where uncertainty arose with regard to its purity: They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure. Apparently, one does not presume ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, does the mishna declare that every mound of dirt near a city or a path is impure? Rabbi Zeira said: The word city in the mishna is referring to a city adjacent to the cemetery, and the word path is referring to the path leading to the cemetery. Therefore, the concern that a corpse may be buried in the mound is a reasonable one.

讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讱 讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜诪拽专讜 拽讘专讜 讘转诇 讗诇讗 注讬专 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讻讜诇讛讬 诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讝诇讬

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a mound located adjacent to the path leading to the cemetery, there is concern that a corpse is buried in the mound, as sometimes one happens to go to bury the corpse on Shabbat eve at twilight, and to avoid desecrating Shabbat, it happened that they buried the corpse in a mound on the path. However, with regard to a city adjacent to the cemetery, everyone goes to the cemetery to bury their dead. Why would anyone bury a corpse in a mound adjacent to the city?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪转讜讱 砖讛谞砖讬诐 拽讜讘专讜转 砖诐 谞驻诇讬讛谉 讜诪讜讻讬 砖讞讬谉 讝专讜注讜转讬讛诐 注讚 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 讗讝诇讗 讗讬讛讬 诇讞讜讚讛 讟驻讬 讚讘专讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讘讬转 讛拽讘专讜转 讗讝诇讗 讛诇讻讱 讟讜诪讗讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina said: The mounds could be impure, since women bury their stillborn babies adjacent to the city, as there is no funeral in that case, and because those afflicted with boils bury their arms that withered and fell from their bodies. Until a distance of fifty cubits from the city, the woman goes alone and buries the stillborn in a mound. More than that distance, she takes a person with her, as she fears going alone, and she goes to the cemetery. Therefore, we are not presuming the existence of ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. The case of the mounds is an exception, as there is basis for deeming them impure.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗讬 住讛讚讜转讗 注讚 砖讬转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 诪讬讚讻专 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪讬讚讻专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 专诪讬讗 注诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专诪讬 注诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬

Rav 岣sda said: Conclude from the statement of Rabbi Meir, who established a time limit beyond which a mound is considered an old mound, that with regard to testimony, until sixty years have passed, it is remembered, and if more than sixty years have passed, it is not remembered. And the Gemara rejects that conclusion: That is not so. There, with regard to the mounds, it is a case where responsibility to attest to the status of the mound was not imposed upon him, and the matter is forgotten after the passage of sixty years. However, here, with regard to testimony in general, since responsibility to testify was imposed upon him, he remembers the testimony even after a greater period of time than sixty years has passed.

诪转谞讬壮 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇爪专祝 注诪讛诐 讗讞专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诇爪专祝 注诪讛谉 讗讞专 讗诇讗 谞讗诪谉 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讻转讘 讬讚讬

MISHNA: If this witness whose name is signed on a document says: This is my handwriting and this is the handwriting of my fellow witness, and that witness says: This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow witness, these witnesses are deemed credible and the document is ratified, as together they provide testimony authenticating both signatures. If this witness says: This is my handwriting, and that witness says: This is my handwriting, and neither testifies with regard to the signature of the other, they must add another witness with them who will authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as otherwise, each of the witnesses would be testifying with regard to half the sum in the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: They need not add another witness with them. Rather, a person is deemed credible to say: This is my handwriting. The testimony of the two signatories about their own signatures is sufficient.

讙诪壮 讻砖转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬

GEMARA: The Gemara says: When you analyze the reasoning for the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m, say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi,

Scroll To Top