Ketubot 20

וכשם שאין מזימין את העדים אלא בפניהם כך אין מכחישין את העדים אלא בפניהם

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.

אמר ליה רב נחמן אילו הוו קמן ומכחישין להו הוה הכחשה ולא הוה משגיחין בהו דהוי לה עדות מוכחשת השתא דליתנהו דאילו הוו לקמן דלמא הוו מודו להו מהימני

Rav Naḥman 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?

אלא אמר רב נחמן אוקי תרי להדי תרי ואוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה מידי דהוה אנכסי דבר שטיא דבר שטיא זבין נכסי אתו בי תרי אמרי כשהוא שוטה זבין ואתו בי תרי ואמרי כשהוא חלים זבין

Rather, Rav Naḥman 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.

אמר רב אשי אוקי תרי להדי תרי ואוקי ממונא בחזקת בר שטיא ולא אמרן אלא דאית ליה חזקה דאבהתיה אבל לית ליה חזקה דאבהתיה אמרינן כשהוא שוטה זבן וכשהוא שוטה זבין

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.

אמר רבי אבהו אין מזימין את העדים אלא בפניהן ומכחישין את העדים שלא בפניהן והזמה שלא בפניהן נהי דהזמה לא הוי הכחשה מיהא הויא

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.

אמר מר אם יש עדים שכתב ידם הוא זה או שהיה כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר משטר שקרא עליו ערער והוחזק בבית דין אין נאמנין קרא עליו ערער אין לא קרא עליו ערער לא מסייע ליה לרבי אסי דאמר רבי אסי אין מקיימין את השטר אלא משטר שקרא עליו ערער והוחזק בבית דין

§ 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’ signatures only from a document that someone challenged and that was deemed valid in court.

אמרי נהרדעי אין מקיימין את השטר אלא משתי כתובות [או] משתי שדות והוא שאכלום בעליהן שלש שנים ובשופי

The Sages of Neharde’a say: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses’ 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.

אמר רב שימי בר אשי וביוצא מתחת יד אחר אבל מיד עצמו לא מאי שנא תחת יד עצמו דלא דלמא זיופי מזייף מתחת ידי אחר נמי דלמא אזל וחזא אתא וזייף כולי האי לא מצי מכוין

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.

תנו רבנן כותב אדם עדותו על השטר ומעיד עליה אפילו לאחר כמה שנים אמר רב הונא והוא שזוכרה מעצמו רבי יוחנן אמר אף על פי שאין זוכרה מעצמו אמר רבה שמע מינה מדרבי יוחנן הני בי תרי דידעי סהדותא ומנשי חד מנייהו מדכר חד לחבריה

§ 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan: 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 Yoḥanan, even if the witness remembers the testimony only by means of an external stimulus, the testimony is valid.

איבעיא להו עצמו מאי רב חביבא אמר אפילו עצמו מר בריה דרב אשי אמר עצמו לא והלכתא עצמו לא

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the litigant himself reminds the witness of the testimony, what is the ruling? Rav Ḥaviva 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.

ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא אפילו עצמו כי הא דרב אשי הוה ידיע ליה בסהדותא לרב כהנא אמר ליה מי דכיר מר האי סהדותא אמר ליה לא ולאו הכי והכי הוה אמר ליה לא ידענא לסוף אידכר רב אשי אסהיד ליה חזייה לרב כהנא דהוה מחסם אמר ליה מי סברת עלך קא סמיכנא אנא הוא דרמאי אנפשאי ואדכרי

And if the witness is a Torah scholar, then even if the litigant himself jogged the witness’s 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’t the incident transpire in such and such a manner? Rav Ashi said to him: I don’t know. Ultimately, Rav Ashi remembered the testimony and testified for Rav Kahana. He saw that Rav Kahana was hesitant [meḥassem] with regard to accepting his testimony, concerned that he had influenced the content of Rav Ashi’s testimony. Rav Ashi said to him: Do you think that I am relying on you? I made an effort, and I remembered the incident.

תנן התם התלוליות הקרובות בין לעיר ובין לדרך אחד חדשות ואחד ישנות טמאות הרחוקות חדשות טהורות ישנות טמאות איזוהי קרובה חמשים אמה ואיזו היא ישנה ששים שנה דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר קרובה שאין קרובה הימנה ישנה שאין אדם זוכרה

§ 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.

מאי עיר ומאי דרך אילימא עיר עיר ממש דרך דרך ממש מספיקא מי מחזקינן טומאה והאמר ריש לקיש עילה מצאו וטהרו ארץ ישראל אמר רבי זירא עיר עיר הסמוכה לבית הקברות ודרך דרך בית הקברות

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’t 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.

בשלמא דרך בית הקברות דזמנין דמתרמי בין השמשות ומקרו קברו בתל אלא עיר הסמוכה לבית הקברות כולהי לבית הקברות אזלי

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?

אמר רבי חנינא מתוך שהנשים קוברות שם נפליהן ומוכי שחין זרועותיהם עד חמשים אמה אזלא איהי לחודה טפי דברא איניש בהדה ולבית הקברות אזלא הלכך טומאה בארץ ישראל לא מחזקינן

Rabbi Ḥanina 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.

אמר רב חסדא שמע מינה מרבי מאיר האי סהדותא עד שיתין שנין מידכר טפי לא מידכר ולא היא התם הוא דלא רמיא עליה אבל הכא כיון דרמי עליה אפילו טובא נמי

Rav Ḥisda 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.

מתני׳ זה אומר כתב ידי וזה כתב ידו של חבירי וזה אומר זה כתב ידי וזה כתב ידו של חבירי הרי אלו נאמנין זה אומר זה כתב ידי וזה אומר זה כתב ידי צריכין לצרף עמהם אחר דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אינם צריכין לצרף עמהן אחר אלא נאמן אדם לומר זה כתב ידי

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.

גמ׳ כשתימצי לומר לדברי רבי

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