Ketubot 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

And if

the witness

is a Torah scholar,

there is no concern that he will testify falsely because the litigant reminded him; rather, he certainly remembered the matter accurately in his testimony—

even if

the litigant

himself

can remind him.

As in [a case similar to that]:

Rav Ashi was familiar with testimony relevant to Rav Kahana [he had seen testimony on behalf of Rav Kahana].

Rav Kahana said to him:

Rav Kahana:

Does the Master remember this testimony [do you remember the testimony]?

He said to him:

Rav Ashi:

No.

Rav Kahana said to him:

But was it not such and such that occurred?!

He said to him:

Rav Ashi:

I do not know.

Ultimately, Rav Ashi remembered,

and

testified for him

about the testimony.

Rav Ashi saw

Rav Kahana,

who was hesitating. [Rav Ashi saw that Rav Kahana was hesitating over whether to rely on his testimony.]

He said to him: Do you think I am relying on you?! I was the one who applied my mind to the matter, and I remembered! [I was the one who concentrated on the matter and remembered it.]

The Gemara discusses: How far back can a person remember his testimony? It brings a proof concerning this matter from that which

we learned there

in tractate Oholot:

The mounds

—

mounds of earth in which people customarily bury their dead; and when there is a mound before us, and we are uncertain whether a corpse was buried there, then

the mounds

that are near, whether to a city or to a road,

and it will be explained below which city and which road,

whether new

—those that did not previously exist, since one may say that if a person had been buried there, the matter would have become known—

or old, are impure!

This is because, since they are near a city or a road, there is concern that perhaps a lone woman went there and buried her stillborn child, and the matter did not become known.

But the mounds

that are distant,

if

new

they

are—

they are pure!

For if people had buried in them, the matter would have become known.

But the mounds

old—

they are impure!

Perhaps people buried in them in the past and the matter was forgotten.

And the Mishna explains:

Which is considered near

to a city, concerning which we said that even a new mound is impure? If it is near

fifty cubits.

And which is considered old

concerning which we said that even if it was distant it is impure? If it is old

sixty years. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Near—

that is,

such that there is none nearer than it;

but if there is another mound nearer than it, then even if both are within fifty cubits, it is pure. For if a woman had been burying her stillborn children, she would have buried them at the first mound.

And

old—

that is,

such that no person remembers

that

the mound was made

in his lifetime.

And the Gemara explains:

What city and what road are meant? If you say that “city”

means

an actual city,

and

“road”

means

an actual road, can we establish ritual impurity on the basis of uncertainty?!

But

Reish Lakish said: “They found a pretext and purified Eretz Yisrael,” meaning: The Sages found a cemetery on one side of the city and assumed that all its dead had been buried there, thereby purifying all the other sides of the city on the basis of this pretext, because ritual impurity is not presumed to exist in the ground of Eretz Yisrael. If so, why did they render the mound impure on the basis of uncertainty?

Rabbi Zeira said:

What

“city,”

for which the surrounding area is rendered impure up to fifty cubits?

A city adjacent to a cemetery. And

likewise,

“road,”

for which the surrounding area is rendered impure, refers to

a road leading to a cemetery.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Granted, with regard to a road leading to a cemetery,

it is reasonable that its surrounding area is rendered impure, because

sometimes twilight occurs,

and they did not manage to reach the cemetery

and they happened

to

bury in the mound.

But with regard to a city adjacent to a cemetery,

why is its surrounding area rendered impure? After all,

all of them go to the cemetery,

and they do not bury in the mounds adjacent to it.

Rabbi Hanina said:

They rendered the mounds adjacent to the city impure

because women bury their stillborn children there, and those afflicted with boils

—whose limbs fall off—bury

their arms

in them. Therefore,

up to fifty cubits, she goes alone

to bury her stillborn child, and the matter does not become public knowledge; but

farther

than fifty cubits,

a person accompanies her, [she takes someone with her]

and she goes to the cemetery .

more

Accordingly, ritual impurity is not presumed to exist in Eretz Yisrael, and mounds more than fifty cubits away are not rendered impure on the basis of uncertainty .

a person goes with her, [she takes another person with her]

In any event, the Gemara proves the point under discussion:

Rav Hisda said: Learn from Rabbi Meir,

who said that “old” means up to sixty years, but beyond that there is concern that a person was buried there and the matter was forgotten. It follows that

this testimony is remembered for up to sixty years; beyond that,

sixty years, it is not remembered.

A person’s testimony is not relied upon if more than sixty years have passed since the time of the event to which he testified.

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so! There, it is because

a person does not remember beyond sixty years, since

the matter was not incumbent upon him, but here,

with regard to testimony,

since it is incumbent upon him

to testify,

even a great many years

he is also trustworthy in his testimony.:

Mishna:

The witnesses who came to authenticate the document:

One says:

This is

my handwriting, and this is the handwriting of my colleague. And the other says:

This is my handwriting, and this is the handwriting of my colleague. These are trustworthy.

Since there are two witnesses concerning each signature.

But if

one says: This is my handwriting. And the other says: This is my handwriting.—

they must join another witness with them,

so that there will be two witnesses concerning each signature.

These are the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: They do not need to join another witness with them; rather, a person is trustworthy to say: This is my handwriting.

they must join with themselves

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind the dispute:

When you examine the matter carefully, [that is, when you analyze the matter, you will see] that

according to Rabbi—

he requires the addition of another witness because he holds

that

they are testifying concerning their handwriting,

and if so, two witnesses are required for each signature.")

“When you examine the matter closely,

you will see that

according to Rabbi”—

another witness must join them because he holds that

they are testifying about their handwriting,

and therefore two witnesses are required for each signature.