Ketubot 20b — the Talmud in English

And if

the witness

is a Torah scholar,

for we do not fear that he will testify falsely because the litigant reminded him, but rather he certainly remembered the matter truthfully in his testimony —

even

the litigant

himself

can remind him.

As in this [the incident]:

as in

for Rav Ashi knew testimony concerning Rav Kahana. [He saw testimony on behalf of Rav Kahana].

Rav Kahana:

He said to him,

Rav Kahana:

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

No.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

No.

Rav Kahana said to him:

But was it not thus and thus?!

Rav Ashi said to him:

Rav Ashi

I do not know.

In the end, Rav Ashi remembered,

and

testified for him

to the testimony.

He saw

Rav Ashi

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

in tractate Oholot:

He said to him: Do you think that I am relying on you?! It is I who applied my mind to the matter, and remembered! [I am the one who paid attention to the matter and remembered].

—

The Gemara discusses: To what extent does a person remember his testimony? And 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 it is uncertain for us concerning a mound before us whether a dead person was buried there or not; therefore, the mounds

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

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

both new

—which were not here previously, for one can say: had a person been buried there, the matter would have been known—

and both old are impure!

Because there is concern that, since they are near the city or the road, perhaps a woman went there alone and buried her miscarriage there, and the matter was not known.

But the mounds

that are distant,

if

new

they

are pure!

Because if people had buried in them, the matter would have been known.

But the mounds that are

old—

impure!

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

And the Mishna explains:

Which is near

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

fifty cubits.

And which is 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 one nearer than it, even if both are within fifty cubits, it is pure. Because if a woman had been burying her miscarriages, she would have buried them at the first one.

And

old

—that is,

such that no person remembers

that

this

mound was made in his lifetime.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “city,” and what is “road”? If you say, a city,

that is,

an actual city,

and

a road,

that is,

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

But

indeed

Reish Lakish said, “They found a pretext and purified the Land of Israel,”

that is, the Sages found a cemetery on one side of the city and assumed that all its dead had been buried there, and purified all the other sides of the city by virtue of this pretext, because we do not establish impurity in the soil of the Land of Israel; and if so, why here did they declare the mound impure on the basis of uncertainty?

Rabbi Zeira said:

What is

“city,”

for they declare its surroundings impure up to fifty cubits?

A city adjacent to a cemetery. And

likewise

“road,”

concerning which they declare its surroundings impure, is speaking of a

road to a cemetery.

And we challenge:

Granted, a road to a cemetery,

it is right that they declare its surroundings impure, because

sometimes it happens at twilight,

and they did not manage to reach the cemetery,

and they happen to

to

bury in the mound.

But a city adjacent to a cemetery,

why do they declare its surroundings impure? Is it not that

all of them go to the cemetery,

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

Rabbi Hanina said:

They therefore declared the mounds adjacent to the city impure,

because women bury their miscarriages there, and those afflicted with boils,

whose limbs fall off, bury in them

their arms.

And therefore,

up to fifty cubits, she goes there alone

to bury her miscarriage, and the matter does not become public; but

more

than fifty cubits,

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

and

and she goes to the cemetery .

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

Accordingly, we do not establish impurity in the Land of Israel, and we do not declare mounds that are more than fifty cubits impure on the basis of uncertainty .

In any event, the Gemara proves concerning our matter:

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. And it is proven that

this testimony is remembered until sixty years; more

than sixty years

is not remembered.

And one does not rely on a person’s testimony if more than sixty years have passed from the time of his testimony.

And we reject this:

That is not so! There, it is because

a person does not remember more than sixty years, because

it was not incumbent upon him; but here,

with regard to testimony,

since it is incumbent upon him

to testify,

even a great deal

he is also reliable 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 reliable.

Since there are two witnesses concerning each handwriting.

But if

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

they must join with them

another witness

other,

so that there will be two witnesses concerning each handwriting.

These are the words of Rabbi.

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

that

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the reasons for the dispute:

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

you will see that

according to Rabbi’s words

he requires the joining of another witness because he holds

that they testify concerning their handwriting,

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