Kesubos - Daf 20
- Different ways to authenticate the witnesses’ signatures
It was taught in a Baraisa: אם יש עדים שכתב ידם הוא זה – If there are other witnesses that testify that this is the witnesses’ handwriting, or their handwriting is authenticated from another source משטר שקרא עליו ערער והוחזק בבית דין אין נאמנין – from a shtar which a challenge had been raised and was upheld in Beis Din, these new witnesses are not believed. This is a support for Rav Assi, who said: אין מקיימין את השטר אלא משטר שקרא עליו ערער והוחזק בבית דין – We do not certify a shtar except from a document that was challenged in Beis Din and was upheld. Rashi explains that if this source document was challenged and not authenticated by the witnesses who signed it, or other witnesses, it might also be a forgery. Those from Nehardea said that when there is no certified document, אין מקיימין את השטר אלא משתי כתובות או משתי שדות והוא שאכלום בעליהן שלש שנים ובשופי – we may certify a shtar only from two kesubos, meaning, the witnesses had signed two previous kesubos, or from the bill of sale of two fields, provided that their owners harvested from them for three years peacefully, without any challenges.
- A witness using notes to remember testimony or being reminded by someone else
It was taught in a Baraisa: כותב אדם עדותו על השטר ומעיד עליה אפילו לאחר כמה שנים – A person may write his testimony on a document and testify orally from it even many years later. Rav Huna said: והוא שזוכרה מעצמו – And this applies only where he remembers the testimony on his own. Rashi explains that he remembers in general on his own and only uses it to fill in the details. Rebbe Yochanan said: אף על פי שאין זוכרה מעצמו – He may testify on it even if he does not remember the testimony on his own. Rabbah said that we can learn from Rebbe Yochanan that if there are two people that have testimony, and one of them forgot it, מדכר חד לחבריה – the other one may remind his friend. Rav Chaviva said: אפילו עצמו – Even if the litigant himself reminds the witness of his testimony, his testimony is valid. Rashi explains that the litigant prodded the witness until the witness remembered the facts on his own. Mar brei D’Rav Ashi said: עצמו לא – If the litigant reminded the witness, it is not valid testimony. The Gemara states that the halachah is that the litigant may not remind the witness, unless the witness is צורבא מרבנן – a young rabbinical student, since it is assumed, he will be certain he remembers himself.
- Remembering testimony after sixty years have passed
It was taught in a Mishnah in Ohalos: התלוליות הקרובות בין לעיר ובין לדרך – Concerning mounds that are either near the town or the path, both new ones and old ones are tamei. The Gemara explains that while one might have thought people would know if a new mound is tamei, since it is close to the path or city, it is possible that a woman buried her fetus there privately. But those that are far from the town or the path, חדשות טהורות ישנות טמאות – the new ones are tahor, and the old ones are tamei. The new mounds are tahor since they are too far for a woman to go to bury her fetus, but the old ones are tamei, because it is possible people have forgotten their status. Rebbe Meir considers fifty amos as “near” and considers any mound that is sixty years as “old”, even if it is more distant than fifty amos. Rebbe Yehudah says “near” means that there is no mound closer than it, and “old” means that no one remembers when it came into being. When Rav Chisda suggests we can learn from Rebbe Meir that testimony is remembered for up to sixty years, the Gemara rejects it, saying that in the case of the mound, since it was not incumbent on one person to remember, we suspect people forget after sixty years. But in the case of testimony, since it is incumbent on the witness, he can remember it even after sixty years.
