Resources for Kesubos 20

1.     The גמרא brings a מחלוקת about עדים who forgot their testimony. רב הונא says that they have to remember at least some of it without looking at the שטר. רב יוחנן says they don’t need to remember any of it. רש"י  clarifies that they need to remember it once they look at the שטר. If even after looking at the שטר they don’t remember it then they can’t say testimony based on it as we have a principle of מפּיהם ולא מפּי כתבם. תוספות in ד"ה ורבי יוחנן points out that a שטר is believed even though the random עדים who are מקיים the שטר don’t know what happened. If so, certainly the עדים who saw it themselves can be מקיים the שטר even if they have zero recollection of what happened. The key difference is that they can’t testify on their own as if they know what happened but can only say we know this שטר has our handwriting which makes it into a valid שטר. Once it has the status of a שטר it is believed because the שטר has an independent “power” as it is considered כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב"ד (meaning it is as if the testimony was already given in ב"ד ages ago). The רמב"ם  in הלכות עדות פּרק ג׳ הל׳ ד says something fascinating. He says that מדאורייתא we don’t believe the שטר for exactly this reason of מפּיהם ולא מפּי כתבם! It is only a דין דרבנן that we have a right to believe a שטר and only by דיני ממונות because of the fear of שלא תנעול דלת בפני לווין. It sounds like a גט for example would not work if the עדים don’t recall it themselves. The רמב"ן  asks many questions on thisרמב"ם  as does the ש"ך in סימן כ"ח ס"ק י"ד. It seems to be an explicit פּסוק in נ"ך of "שדות בכסף יקנו וכתוב בספר וחתום לםען יעםדו ימים רבים". The נתיבות  in the ביאורים in  סעיף ז answers that גיטין וקידושין ושטרי קנין are an exception where עדות בכתב are acceptable מדאורייתא since the purpose of the עדים in those cases are different. עיין שם באריכות.

2.     The גמרא says that you can’t be מזים עדים שלא בפניהן but you can be מכחיש them שלא בפניהן. It also says that even though your הזמה שלא בפניהן won’t make them עדים זוממין it is valid as a הכחשה. The ש"ך in סימן ל"ח ס"ק י"ד brings an interesting  ריב"ש who says that the witnesses who are accused of being עדים זוממין will still be פּסול לעדות even though they aren’t around. The ש"ך argues and says that the witnesses won’t be פּסול לעדות. He differentiates between this case and where עדים are accused of being גזלנים where they are נפסל since גזלנות is an עדות about the witnesses directly. The נתיבות there in  ס"ק בexplains that the ש"ך means as follows: עדים זוממין are called a “חידוש” which means by right they should never be believed since the other witnesses disagree with them and say they were there that day. However, whenעדים  declare a group of other עדים  to be גזלנים , that is a testimony solely about the witnesses themselves. When they say the other witnesses were with us at the time, that is more about the money at hand and not the person. A proof to this is had they said the מלוה was with us on that day somewhere else they would not be believed more than the first group of witnesses. That indicates to us that we view saying where someone was as a testimony about the money being discussed. Therefore, since the עדים cannot employ the laws of עדים זוממין when the witnesses aren’t there, they can't use the “חידוש” of it and they aren’t believed to make the first group פּסול לעדות.  

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya