כתובות 20 — parallel

20:1

and as witnesses can be rebutted only in their presence, so can they be contradicted only in their presence. R. Nahman said to him: If they had been before us and [the other two witnesses] had contradicted them, it would hake been a contradiction, and we would not have paid any attention to them, because it is a contradicted testimony. Now that they are not here — [when it could be maintained] that if they had been before us, they might [even] perhaps have admitted to them — should they be believed? No, said R. Nahman; set the two [witnesses] against the two [witnesses] and leave the property in the possession of its master. It is analogous to the [case of the] property of a [certain] madman. A [certain] madman sold property. Two [witnesses] came [and] said [that] he sold [the property] when he was insane, and two [witnesses] came and said [that] he sold [the property] when he was sane. [And] R. Ashi said: Set the two [witnesses] against the two [witnesses] and leave the property in the possession of the madman. And we say [this] only when he has the ownership-right of his forefathers, but if he has not the ownership-right of his forefathers, we say that he bought [the property] when he was insane and that he sold [It] when he was insane. — R. Abbahu said: One rebuts witnesses only in, their presence, but one contradicts them also in their absence. And a rebuttal in their absence — granted that it is not an [effective] rebuttal, but it is a contradiction. The Master said [above]: 'If there are witnesses that this is their handwriting, or their handwriting came out from another place. [namely] from a document which was contested and was confirmed in court, they are not believed'. [This is only] if it was contested, but not, if it was not contested. This is a support for R. Assi, for R. Assi said: A document is confirmed only from a document, which was contested and was confirmed in Court. The Nehardeans said: A document is confirmed only from two kethuboth or from two fields, and [only] when their owners used them for three years, and [that] in comfort. R. Shimi b. Ashi said: And [only] when it is produced by another person, but not [if it is produced] by himself. — Why not [if from] under his own hand? Because he may have forged [the signatures of the witnesses]. [If so]. even when produced by another person also, perhaps he went and saw and forged? — So clearly he cannot fix [it in his mind]. Our Rabbis taught: A person may write [down] his testimony in a document and may, through it, give evidence even after many years. R. Huna said: Only when he remembers it by himself. R. Johanan said: Even if he does not remember it by himself. Rabbah said: You may infer from [the words of] R. Johanan [that] if two [persons] know evidence and one of them has forgotten [it], the other one may remind him [of it]. They asked: [In the case of] himself — what is [the law]? — R. Habina said: Even he himself [may do so]. Mar b. R. Ashi, said: He himself [may] not. And the law is: he himself [may] not.

—

20:2

But if he is a scholar, even he himself [may remind the witness]. As that case of R. Ashi: He knew evidence for R. Kahana, [and] he said to him: Does the master remember that evidence? And he said to him: No. But was it not so and so? He replied: I do not know. In the end, R. Ashi reminded himself, and he gave evidence for him. He saw that R. Kahana was surprised, [so] he said to him: Do you think [that] I relied upon you? I threw it upon my mind and I remembered it. We learnt elsewhere: Mounds which are near a town or a road, whether they are new or old, are unclean; those [mounds] which are distant — if they are new, they are clean, and if they are old, they are unclean. What is near? Fifty cubits. And what is old? Sixty years. [This is] the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: 'near', [denotes] when there is none nearer; 'old', when one remembers it. [Now] what is [meant by] a town and what is [meant by] a road? Shall I say: [by] a town is [meant] an ordinary town, [and by] a road is [meant] an ordinary road? Do we presume uncleanness out of doubt? Did not Resh Lakish say: They found some pretext and declared the land of Israel unclean? — Said R. Zera: [By] a town is [meant] a town which is near a burial place, and [by] a road is [meant] a road [leading] to a burial place. I grant you [in the case of] a road [leading] to a burial place, because sometimes it might happen [that a funeral took place] at twilight, and it chanced that they buried it in the mound. But [in the case of] a town which is near a burial place — all go to the burial place! — Said R. Hanina: Because women bring there their abortions and lepers [bring there] their arms. [And it is assumed that] till fifty cubits she goes alone, but for a longer distance she takes a man with her and [then] she goes to the burial place. Therefore, we do not presume uncleanness in Eretz Israel. R. Hisda said: You may infer from [the words of] R. Meir [that] one remembers evidence till sixty years, for a longer [period than sixty years] one does not remember. But it is not so, [for] there [he does not remember the evidence after sixty years] because it is not his concern, but here, since it is his concern, even for a longer [period he] also [remembers the evidence]. MISHNAH. [IF] ONE WITNESS SAYS, 'THIS IS MY HANDWRITING AND THAT IS THE HANDWRITING OF MY FELLOW, AND THE OTHER [WITNESS] SAYS, 'THIS IS MY HANDWRITING AND THAT IS THE HANDWRITING OF MY FELLOW,' THEY ARE BELIEVED. [IF] ONE SAYS, 'THIS IS MY HANDWRITING,' AND THE OTHER SAYS, 'THIS IS MY HANDWRITING,' THEY MUST JOIN TO THEMSELVES ANOTHER [PERSON]. [THIS IS] THE VIEW OF RABBI. BUT THE SAGES SAY: THEY NEED NOT JOIN TO THEMSELVES ANOTHER [PERSON], BUT A PERSON IS BELIEVED TO SAY, 'THIS IS MY HANDWRITING'.GEMARA. If you should find [that] according to the view of Rabbi

—