## Ketubot Daf 20a

###### Ketubot 20a:1
[Ketubot 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:1)

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְזִימִּין אֶת הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵיהֶם, כָּךְ אֵין מַכְחִישִׁין אֶת הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And just as** witnesses **render** other **witnesses false, conspiring** witnesses **only in their presence,** because with their testimony they render them liable to be punished, **so too,** witnesses **contradict** the testimony of other witnesses **only in their presence.** Since the signatories to the document are dead, their testimony cannot be contradicted.


###### Ketubot 20a:2
[Ketubot 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אִילּוּ הֲווֹ קַמַּן וּמַכְחִישִׁין לְהוּ, הֲוָה הַכְחָשָׁה, וְלָא הֲוָה מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּהוּ. דְּהָוְיָ[א] לַהּ עֵדוּת מוּכְחֶשֶׁת. הַשְׁתָּא דְּלֵיתַנְהוּ, דְּאִילּוּ הֲווֹ לְקַמַּן דִּלְמָא הֲווֹ מוֹדוּ לְהוּ, מְהֵימְנִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to** Rav Sheshet: **If** the first pair of witnesses **was before us and** the second pair would **contradict** their testimony, **that is contradiction, and we would not consider their** testimony and would not collect money with the document, **as it is contradicted testimony. Now that they are not** before us, and in a case **where if they were before us perhaps they would have admitted to** the second witnesses that the testimony of the second witnesses is correct, **are they deemed credible,** and the document that they signed valid?


###### Ketubot 20a:3
[Ketubot 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אוֹקֵי תְּרֵי לַהֲדֵי תְּרֵי, וְאוֹקֵי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַנִּכְסֵי דְּבַר שָׁטְיָא. דְּבַר שָׁטְיָא זַבֵּין נִכְסֵי. אֲתוֹ בֵּי תְרֵי, אָמְרִי: כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה זַבֵּין, וַאֲתוֹ בֵּי תְרֵי וְאָמְרִי: כְּשֶׁהוּא חָלִים זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Naḥman said** in the case where the testimony of the first witnesses is contradicted not in their presence, the ruling is: **Establish two** witnesses **against** the **two** witnesses who contradict their testimony, thereby neutralizing both testimonies, **and establish the money in the possession of its owner, just as it was** in the case **of the property of bar Shatya. As** when **bar Shatya,** a man who suffered from periodic bouts of insanity, **sold** his **property, two** witnesses **came** and **said: He sold** it **when he was insane; and two** other witnesses **came** and **said: He sold** it **when he was sane.**


###### Ketubot 20a:4
[Ketubot 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אוֹקֵי תְּרֵי לַהֲדֵי תְּרֵי, וְאוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת בַּר שָׁטְיָא. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דַאֲבָהָתֵיהּ. אֲבָל לֵית לֵיהּ חֲזָקָה דַאֲבָהָתֵיהּ, אָמְרִינַן: כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה זְבַן, וּכְשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹטֶה זַבֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** in that case: **Establish two** witnesses **against** the **two** witnesses who contradict the testimony of the first pair, **and establish the money in the possession of bar Shatya.** The Gemara notes: **We say** that the property remains in the possession of bar Shatya **only when he has** possession of the property based on **the possession of his fathers. However, if he does not have** possession of the property based on **the possession of his fathers,** but he acquired the property himself, **we say: He purchased** his properties **when he was insane, and he sold them when he was insane.** He does not have presumptive ownership of them. Therefore, the property remains in the possession of the person to whom bar Shatya sold it.


###### Ketubot 20a:5
[Ketubot 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אֵין מְזִימִּין אֶת הָעֵדִים אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵיהֶן, וּמַכְחִישִׁין אֶת הָעֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵיהֶן. וַהֲזָמָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵיהֶן, נְהִי דַּהֲזָמָה לָא הָוְיָא — הַכְחָשָׁה מִיהָא הָוְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu** disagrees with the opinion of Rav Sheshet and **says:** Witnesses **render** other **witnesses false, conspiring** witnesses **only in their presence, but** witnesses **contradict** the testimony of other witnesses **not in their presence. And** with regard to **rendering** other **witnesses false, conspiring** witnesses **not in their presence, although it is not** effective in **rendering them false, conspiring** witnesses in the sense that they are punished for their false testimony, **in any case, it is a contradiction** of their testimony.


###### Ketubot 20a:6
[Ketubot 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:6)

אָמַר מָר: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁכְּתַב יָדָם הוּא זֶה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה כְּתַב יָדָם יוֹצֵא מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, מִשְּׁטָר שֶׁקָּרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר וְהוּחְזַק בְּבֵית דִּין — אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין. קָרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר — אִין, לֹא קָרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר — לָא, מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֵין מְקַיְּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא מִשְּׁטָר שֶׁקָּרָא עָלָיו עַרְעָר וְהוּחְזַק בְּבֵית דִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the *baraita* cited previously: **If there are** other **witnesses** who testify **that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and** that **was deemed valid in court,** these witnesses are **not deemed credible.** The Gemara infers: From a document **that one challenged, yes,** the signatures are authenticated and the testimony of the other witnesses is not accepted; however, **if one did not challenge** the document, **no,** the document cannot be used to authenticate their signatures. This **supports** the statement of **Rabbi Asi, as Rabbi Asi said: One ratifies a document** by authenticating the witnesses’ signatures **only from a document that** someone **challenged and** that **was deemed valid in court.**


###### Ketubot 20a:7
[Ketubot 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:7)

אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: אֵין מְקַיְּימִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא מִשְׁתֵּי כְּתוּבּוֹת, [אוֹ] מִשְּׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת, וְהוּא שֶׁאֲכָלוּם בַּעֲלֵיהֶן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וּבְשׁוֹפִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a say: One ratifies a document** by authenticating the witnesses’ signatures **only from two marriage contracts or from** the bills of sale for **two fields** that those witnesses signed. **And** those bills of sale are effective **only** in a case **where their owner ate their** produce for **three years,** the requisite period to establish presumptive ownership of the field, **and in peace,** undisturbed by protest. In that case we can rely on the signatures, and the documents are considered valid.


###### Ketubot 20a:8
[Ketubot 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:8)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: וּבְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד אַחֵר. אֲבָל מִיַּד עַצְמוֹ — לָא. מַאי שְׁנָא תַּחַת יַד עַצְמוֹ דְּלָא, דִּלְמָא זַיּוֹפֵי מְזַיֵּיף. מִתַּחַת יְדֵי אַחֵר נָמֵי: דִּלְמָא אֲזַל וַחֲזָא, אֲתָא וְזַיֵּיף! כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא מָצֵי מְכַוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said:** Authentication of signatures by comparison to other documents can be accomplished specifically **when** the documents **emerge from the possession of another. However,** when the documents emerge **from the possession of** the litigant **himself, no,** they may not be used to authenticate the signatures. The Gemara asks: **What is different** in a case where the documents emerge **from the possession of** the litigant **himself that** they may **not** be used to authenticate the signatures? It is that **perhaps** while the documents were in his possession he learned how to copy the signatures and **forged** them. If so, **also** in a case where the documents emerge **from the possession of another, perhaps he went and saw** the signatures, and **came** back **and forged** them. The Gemara answers: In that case, **he would not be able** to **accurately** reproduce the signatures **to that extent** based on memory alone.


###### Ketubot 20a:9
[Ketubot 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כּוֹתֵב אָדָם עֵדוּתוֹ עַל הַשְּׁטָר, וּמֵעִיד עָלֶיהָ אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר כַּמָּה שָׁנִים. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: וְהוּא שֶׁזּוֹכְרָהּ מֵעַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זוֹכְרָהּ מֵעַצְמוֹ. אָמַר רַבָּה: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָנֵי בֵּי תְרֵי דְּיָדְעִי סָהֲדוּתָא וּמִנְּשֵׁי חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ, מַדְכַּר חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: A person may write his testimony in a document and testify on its** basis **even after several years** have passed. **Rav Huna said: And** that **is** the *halakha* only **if he remembers** the testimony **on his own** and he uses the document merely to refresh his memory with regard to certain details. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** One may rely on that written testimony **even if he does not remember** the testimony **by himself** at all. **Rabba said: Conclude from** this statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan:** With regard to **these two witnesses who know testimony** in a certain case, **and one of them forgot** the testimony, **one** witness **may remind his fellow** witness of the testimony, as according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, even if the witness remembers the testimony only by means of an external stimulus, the testimony is valid.


###### Ketubot 20a:10
[Ketubot 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/20a:10)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עַצְמוֹ, מַאי? רַב חֲבִיבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עַצְמוֹ. מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: עַצְמוֹ לֹא. וְהִלְכְתָא עַצְמוֹ לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If the litigant **himself** reminds the witness of the testimony, **what is** the ruling? **Rav Ḥaviva said: Even** if the litigant **himself** reminds the witness, he may testify. **Mar, son of Rav Ashi, said:** If the litigant **himself** reminds the witness, he **may not** testify. **And** the Gemara concludes that **the *halakha* is** that if the litigant **himself** reminds the witness of the testimony, the witness **may not** testify, due to the concern that the litigant influenced the nature of his testimony.