## Ketubot Daf 20b

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

וְאִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא, אֲפִילּוּ עַצְמוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה יְדִיעַ לֵיהּ בְּסָהֲדוּתָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דְּכִיר מָר הַאי סָהֲדוּתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. וְלָאו הָכִי וְהָכִי הֲוָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא, לְסוֹף אִידְּכַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אַסְהֵיד לֵיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַב כָּהֲנָא דַּהֲוָה מְחַסֵּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ עֲלָךְ קָא סְמִיכְנָא? אֲנָא הוּא דִּרְמַאי אַנַּפְשַׁאי וְאִדַּכְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the witness **is a Torah scholar,** then **even** if the litigant **himself** jogged the witness’s memory, the witness may testify. A Torah scholar would not testify if he did not actually remember the testimony himself, **as** in **that** case **involving Rav Ashi, who knew testimony** relating **to Rav Kahana.** Rav Kahana **said to** Rav Ashi: **Does the Master remember this testimony?** Rav Ashi **said to him: No.** Rav Kahana said to him: **Didn’t** the incident transpire in **such and such** a manner? Rav Ashi **said to him: I don’t know. Ultimately, Rav Ashi remembered** the testimony and **testified for** Rav Kahana. **He saw that Rav Kahana was hesitant [*meḥassem*]** with regard to accepting his testimony, concerned that he had influenced the content of Rav Ashi’s testimony. Rav Ashi **said to him: Do you think** that **I am relying on you? I made an effort, and I remembered** the incident.


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

תְּנַן הָתָם: הַתְּלוּלִיּוֹת הַקְּרוֹבוֹת בֵּין לָעִיר וּבֵין לַדֶּרֶךְ, אֶחָד חֲדָשׁוֹת וְאֶחָד יְשָׁנוֹת — טְמֵאוֹת. הָרְחוֹקוֹת, חֲדָשׁוֹת — טְהוֹרוֹת, יְשָׁנוֹת — טְמֵאוֹת. אֵיזוֹהִי קְרוֹבָה — חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה, וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא יְשָׁנָה — שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: קְרוֹבָה — שֶׁאֵין קְרוֹבָה הֵימֶנָּה, יְשָׁנָה — שֶׁאֵין אָדָם זוֹכְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos recalling testimony, the Gemara adds that **we learned there** in a mishna (*Oholot* 16:2): **Mounds of dirt that are near either to a city or a path, whether** these mounds **are new or whether** they are **old, are ritually impure** due to the concern that a corpse is buried there. With regard to **the** mounds **that are distant** from the city: If they are **new** they are **ritually pure,** as, were there a corpse buried there, someone would remember, and if they are **old** they are **impure.** The mishna elaborates: **What is** a mound that is **near?** It is one at a distance of up to **fifty cubits. And what is** a mound that is **old?** It is one that was there for more than **sixty years;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** A mound that is **near** is one that there is **no** mound **closer than it. Old** is referring to a mound **that no one remembers.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, the parameters are not quantifiable.


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

מַאי ״עִיר״ וּמַאי ״דֶּרֶךְ״? אִילֵימָא ״עִיר״ — עִיר מַמָּשׁ, ״דֶּרֶךְ״ — דֶּרֶךְ מַמָּשׁ, מִסְּפֵיקָא מִי מַחְזְקִינַן טוּמְאָה? וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִילָּה מָצְאוּ וְטִהֲרוּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: ״עִיר״ — עִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְ״דֶרֶךְ״ — דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is a city and what is a path** in this context? **If you say city means an actual city and a path is an actual path** and the mishna is referring to any city or path, the question arises: **Do we presume** the existence of **ritual impurity** in Eretz Yisrael? **But didn’t Reish Lakish say** in explaining how the Sages, based on meager proof, deemed an area in Eretz Yisrael ritually pure where uncertainty arose with regard to its purity: **They found a pretext and deemed Eretz Yisrael ritually pure.** Apparently, one does not presume ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, does the mishna declare that every mound of dirt near a city or a path is impure? **Rabbi Zeira said:** The word **city** in the mishna is referring to **a city adjacent to the cemetery, and** the word **path is** referring to the **path** leading **to the cemetery.** Therefore, the concern that a corpse may be buried in the mound is a reasonable one.


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת, דְּזִמְנִין דְּמִתְרְמֵי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וּמִקְּרוּ קָבְרוּ בְּתֵל. אֶלָּא עִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, כּוּלְּהִי לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָזְלִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to a mound located adjacent to **the path** leading **to the cemetery,** there is concern that a corpse is buried in the mound, **as sometimes one happens** to go to bury the corpse on Shabbat eve **at twilight,** and to avoid desecrating Shabbat, **it happened that they buried** the corpse **in a mound** on the path. **However,** with regard to **a city adjacent to the cemetery, everyone goes to the cemetery** to bury their dead. Why would anyone bury a corpse in a mound adjacent to the city?


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

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים קוֹבְרוֹת שָׁם נִפְלֵיהֶן, וּמוּכֵּי שְׁחִין זְרוֹעוֹתֵיהֶם — עַד חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה אָזְלָא אִיהִי לְחוּדַּהּ. טְפֵי — דָּבְרָא אִינִישׁ בַּהֲדַהּ, וּלְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָזְלָא. הִלְכָּךְ, טוּמְאָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא מַחְזְקִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said:** The mounds could be impure, **since women bury their stillborn** babies adjacent to the city, as there is no funeral in that case, **and** because those **afflicted with boils** bury **their arms** that withered and fell from their bodies. **Until** a distance of **fifty cubits** from the city, the woman **goes alone** and buries the stillborn in a mound. **More** than that distance, **she takes a person with her,** as she fears going alone, **and she goes to the cemetery. Therefore, we are not presuming** the existence of **ritual impurity in Eretz Yisrael.** The case of the mounds is an exception, as there is basis for deeming them impure.


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

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מֵרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי סָהֲדוּתָא עַד שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין — מִידְּכַר, טְפֵי — לָא מִידְּכַר. וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּרָמֵי עֲלֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: Conclude from** the statement of **Rabbi Meir,** who established a time limit beyond which a mound is considered an old mound, that with regard to **testimony, until sixty years** have passed, it is **remembered,** and if **more** than sixty years have passed, it is **not remembered. And** the Gemara rejects that conclusion: **That is not** so. **There,** with regard to the mounds, **it is** a case **where** responsibility to attest to the status of the mound **was not imposed upon him,** and the matter is forgotten after the passage of sixty years. **However, here,** with regard to testimony in general, **since** responsibility to testify **was imposed upon him,** he remembers the testimony **even** after **a greater** period of time than sixty years has passed.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** זֶה אוֹמֵר: כְּתַב יָדִי, וְזֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירִי. וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּתַב יָדִי, וְזֶה כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירִי — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין. זֶה אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּתַב יָדִי, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: זֶה כְּתַב יָדִי — צְרִיכִין לְצָרֵף עִמָּהֶם אַחֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינָם צְרִיכִין לְצָרֵף עִמָּהֶן אַחֵר, אֶלָּא נֶאֱמָן אָדָם לוֹמַר זֶה כְּתַב יָדִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **this** witness whose name is signed on a document **says:** This is **my handwriting and this is the handwriting of my fellow** witness, **and that** witness **says: This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow** witness, **these** witnesses **are deemed credible** and the document is ratified, as together they provide testimony authenticating both signatures. If **this** witness **says: This is my handwriting, and that** witness **says: This is my handwriting,** and neither testifies with regard to the signature of the other, **they must add another** witness **with them** who will authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as otherwise, each of the witnesses would be testifying with regard to half the sum in the document; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say: They need not add another** witness **with them. Rather, a person is deemed credible to say: This is my handwriting.** The testimony of the two signatories about their own signatures is sufficient.


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

**גְּמָ׳** כְּשֶׁתִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara says: **When you analyze** the reasoning for the opinions of the *tanna’im*, **say** that according **to** the **statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi,