וְאִי צוּרְבָא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ עַצְמוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּרַב אַשִׁי הֲוָה יְדִיעַ לֵיהּ בְּסַהֲדוּתָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דְּכִיר מָר הַאי סַהֲדוּתָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. וְלָאו הָכִי וְהָכִי הֲוָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעֲנָא. לְסוֹף אִידְכַּר רַב אַשִׁי, אַסְהֵיד לֵיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַב כָּהֲנָא דַּהֲוָה מְחַסֵּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ עֲלָךְ קָא סָמֵיכְנָא? אֲנָא הוּא דִּרְמַאי אַנַּפְשַׁאי וְאִדַּכְּרִי.

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.

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.

§ 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.

מַאי עִיר וּמַאי דֶּרֶךְ? אִילֵימָא עִיר – עִיר מַמָּשׁ, דֶּרֶךְ – דֶּרֶךְ מַמָּשׁ, מִסְּפֵיקָא מִי מַחֲזְקִינַן טוּמְאָה? וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִילָּה מָצְאוּ וְטִהֲרוּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: עִיר – עִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְדֶרֶךְ – דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת – דְּזִמְנִין דְּמִתְרַמֵּי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, וּמַקְרוּ קָבְרוּ בְּתֵל. אֶלָּא עִיר הַסְּמוּכָה לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת – כּוּלְּהִי לְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָזְלֵי!

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?

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים קוֹבְרוֹת שָׁם נִפְלֵיהֶן, וּמוּכֵּי שְׁחִין זְרוֹעוֹתֵיהֶם, עַד חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה – אָזְלָא אִיהִי לְחוּדָה, טְפֵי – דַּבְרָא אִינִישׁ בַּהֲדָהּ, וּלְבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת אָזְלָא. הִלְכָּךְ, טוּמְאָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא מַחֲזְקִינַן.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: The mounds could be impure, since women bury their stillborn babies adjacent to the city, 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.

אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ מֵרַבִּי מֵאִיר: הַאי סַהֲדוּתָא, עַד שִׁיתִּין שְׁנִין – מִידְכַּר, טְפֵי – לָא מִידְכַּר. וְלָא הִיא: הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא רָמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּרָמֵי עֲלֵיהּ – אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נַמִי.

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.

מתני׳ 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״.

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.

גמ׳ כְּשֶׁתִּימְצִי לוֹמַר לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי

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,