1)

(a)Rav Nachman just concluded in the previous case that 'Ukei Trei Lahadi Trei, v'Uki Mamona b'Chezkas Marei', which we compare to R. Ashi's ruling with regard to 'Nichsei d'bar Shatya'. bar Shatya - a man who had fits of madness, once sold a field. Two witnesses testified that he was mad when he sold it, whilst two other witnesses testified that he was sane.

(b)Rav Ashi ruled (like Rav Nachman) that the two pairs of witnesses cancelled each other out, and the field remained in the possession of bar Shatya.

(c)We qualify Rav Ashi's ruling however - restricting it to where bar Shatya himself received the field from his father (giving him a Chazakah). But if he had purchased the field, then he would not have a Chazakah to begin with.

2)

(a)Hazamah not in the presence of the defendants is not valid. Rebbi Avahu rules that ...

1. ... we accept Hakchashah even not in their presence (because he holds 'Hakchashah Lav Techilas Hazamah Hi').

2. ... despite the fact that Hazamah not in their presence does not render the first witnesses Zomemim (regarding the punishment that Zomemim normally receive), it is however, considered Hakchashah.

(b)We cited a Beraisa on the previous Amud 'v'Im Yesh Eidim ... O she'Hayah Ksav Yadam Yotzei mi'Makom Acher mi'Shtar she'Kara Alav Ir'er v'Huchzak b'Beis Din, Ein Eilu Ne'emanim'. This supports a statement of Rebbi Asi - who says 'Ein Mekaymin es ha'Shtar Ela mi'Shtar she'Kara Alav Irer v'Huchzak b'Beis Din'.

(c)The Neherda'i require the witnesses' signatures to be substantiated from two Kesuvos or from two Shtaros documenting the sale of two fields - provided (in the latter case), the buyer ate the fruit of the field on which they testified, for three years without the seller protesting.

(d)Rav Shimi bar Ashi qualifies both cases further, by not allowing the two pairs of signatures with which the signatures are being compared to be held by the owner of the Shtar in question. Because if they are - we are afraid that he will simply forge the signatures, copying them from the documents under his jurisdiction, something which he is unlikely to be able to do with such proficiency by going to someone else's house and studying them.

3)

(a)The Beraisa permits writing down one's testimony in order to help recall it when necessary. When Rav Huna says 'v'Hu she'Zochrah me'Atzmo' - he means that the witness must recall the basic evidence on his own. It is not good enough to fill in the missing details by simply reading the document ...

(b)... due to the Derashah "mi'Pihem", 'v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam'.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan - permits even referring to the document initially, to remind him of the testimony, provided that, after reading it, he recalls it by himself.

(d)From Rebbi Yochanan's leniency, Rava derives - that even the two witnesses are permitted to prompt each other details of the testimony, should either of them have initially forgotten it.

4)

(a)Rav Chaviva permits a witness to testify even if it is the litigant himself who reminds him of his testimony - Mar Brei d'Rav Ashi forbids it.

(b)The Halachah is like Mar Brei d'Rav Ashi. We nevertheless accept Rav Chaviva's opinion - if the witness is a Talmid-Chacham, who would not rely entirely on the prompting of the litigant, if he did not recall the evidence himself.

(c)When Rav Ashi was called to testify for Rav Kahana, but forgot his testimony - Rav Kahana prompted him. Then, when Rav Ashi recalled the testimony and gave it in court, Rav Kahana expressed surprise that he did so, to which Rav Ashi replied that it was not due to his prompting that he had testified, but to the fact that he had remembered the evidence himself.

5)

(a)We cite a Mishnah in Ohalos, which discusses 'Teluli'os' - (mounds of earth underneath which people sometimes bury their dead).

(b)Mounds that are distant from the town and from the road are ...

1. ... Tahor if they are new - because people will remember if someone has been buried there recently.

2. ... Tamei if they are old - because, someone may have been buried there a long time ago, and everybody has long forgotten about it.

(c)And the reason that mounds that are close to the town or to the road are Tamei however, even if they are new - because we suspect that, due to their closeness, a woman may have buried her dead baby there without anybody else knowing about it.

6)

(a)Rebbi Meir defines 'close' as fifty Amos and 'old', as sixty years. According to Rebbi Yehudah ...

1. ... close is - when there is none closer.

2. ... old - when nobody remembers when the mound was erected.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah considers a mound distant just because there is another one closer by - because a woman would be unlikely to bypass the first mound, to bury her baby in the second one.

(c)We cannot explain 'town' and 'road' in the previous Beraisa in the regular sense - because Resh Lakish states in Nazir, that Chazal will use any excuse to declare the streets of Eretz Yisrael Tahor.

(d)Consequently, Rebbi Zeira explains them to mean - a street and a road that are situated beside a Beis ha'Kevaros.

7)

(a)In view of the Mishnah that we just learned declaring mounds that are close to the town or to the road Tamei, even if they are new, we will explain 'Derech Beis ha'Kevaros' to mean - that it sometimes happened that someone died on Erev Shabbos at dusk, and, unable to reach the actual graveyard on time, they would bury him there.

(b)We cannot however, explain 'Ir ha'Semuchah l'Beis ha'Kevaros' in the same way - because then, everyone would go directly to the Beis ha'Kevaros. Why would they use the mound?!

(c)So we establish it with regard to women who sometimes bury their stillborn children by the mound anyway. Rebbi Meir gives a limit of fifty Amos - because, if it was further than that, she would take someone with her, and together, they would bury the baby in the Beis ha'Kevaros.

(d)Besides the mother of a stillborn baby - a leper, or someone who lost an arm, might use the mound for the same purpose (because severed limbs render Tamei like a Mes).

8)

(a)We refute Rav Chisda's proof from Rebbi Meir in the above Beraisa that a person will remember testimony up to sixty years, but no longer - on the grounds that we are talking about people who did not specifically intend to testify; but witnesses may well remember their testimony for even longer.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that, in a case where one witness testifies that the one signature on a document is his, and the other, is his friend's, and his friend does likewise, they are believed. Rebbi says - that if each one testifies only on his own signature, but does not recognize the signature of his friend - then Beis-Din will need to find another witness to testify on each of the signatures.

(b)The Chachamim say - that this is not necessary.