Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 30, 2017 | 讛壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 128

Seven teachings of Rabbi Abba from Israel are sent to Babylonia on various topics and Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi paskens like him on all of them.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗转讛 谞转转讜 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 专爪讜谞讱 讛砖讘注 讜讟讜诇 讜谞砖讘注 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

or: You gave him to me as a gift, if he then adds: Although I owe you nothing, as the slave is mine, if it is your desire, take an oath that he is yours and take him; and the claimant takes an oath that the slave is his, the one in possession of the slave cannot retract his offer, although he was not obligated to make the offer.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讗讘讗 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讗讘讬讱 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Abba teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 24a) that if one of the litigants said to the other: My father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Your father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: These three cattle herders who are not experts in halakha are trusted to adjudicate for me, and all of the individuals this litigant mentioned are legally disqualified from serving as judges, Rabbi Meir says that the one who stated this can retract his statement, and the Rabbis say that he cannot retract it, and he is obligated to have them serve as judges if the other litigant so desires. Since this halakha is already stated in the mishna, what novel halakha did Rabbi Abba teach?

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讗转谉 诇讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin records a dispute between amora鈥檌m as to the circumstances of the case of that mishna, with one amora holding that the dispute pertains only to a case where the one accepting the disqualified judge will need to forgive a debt if the judge rules in accordance with his opponent, while another amora holds that the dispute pertains even to a case where he will need to pay the other litigant if the judge rules in accordance with his opponent. By stating his ruling in a case where the litigant will have to give the slave to the other, Rabbi Abba teaches us this, that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is even in a case where the litigant said: I will give you what you claim if that is the ruling of these judges, and the Rabbis hold that if he subsequently wishes to retract his suggestion, he cannot do so. And Rabbi Abba also teaches that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma that the halakha is that the creditors of one who died collect the debts from the Canaanite slaves the deceased left his heirs, i.e., they take the slaves, as slaves have the same status as land in this regard. And Rav Na岣an says that they do not collect the debt by taking the slaves.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讻砖专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma that with regard to people with a common ancestor, the halakha is that the testimony of members of the third generation with regard to members of the second generation whose closest familial connection is through that ancestor is valid. For example, one can testify about his first cousin once removed, and is not disqualified as a relative. Rava says: Even the testimony of members of the third generation with regard to members of the first generation is valid; e.g., one can testify about his great-uncle.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻砖专 讘讗讘讗 讚讗讘讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi deemed one鈥檚 testimony with regard to his father鈥檚 father valid, as he considered it a case of testimony of a member of the third generation with regard to a member of the first generation, which Rava deemed valid. But the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注 注讚 砖诇讗 谞住转诪讗 讜谞住转诪讗 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma concerning testimony: If one knew information that could serve as testimony about the boundary of another鈥檚 land before he became blind, and then he became blind, he is disqualified from bearing witness in a dispute as to the boundaries of that person鈥檚 properties.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻砖专 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 讗讘诇 讙诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讗讘诇 谞住讻讗 诇讗 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞住讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜

And Shmuel said: He is fit to bear witness, as it is possible for him to determine the boundaries of the fields despite his blindness. But he is not fit to identify a movable item, e.g., a cloak, as he cannot see it. And Rav Sheshet said: He can identify even a cloak, as it is possible for him to determine its length and its width. But he is not fit to identify a piece of silver. And Rav Pappa said: He can identify even a piece of silver, as it is possible for him to determine its weight.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 驻讬拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 驻讬转讞 讜谞住转诪讗 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 3:5): If one knew information that could serve as testimony about another before he became his son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law, thereby becoming a relative who is disqualified from bearing witness concerning him; or if he was able to hear at the time he witnessed an incident and then he became deaf; or if he was able to see at the time he witnessed an incident and then became blind; or if he was halakhically competent and then became insane, in all these cases, he is disqualified from bearing witness.

讗讘诇 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜诪转讛 讘转讜 驻讬拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻讬转讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专

The baraita continues: But if he knew information about him that could serve as testimony before he became his son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law, and then his daughter died, so that they are no longer related; or if he was able to hear, and then became deaf, and then again became able to hear; or if he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see; or if he was halakhically competent, and then became insane, and then again became halakhically competent, in all these cases, he is fit to bear witness.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讜 讗讜 住讜驻讜 讘驻住诇讜转 驻住讜诇 转讞诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专

The baraita concludes: This is the principle: Anyone whose initial state or his ultimate state, i.e., his state at the time of the incident or at the time of his testimony in court, is one of disqualification for bearing witness is disqualified from bearing witness. But any-one whose initial state and his ultimate state is one of fitness to bear witness is fit to bear witness, even if he was disqualified in the interim. This baraita clearly states that one who is blind is disqualified from bearing witness.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinions of all the amora鈥檌m who held that a person who became blind after witnessing a matter can, in certain cases, testify about it, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: One who says something concerning one child among his sons is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Abba saying? Abaye said that this is what Rabbi Abba is saying: One who says concerning one child among his sons: He shall inherit all my property, is deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who holds that one can bequeath all his property to one of his heirs (130a). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讛讗讬 谞讗诪谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讬讬专砖 讜诇讗 讬讬专砖 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

Rava objects to this explanation: According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, this wording: Is deemed credible, and: He is not deemed credible, is not precise; he should have employed the terms: Shall inherit, and: Shall not inherit, as the issue is the ability of the father to specify who will inherit from him, not his credibility.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rather, Rava said that this is what Rabbi Abba is saying: One who says about one child among his sons that he is his firstborn is deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (127b); and Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 转讟讜诇 讗砖转讬 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞讜讟诇转 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘谞讻住讬诐 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讜讘讘谞讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: In a case of one who says: My wife will take a portion of my estate like one of the sons, she takes a portion like one of the sons, as it is considered a gift. Rava says: And this ruling is only with regard to the husband鈥檚 current property, which he can give her as a gift. The husband cannot give her a portion of his future property. And furthermore, the calculation of her portion must take into account not only the number of sons the husband has at the time of his statement, but also the sons who come, i.e., who will be born, afterward.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞驻专注转讬 讻诇讜诐 讜诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 驻专注转讬 诪讞爪讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖驻专注 讻讜诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 诇讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞谉 讗注讚讬诐 住诪讻讬谞谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: In the case of one who produces a promissory note against another, and the creditor says: I was not repaid anything, and the debtor says: I repaid half the debt, and the witnesses testify that the debtor repaid the entire debt, then this debtor takes an oath that he repaid half, as is the halakha with regard to one who admits to a part of a claim, and he is exempt from paying that half. And the creditor collects the second half from unsold property; but not from liened property that was sold after the loan, as the buyers can say: We rely on the witnesses that the debt was repaid in its entirety.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讚讛 讛讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讬专转讜转讬 讗讬专转转

The Gemara compares this halakha to the case of a promissory note that states that the debtor owes the creditor: Sela coins, without stating how many. The creditor claims that he lent the debtor five sela and the debtor claims that he borrowed only three. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the wording of the promissory note indicates a minimum debt of two sela, and the creditor could not have collected the third sela without the debtor鈥檚 admission, the latter鈥檚 admission to a part of the claim cannot render him liable to take an oath. The Gemara states: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the debtor is not liable to take an oath, as with regard to the third sela his legal status is similar to that of one who returns a lost item, this statement applies only in a case where there are no witnesses to the loan. But where there are witnesses, as is the case in Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling, the debtor fears denying the entire debt. Therefore he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half, as one who admits to a part of the claim.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讛讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讚讛 讛讜讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary; even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and says that the debtor is considered one who admits to a part of the claim, this statement applies only in a case where there are no witnesses who support him. But here in the case of Rabbi Abba, where there are witnesses who support him, testifying that he repaid the entire debt, his legal status is certainly that of one who returns a lost item, and he does not need to take an oath that he repaid half.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讻讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: The halakha in all these halakhot is as Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What about the statement with which Rav Na岣an disagreed, i.e., that a debt can be collected by taking the slaves the debtor left his heirs? Is the halakha in accordance with this ruling of Rabbi Abba as well, despite the principle that in monetary matters the halakha is in accordance with Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion? Rav Ashi said to him: We teach a different tradition, that Rabbi Abba鈥檚 statement rules that a creditor does not collect the debt from the slaves the debtor left his heirs, and that Rav Na岣an said the same.

讜讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: But then what possibility does Mar Zutra exclude in ruling that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Abba鈥檚 statement?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 128

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 128

讗转讛 谞转转讜 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 专爪讜谞讱 讛砖讘注 讜讟讜诇 讜谞砖讘注 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

or: You gave him to me as a gift, if he then adds: Although I owe you nothing, as the slave is mine, if it is your desire, take an oath that he is yours and take him; and the claimant takes an oath that the slave is his, the one in possession of the slave cannot retract his offer, although he was not obligated to make the offer.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讜 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讗讘讗 谞讗诪谉 注诇讬 讗讘讬讱 谞讗诪谞讬谉 注诇讬 砖诇砖讛 专讜注讬 讘拽专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Abba teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 24a) that if one of the litigants said to the other: My father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: Your father is trusted to adjudicate for me, or: These three cattle herders who are not experts in halakha are trusted to adjudicate for me, and all of the individuals this litigant mentioned are legally disqualified from serving as judges, Rabbi Meir says that the one who stated this can retract his statement, and the Rabbis say that he cannot retract it, and he is obligated to have them serve as judges if the other litigant so desires. Since this halakha is already stated in the mishna, what novel halakha did Rabbi Abba teach?

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘讗转谉 诇讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讜讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐

The Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin records a dispute between amora鈥檌m as to the circumstances of the case of that mishna, with one amora holding that the dispute pertains only to a case where the one accepting the disqualified judge will need to forgive a debt if the judge rules in accordance with his opponent, while another amora holds that the dispute pertains even to a case where he will need to pay the other litigant if the judge rules in accordance with his opponent. By stating his ruling in a case where the litigant will have to give the slave to the other, Rabbi Abba teaches us this, that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is even in a case where the litigant said: I will give you what you claim if that is the ruling of these judges, and the Rabbis hold that if he subsequently wishes to retract his suggestion, he cannot do so. And Rabbi Abba also teaches that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma that the halakha is that the creditors of one who died collect the debts from the Canaanite slaves the deceased left his heirs, i.e., they take the slaves, as slaves have the same status as land in this regard. And Rav Na岣an says that they do not collect the debt by taking the slaves.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖谞讬 讻砖专 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma that with regard to people with a common ancestor, the halakha is that the testimony of members of the third generation with regard to members of the second generation whose closest familial connection is through that ancestor is valid. For example, one can testify about his first cousin once removed, and is not disqualified as a relative. Rava says: Even the testimony of members of the third generation with regard to members of the first generation is valid; e.g., one can testify about his great-uncle.

诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻砖专 讘讗讘讗 讚讗讘讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi deemed one鈥檚 testimony with regard to his father鈥檚 father valid, as he considered it a case of testimony of a member of the third generation with regard to a member of the first generation, which Rava deemed valid. But the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 拽专拽注 注讚 砖诇讗 谞住转诪讗 讜谞住转诪讗 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Abba also sent a ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma concerning testimony: If one knew information that could serve as testimony about the boundary of another鈥檚 land before he became blind, and then he became blind, he is disqualified from bearing witness in a dispute as to the boundaries of that person鈥檚 properties.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻砖专 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪爪专谞讛讗 讗讘诇 讙诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讗讘诇 谞住讻讗 诇讗 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞住讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪讻讜讬谉 诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜

And Shmuel said: He is fit to bear witness, as it is possible for him to determine the boundaries of the fields despite his blindness. But he is not fit to identify a movable item, e.g., a cloak, as he cannot see it. And Rav Sheshet said: He can identify even a cloak, as it is possible for him to determine its length and its width. But he is not fit to identify a piece of silver. And Rav Pappa said: He can identify even a piece of silver, as it is possible for him to determine its weight.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 驻讬拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 驻讬转讞 讜谞住转诪讗 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 3:5): If one knew information that could serve as testimony about another before he became his son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law, thereby becoming a relative who is disqualified from bearing witness concerning him; or if he was able to hear at the time he witnessed an incident and then he became deaf; or if he was able to see at the time he witnessed an incident and then became blind; or if he was halakhically competent and then became insane, in all these cases, he is disqualified from bearing witness.

讗讘诇 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 讘注讚讜转 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讞转谞讜 讜诪转讛 讘转讜 驻讬拽讞 讜谞转讞专砖 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻拽讞 驻讬转讞 讜谞住转诪讗 讜讞讝专 讜谞转驻转讞 砖驻讜讬 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讻砖专

The baraita continues: But if he knew information about him that could serve as testimony before he became his son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law, and then his daughter died, so that they are no longer related; or if he was able to hear, and then became deaf, and then again became able to hear; or if he was able to see, and then became blind, and then again became able to see; or if he was halakhically competent, and then became insane, and then again became halakhically competent, in all these cases, he is fit to bear witness.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖转讞诇转讜 讗讜 住讜驻讜 讘驻住诇讜转 驻住讜诇 转讞诇转讜 讜住讜驻讜 讘讻砖专讜转 讻砖专

The baraita concludes: This is the principle: Anyone whose initial state or his ultimate state, i.e., his state at the time of the incident or at the time of his testimony in court, is one of disqualification for bearing witness is disqualified from bearing witness. But any-one whose initial state and his ultimate state is one of fitness to bear witness is fit to bear witness, even if he was disqualified in the interim. This baraita clearly states that one who is blind is disqualified from bearing witness.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinions of all the amora鈥檌m who held that a person who became blind after witnessing a matter can, in certain cases, testify about it, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

砖诇讞 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞讗诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: One who says something concerning one child among his sons is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讬讬专砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Abba saying? Abaye said that this is what Rabbi Abba is saying: One who says concerning one child among his sons: He shall inherit all my property, is deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who holds that one can bequeath all his property to one of his heirs (130a). And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讛讗讬 谞讗诪谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讬讬专砖 讜诇讗 讬讬专砖 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

Rava objects to this explanation: According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation, this wording: Is deemed credible, and: He is not deemed credible, is not precise; he should have employed the terms: Shall inherit, and: Shall not inherit, as the issue is the ability of the father to specify who will inherit from him, not his credibility.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讗讜诪专 注诇 转讬谞讜拽 讘讬谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讻专讘谞谉

Rather, Rava said that this is what Rabbi Abba is saying: One who says about one child among his sons that he is his firstborn is deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (127b); and Rabbi Yo岣nan says that he is not deemed credible, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讜诪专 转讟讜诇 讗砖转讬 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 谞讜讟诇转 讻讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讘谞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讘谞讻住讬诐 砖诇 注讻砖讬讜 讜讘讘谞讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: In a case of one who says: My wife will take a portion of my estate like one of the sons, she takes a portion like one of the sons, as it is considered a gift. Rava says: And this ruling is only with regard to the husband鈥檚 current property, which he can give her as a gift. The husband cannot give her a portion of his future property. And furthermore, the calculation of her portion must take into account not only the number of sons the husband has at the time of his statement, but also the sons who come, i.e., who will be born, afterward.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 注诇 讞讘讬专讜 诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞驻专注转讬 讻诇讜诐 讜诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 驻专注转讬 诪讞爪讛 讜讛注讚讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 砖驻专注 讻讜诇讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讘诇 诪诪砖讜注讘讚讬谉 诇讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗谞谉 讗注讚讬诐 住诪讻讬谞谉

Rabbi Abba sent another ruling to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma: In the case of one who produces a promissory note against another, and the creditor says: I was not repaid anything, and the debtor says: I repaid half the debt, and the witnesses testify that the debtor repaid the entire debt, then this debtor takes an oath that he repaid half, as is the halakha with regard to one who admits to a part of a claim, and he is exempt from paying that half. And the creditor collects the second half from unsold property; but not from liened property that was sold after the loan, as the buyers can say: We rely on the witnesses that the debt was repaid in its entirety.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讚讛 讛讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讗讬专转讜转讬 讗讬专转转

The Gemara compares this halakha to the case of a promissory note that states that the debtor owes the creditor: Sela coins, without stating how many. The creditor claims that he lent the debtor five sela and the debtor claims that he borrowed only three. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the wording of the promissory note indicates a minimum debt of two sela, and the creditor could not have collected the third sela without the debtor鈥檚 admission, the latter鈥檚 admission to a part of the claim cannot render him liable to take an oath. The Gemara states: And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that the debtor is not liable to take an oath, as with regard to the third sela his legal status is similar to that of one who returns a lost item, this statement applies only in a case where there are no witnesses to the loan. But where there are witnesses, as is the case in Rabbi Abba鈥檚 ruling, the debtor fears denying the entire debt. Therefore he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half, as one who admits to a part of the claim.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 诪拽爪转 讛讟注谞讛 讛讜讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讚拽讗 诪住讬讬注讬 诇讬讛 讜讚讗讬 诪砖讬讘 讗讘讚讛 讛讜讬

Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary; even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and says that the debtor is considered one who admits to a part of the claim, this statement applies only in a case where there are no witnesses who support him. But here in the case of Rabbi Abba, where there are witnesses who support him, testifying that he repaid the entire debt, his legal status is certainly that of one who returns a lost item, and he does not need to take an oath that he repaid half.

讚专砖 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讻诇 讛谞讬 砖诪注转转讗 讻讚砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讬谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: The halakha in all these halakhot is as Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar 岣ma. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What about the statement with which Rav Na岣an disagreed, i.e., that a debt can be collected by taking the slaves the debtor left his heirs? Is the halakha in accordance with this ruling of Rabbi Abba as well, despite the principle that in monetary matters the halakha is in accordance with Rav Na岣an鈥檚 opinion? Rav Ashi said to him: We teach a different tradition, that Rabbi Abba鈥檚 statement rules that a creditor does not collect the debt from the slaves the debtor left his heirs, and that Rav Na岣an said the same.

讜讗诇讗 讛诇讻转讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: But then what possibility does Mar Zutra exclude in ruling that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Abba鈥檚 statement?

Scroll To Top