Bava Batra 154
רְאָיָה – בְּמַאי? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the proof that the recipients must bring, in what manner is it brought? Rav Huna says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed, i.e., the recipients are required only to ascertain that the signatures of the witnesses on the deed are authentic in order to prove that it is not forged.
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי נָתָן;
The Gemara explains: Rav Huna says that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses. He maintains that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Natan in the baraita (153b).
(סִימָן: מַנִּיחַ.) רַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, וְרַבָּנַן – כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.
The Gemara notes a mnemonic device that indicates which tannaitic opinions are correlated: Manniaḥ, which represents the letters mem, nun, yod, ḥet, stands for Meir, Natan, Ya’akov, and the Rabbis [ḥakhamim]. This indicates that Rabbi Meir, who says that the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who maintains that one presumes that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. And the Rabbis, who say that the recipients must bring proof that the giver was healthy, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּמוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ; דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ.
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna maintain that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment. The same ruling would apply to a case where the person on his deathbed admits that he wrote the deed granting the gift. They explain that Rabbi Meir holds that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor need not ratify it in court in order to collect payment, and in this case the giver cannot invalidate the deed by claiming that he was on his deathbed. But the Rabbis hold that even when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment.
וְהָא אִיפְּלִיגוּ בַהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא! דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree with regard to this matter once? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that at the time they signed the document they were not fit to bear witness, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר הָהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאַלִּימֵי עֵדִים וּמַרְעִי שְׁטָרָא; אֲבָל הָכָא – הוּא דְּלָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ, אֵימָא לָא;
The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state both cases, because if only that case with regard to witnesses who disqualified their testimony was stated, one might think that the Sages say that their testimony is accepted only in that case, due to the fact that the testimony of witnesses is powerful and they can impair the validity of the document, but here, with regard to him, the giver, who admitted that he wrote the deed but it is not in his power to impair the validity of the deed, I would say that his claim is not accepted.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.
And if only this case, with regard to a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, was stated, one might think that Rabbi Meir says that the giver cannot invalidate the deed only with regard to this case, but with regard to that case, where the witnesses ratified their signatures, I would say that Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis that witnesses can invalidate the deed. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלוֹהִי בְּשׁוּקָא״, וּבְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָוֵי; אַדְּרַבָּה! מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״, וְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּרִיא הָוֵי!
And Rabba also says: With regard to the proof that the recipients must present, it is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this? If we say that due to the fact that in all deeds of gift the following formulation is written: When he was walking on his feet in the marketplace, which indicates that the gift was the gift of a healthy person, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was on his deathbed, that is not correct. On the contrary, one could say that due to the fact that in all deeds concerning the gifts of a person on his deathbed the following is written: When he was sick and lying in his bed, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was healthy.
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ.
Rabba replied: Since one can say this and one can say that, nothing can be concluded from the formulation of the deed. Therefore, due to the uncertainty, establish the property in the possession of its last known owner.
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא; דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר.
And this dispute with regard to the statement of the Rabbis is also the subject of a dispute between other amora’im, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק בְּאֶחָד שֶׁמָּכַר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו, וּמֵת, וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְעִרְעֲרוּ לוֹמַר: קָטָן הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה, וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ. וְעוֹד, סִימָנִין עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold some of his father’s property that he had inherited, and he died, and the members of his family came and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death, and therefore the sale was not valid. And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to exhume the corpse in order to examine it and ascertain whether or not the heir was a minor at the time of his death? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is not permitted for you to disgrace him for the sake of a monetary claim. And furthermore, signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death, and therefore nothing can be proved by exhuming the body.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי – דְּאָמֵינָא רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים; כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לְלָקוֹחוֹת: ״אַיְיתוֹ עֵדִים״, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא אֲתוֹ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר, לְמָה לְהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ? לְקַיְּימוּ שְׁטָרַיְיהוּ, וְלוֹקְמוּ בְּנִכְסֵי!
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: Granted, according to my explanation of the mishna, that I say that the proof must be presented by bringing witnesses, I can explain the baraita. Since Rabbi Akiva said to the buyers: Bring witnesses, and they did not find witnesses, this is the reason that they came and said to him: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to examine him? But according to you, that you say that the proof is presented by ratification of the deed, why do they need to examine him? Let them ratify their deed and they shall be established as owners of the property.
מִי סָבְרַתְּ נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה קָיְימִי – וְקָא אָתוּ לָקוֹחוֹת וּמְעַרְעֲרִי? נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת לָקוֹחוֹת קָיְימִי – וְקָא אָתוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְקָא מְעַרְעֲרִי!
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replies: Do you maintain that the property stood in the possession of the members of his family and the buyers came and contested their possession of the property? Rather, the property stood in the possession of the buyers, and the members of his family came and contested the sale. Since they claimed that the deed was invalid, they could not prove their claim by ratifying the deed, but only by bringing witnesses or examining the body.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ, וְאִישְׁתִּיקוּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה קָא מְעַרְעֲרִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִישְׁתִּיקוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָקוֹחוֹת קָא מְעַרְעֲרִי, אַמַּאי שָׁתְקִי? לֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ: אֲנַן זוּזֵי יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ, לִינַּוַול וְלִינַּוַּול!
This, too, stands to reason, as Rabbi Akiva said to the claimants: You are not permitted to disgrace him, and they were silent. Granted, if you say that the members of his family were contesting the sale, due to that reason they were silent, as they accepted that they should not disgrace their relative. But if you say that the buyers were contesting the claim of the relatives, why were they silent? They should have said to Rabbi Akiva: We gave him money, and if our right to the property cannot be proven without disgracing him, let him be disgraced.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא אִירְיָא; הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: חֲדָא, דְּאִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ. וְעוֹד, וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ זוּזֵי שְׁקַל – לִינַּוַול וְלִינַּוַּול; סִימָנִים עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה.
The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, i.e., this claim they could have said, there is no conclusive argument. This is what Rabbi Akiva said to them: One reason to prohibit exhuming the body is that you are not permitted to disgrace him. And furthermore, if you should say: He took the money; let him be disgraced, in any event nothing can be proved by exhuming the body, as signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death.
תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁאַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, זוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנוּיָה בְּמִשְׁנַת בַּר קַפָּרָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל שָׂדֶה וּבָא – בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְקָרָא עָלָיו אֶחָד עַרְעָר לוֹמַר: ״שֶׁלִּי הִיא״, וְהוֹצִיא זֶה אֶת אוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר: ״שֶׁמְּכַרְתָּהּ לִי״ אוֹ ״שֶׁנְּתַתָּהּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״, אִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי מַכִּיר בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מֵעוֹלָם״ – יִתְקַיֵּים הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan about that which is taught in the Mishna of bar Kappara: There was one who was continually enjoying the profits from a field, and it was the presumption that it was his, and someone contested his claim, saying: It is mine. And that person, who was profiting from the field, produced a deed, in order to say: It is mine, as you sold this field to me, or: It is mine, as you gave me this field as a gift. If the one who protested his claim said: I do not recognize that deed as one that I have ever written, the deed must be ratified through its signatures.
אִם אָמַר: ״שְׁטַר פַּסִּים הוּא זֶה״ אוֹ ״שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה״; ״שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לִי דָּמִים״ – אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר עֵדִים; וְאִם לָאו – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַשְּׁטָר.
If the one who protested his claim said: This is a document of appeasement [shtar passim], a document written only so that the holder should appear wealthy, or a document of trust, which means that I sold the field to you and provided you with the deed, trusting you to provide payment, and since you did not give me the money the sale is void, then if there are witnesses, follow the testimony of the witnesses, and if not, follow the deed.
לֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ; וְלָא רַבָּנַן?
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish concludes: According to your explanation, the Rabbis maintain that even if the deed is ratified the claimant cannot take possession of the property without bringing witnesses. If so, shall we say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל – מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! דִּתְנַן: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין!
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: No, it is not so. As I say that everyone agrees that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked: But don’t they disagree, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that they were not fit to bear witness when they signed the deed, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי עֵדִים אַלִּימֵי וּמַרְעִי שְׁטָרָא, אִיהוּ כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וַהֲלֹא מִשִּׁמְךָ אָמְרוּ: יָפֶה עִרְעֲרוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ – אֶלְעָזָר אֲמָרָהּ; אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר זֶה מֵעוֹלָם.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even if the testimony of witnesses is powerful and they impair the validity of the deed, which they admit to have written, with regard to him, the giver, is it in his power to impair the validity of a deed that he admits to have written? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But wasn’t it stated in your name with regard to the aforementioned incident in Bnei Brak: The members of his family contested the claim correctly, even though they admitted that the deed was authentic? This means that the claimant is required to ratify the deed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: That statement was stated in my name by Rabbi Elazar, my disciple, but I never said that statement.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִם יִכְפּוֹר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּלְמִידוֹ, יִכְפּוֹר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי רַבּוֹ? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אֵין רְאָיָה אֶלָּא בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר!
Rabbi Zeira says: If Rabbi Yoḥanan denies the statement of Rabbi Elazar, his disciple, will Rabbi Yoḥanan also deny that which he said to Rabbi Yannai, his teacher? This is as Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the payment. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Yannai: My teacher, is this not the case discussed in our mishna, which states to the contrary: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes: The proof mentioned in this mishna is nothing other than ratification of the deed. This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the recipient is required to ratify the deed. If so, why does he state that everyone agrees that the recipient is not required to ratify the deed?
בְּרַם, נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ יוֹסֵף – דְּאָמַר רַבֵּינוּ יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וּמַאי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל? דְּרַבָּנַן לְגַבֵּי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא.
Rabbi Zeira explains: Indeed, the statement of our teacher, Rav Yosef, appears to be correct, as our teacher Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The opinions here should be reversed. This, the baraita taught by bar Kappara, according to which the deed does not require ratification, is the statement of the Rabbis. But Rabbi Meir says that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. And what is the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that everyone agrees that in this case, the recipient is not required to ratify the deed? Rabbi Yoḥanan means that this is the statement of the Rabbis, and a statement of the Rabbis that is disputed only by Rabbi Meir is tantamount to a statement accepted by all.
וְהָא אִיפְּכָא תְּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! אֵיפוֹךְ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין! אֵיפוֹךְ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn the opposite in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? This means that the recipient is required to ratify the deed. The Gemara replies: Reverse the opinions in the mishna. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that they were not fit to bear witness, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible. This indicates that according to the Rabbis the document requires ratification. The Gemara answers: Here too, reverse the opinions.
וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים״ קָאָמַר! אֵיפוֹךְ. לֵימָא לֵיפוֹךְ נָמֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא? לָא,
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to the proof that the recipient is required to bring, that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy, and not by ratifying the deed? The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the recipient is required to prove his claim only by ratifying the deed, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the recipient is required to bring witnesses. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that we should also reverse the objection that Rabbi Yoḥanan raised to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish previously, and say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: No, that is unnecessary.
