Bava Batra 154

ראיה במאי רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר

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.

רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים קא מיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יעקב ורבי נתן

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).

(סימן מניח) רבי מאיר כרבי נתן ורבנן כרבי יעקב

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.

רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר קא מיפלגי במודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו דרבי מאיר סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ורבנן סברי מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו

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.

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא דתניא אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין

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.

צריכא דאי איתמר ההיא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דאלימי עדים ומרעי שטרא אבל הכא הוא דלאו כל כמיניה אימא לא

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.

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי מאיר אבל בהך אימא מודה להו לרבנן צריכא

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.

וכן אמר רבה ראיה בעדים אמר ליה אביי מאי טעמא אי נימא מדכולהו כתיב בהו כד הוה מהלך על רגלוהי בשוקא ובהא לא כתיב בה שמע מינה שכיב מרע הוי אדרבה מדכולהו כתיב בהו כד קציר ורמי בערסיה והא לא כתיב בה שמע מינה בריא הוי

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.

איכא למימר הכי ואיכא למימר הכי אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה

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.

ובפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן אמר ראיה בעדים ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אמר ראיה בקיום השטר

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.

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לרבי שמעון בן לקיש מעשה בבני ברק באחד שמכר בנכסי אביו ומת ובאו בני משפחה וערערו לומר קטן היה בשעת מיתה ובאו ושאלו את רבי עקיבא מהו לבודקו אמר להם אי אתם רשאים לנוולו ועוד סימנין עשויין להשתנות לאחר מיתה

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.

בשלמא לדידי דאמינא ראיה בעדים כיון דאמר ללקוחות אייתו עדים ולא אשכחו היינו דקא אתו ואמרו ליה מהו לבודקו אלא לדידך דאמרת ראיה בקיום השטר למה להו לבודקו לקיימו שטרייהו ולוקמו בנכסי

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.

מי סברת נכסי בחזקת בני משפחה קיימי וקא אתו לקוחות ומערערי נכסי בחזקת לקוחות קיימי וקא אתו בני משפחה וקא מערערי

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.

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקאמר להו אי אתם רשאים לנוולו ואישתיקו אי אמרת בשלמא בני משפחה קא מערערי משום הכי אישתיקו אלא אי אמרת לקוחות קא מערערי אמאי שתקי לימרו ליה אנן זוזי יהבינן ליה לינוול ולינוול

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.

אי משום הא לא איריא הכי קאמר להו חדא דאי אתם רשאים לנוולו ועוד וכי תימרו זוזי שקל לינוול ולינוול סימנים עשויין להשתנות לאחר מיתה

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.

תא שמע שאל רבי שמעון בן לקיש את רבי יוחנן זו ששנויה במשנת בר קפרא הרי שהיה אוכל שדה ובא בחזקת שהיא שלו וקרא עליו אחד ערער לומר שלי היא והוציא זה את אונו לומר שמכרתה לי או שנתתה לי במתנה אם אמר איני מכיר בשטר זה מעולם יתקיים השטר בחותמיו

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.

אם אמר שטר פסים הוא זה או שטר אמנה שמכרתי לך ולא נתת לי דמים אם יש עדים הלך אחר עדים ואם לאו הלך אחר השטר

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.

לימא רבי מאיר היא דאמר מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ולא רבנן

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?

אמר ליה לא שאני אומר דברי הכל מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו והא מיפלג פליגי דתנן אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין

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.

אמר ליה אי עדים אלימי ומרעי שטרא איהו כל כמיניה אמר ליה והלא משמך אמרו יפה ערערו בני משפחה אמר ליה זו אלעזר אמרה אני לא אמרתי דבר זה מעולם

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.

אמר רבי זירא אם יכפור רבי יוחנן ברבי אלעזר תלמידו יכפור ברבי ינאי רבו דאמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ואמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי לא משנתנו היא זו וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אין ראיה אלא בקיום השטר

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?

ברם נראין דברי רבינו יוסף דאמר רבינו יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל זו דברי חכמים אבל רבי מאיר אומר מודה בשטר שכתבו שצריך לקיימו ומאי דברי הכל דרבנן לגבי רבי מאיר דברי הכל היא

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.

והא איפכא תנן וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה איפוך והא תניא אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין איפוך

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.

והא רבי יוחנן ראיה בעדים קאמר איפוך לימא ליפוך נמי תיובתא לא

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.