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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 25, 2017 | 讗壮 讘转诪讜讝 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 154

There are a number of rabbis who debated whether Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in the mishna were debating whether or not the person who gave the gift needed to prove he was sick at the time or if the receiver needed to prove that the person was healthy at the time or did they all agree that the assumption is that if he is healthy now, then he was healthy then but what remains to be proven according to the rabbis in the mishna is that聽the document is valid. 聽According to the latter opinion, if one comes and says that a document is valid but the circumstances were such that it would render the document irrelevant, do we believe them or not? 聽Do we say the document is valid since the owner admitted it was valid and we do not accept his admission that it was invalid (i.e. he was on his deathbed and is now better) or since we accept his word that the document is valid, we accept it to say it is invalid?


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

专讗讬讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

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 岣sda 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 谞转谉

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鈥檃kov and Rabbi Natan in the baraita (153b).

(住讬诪谉 诪谞讬讞) 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘

The Gemara notes a mnemonic device that indicates which tannaitic opinions are correlated: Mannia岣, which represents the letters mem, nun, yod, 岣t, stands for Meir, Natan, Ya鈥檃kov, and the Rabbis [岣khamim]. 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鈥檃kov.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Gemara explains: Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诇讬诪讬 注讚讬诐 讜诪专注讬 砖讟专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讚 讛讜讛 诪讛诇讱 注诇 专讙诇讜讛讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讜讘讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讜讬 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讚 拽爪讬专 讜专诪讬 讘注专住讬讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘专讬讗 讛讜讬

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.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

And this dispute with regard to the statement of the Rabbis is also the subject of a dispute between other amora鈥檌m, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖讛 讘讘谞讬 讘专拽 讘讗讞讚 砖诪讻专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讜讘讗讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜注专注专讜 诇讜诪专 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜注讜讚 住讬诪谞讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇诇拽讜讞讜转 讗讬讬转讜 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 讗转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖讟专讬讬讛讜 讜诇讜拽诪讜 讘谞讻住讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讬 住讘专转 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽讗 讗转讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜诪注专注专讬 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 诇拽讜讞讜转 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽讗 讗转讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讗 诪注专注专讬

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 拽讗 诪注专注专讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讜讞讜转 拽讗 诪注专注专讬 讗诪讗讬 砖转拽讬 诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讝讜讝讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讬谞讜讜诇 讜诇讬谞讜讜诇

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.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜注讜讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 讝讜讝讬 砖拽诇 诇讬谞讜讜诇 讜诇讬谞讜讜诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 砖砖谞讜讬讛 讘诪砖谞转 讘专 拽驻专讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 砖讚讛 讜讘讗 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讜拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 注专注专 诇讜诪专 砖诇讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讝讛 讗转 讗讜谞讜 诇讜诪专 砖诪讻专转讛 诇讬 讗讜 砖谞转转讛 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 诪讻讬专 讘砖讟专 讝讛 诪注讜诇诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讛砖讟专 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诐 讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 砖诪讻专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛砖讟专

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.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 注讚讬诐 讗诇讬诪讬 讜诪专注讬 砖讟专讗 讗讬讛讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讜 讬驻讛 注专注专讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讚讘专 讝讛 诪注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan: But wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: That statement was stated in my name by Rabbi Elazar, my disciple, but I never said that statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诐 讬讻驻讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转诇诪讬讚讜 讬讻驻讜专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讘讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

Rabbi Zeira says: If Rabbi Yo岣nan denies the statement of Rabbi Elazar, his disciple, will Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan concludes: The proof mentioned in this mishna is nothing other than ratification of the deed. This indicates that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讘专诐 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讘诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 砖爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇讙讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗

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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that everyone agrees that in this case, the recipient is not required to ratify the deed? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬驻讜讱 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 拽讗诪专 讗讬驻讜讱 诇讬诪讗 诇讬驻讜讱 谞诪讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan raised to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish previously, and say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: No, that is unnecessary.

  • 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 Shlemah 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 154

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 154

专讗讬讛 讘诪讗讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

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 岣sda 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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜专讘讬 谞转谉

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鈥檃kov and Rabbi Natan in the baraita (153b).

(住讬诪谉 诪谞讬讞) 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬注拽讘

The Gemara notes a mnemonic device that indicates which tannaitic opinions are correlated: Mannia岣, which represents the letters mem, nun, yod, 岣t, stands for Meir, Natan, Ya鈥檃kov, and the Rabbis [岣khamim]. 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鈥檃kov.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

Rav 岣sda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Gemara explains: Rav 岣sda 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讬讙讜 讘讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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.

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诇讬诪讬 注讚讬诐 讜诪专注讬 砖讟专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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.

讜讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讘诇 讘讛讱 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诪讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讚 讛讜讛 诪讛诇讱 注诇 专讙诇讜讛讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讜讘讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讛讜讬 讗讚专讘讛 诪讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻讚 拽爪讬专 讜专诪讬 讘注专住讬讛 讜讛讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘专讬讗 讛讜讬

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.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

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.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

And this dispute with regard to the statement of the Rabbis is also the subject of a dispute between other amora鈥檌m, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诪注砖讛 讘讘谞讬 讘专拽 讘讗讞讚 砖诪讻专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讜讘讗讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜注专注专讜 诇讜诪专 拽讟谉 讛讬讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讜讘讗讜 讜砖讗诇讜 讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜注讜讚 住讬诪谞讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇诇拽讜讞讜转 讗讬讬转讜 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 讗转讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 专讗讬讛 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 诇讘讜讚拽讜 诇拽讬讬诪讜 砖讟专讬讬讛讜 讜诇讜拽诪讜 讘谞讻住讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讬 住讘专转 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽讗 讗转讜 诇拽讜讞讜转 讜诪注专注专讬 谞讻住讬 讘讞讝拽转 诇拽讜讞讜转 拽讬讬诪讬 讜拽讗 讗转讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讜拽讗 诪注专注专讬

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 拽讗 诪注专注专讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬砖转讬拽讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇拽讜讞讜转 拽讗 诪注专注专讬 讗诪讗讬 砖转拽讬 诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讝讜讝讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讬谞讜讜诇 讜诇讬谞讜讜诇

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.

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬专讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 讚讗讬 讗转诐 专砖讗讬诐 诇谞讜讜诇讜 讜注讜讚 讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 讝讜讝讬 砖拽诇 诇讬谞讜讜诇 讜诇讬谞讜讜诇 住讬诪谞讬诐 注砖讜讬讬谉 诇讛砖转谞讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讗诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 砖砖谞讜讬讛 讘诪砖谞转 讘专 拽驻专讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 砖讚讛 讜讘讗 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讜拽专讗 注诇讬讜 讗讞讚 注专注专 诇讜诪专 砖诇讬 讛讬讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讝讛 讗转 讗讜谞讜 诇讜诪专 砖诪讻专转讛 诇讬 讗讜 砖谞转转讛 诇讬 讘诪转谞讛 讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬谞讬 诪讻讬专 讘砖讟专 讝讛 诪注讜诇诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讛砖讟专 讘讞讜转诪讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诐 讗诪专 砖讟专 驻住讬诐 讛讜讗 讝讛 讗讜 砖讟专 讗诪谞讛 砖诪讻专转讬 诇讱 讜诇讗 谞转转 诇讬 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讛诇讱 讗讞专 注讚讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讛砖讟专

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.

诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉

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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙讬 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 注讚讬诐 讗诇讬诪讬 讜诪专注讬 砖讟专讗 讗讬讛讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛诇讗 诪砖诪讱 讗诪专讜 讬驻讛 注专注专讜 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讜 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专讛 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讚讘专 讝讛 诪注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan: But wasn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: That statement was stated in my name by Rabbi Elazar, my disciple, but I never said that statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诐 讬讻驻讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 转诇诪讬讚讜 讬讻驻讜专 讘专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 专讘讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 诇讗 诪砖谞转谞讜 讛讬讗 讝讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 专讗讬讛 讗诇讗 讘拽讬讜诐 讛砖讟专

Rabbi Zeira says: If Rabbi Yo岣nan denies the statement of Rabbi Elazar, his disciple, will Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan concludes: The proof mentioned in this mishna is nothing other than ratification of the deed. This indicates that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

讘专诐 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讜 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讘诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 砖爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇讙讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗

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 Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that everyone agrees that in this case, the recipient is not required to ratify the deed? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讗讬驻讜讱 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诇驻讜住诇讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讗讬讛 讘注讚讬诐 拽讗诪专 讗讬驻讜讱 诇讬诪讗 诇讬驻讜讱 谞诪讬 转讬讜讘转讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan raised to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish previously, and say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan? The Gemara answers: No, that is unnecessary.

Scroll To Top