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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 30, 2017 | 讜壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 159b

Does inheritance go through a father who is dead to be passed on to his son or does the son inherit directly from the grandfather? 聽Does a son who predeceases his mother inherit from his mother “in his grave” in order to pass on the inheritance to his half brothers through his father? 聽Or does her inheritance revert back to her father’s family? 聽The tenth perek begins with a discussion of different types of documents – a regular shtar and one that has folds.

讗讬转诪专 讘谉 砖诪讻专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讱 诪讝讘讬谉 讜讗转 诪驻讬拽

that it was stated: With regard to a son who sold some of his father鈥檚 property during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and the son died, the son鈥檚 son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law, as the buyers can say to the son鈥檚 son: Does your father sell the property to us and you repossess it?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 转讚注 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 转砖讬转诪讜 诇砖专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, as I inherit directly from him. Know that this is so, as it is written: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons; you shall make them into princes throughout the land鈥 (Psalms 45:17). The phrase 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, and he does not inherit through his father.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘谉 讘讻讜专 砖诪讻专 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讗讘讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬讛讜 诪驻讬拽 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讗讬 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: With regard to a firstborn son who sold, during his father鈥檚 lifetime, the portion of the firstborn that he was set to inherit, and he died in his father鈥檚 lifetime, his son can repossess the portion of the firstborn from the buyers. And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law, as his father sells the property and he repossesses it. And if you would say: Here too, he says: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, this is not a valid claim, as, if he comes to repossess the property on the basis of the right of his father鈥檚 father, what is the relevance of the portion of the firstborn, since he is not his grandfather鈥檚 firstborn?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 拽讗讬诪谞讗

The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, and yet I receive the portion of the firstborn, as I stand in my father鈥檚 stead.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 注讚讜转 讘砖讟专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讜谞注砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛砖转讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony supporting another, and his testimony was written in a document before he became a robber, and then he became a robber and was disqualified from bearing witness. In this case, he may not testify as to the legitimacy of his handwriting. But others may testify that it is his handwriting on the document. The difficulty is that now that his testimony is not deemed credible, although he knows of the matter with certainty, is it logical that others are deemed credible and his signature is ratified according to their testimony? And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law.

诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: What is the difficulty? Perhaps this halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he was disqualified, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 注讚讜转 讘砖讟专 注讚 砖诇讗 转驻讜诇 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony supporting another concerning the latter鈥檚 ownership of a plot of land, and his testimony was written in a document before the land came into the witness鈥檚 possession as an inheritance, which caused the witness to become an interested party. In this case, the witness may not ratify his handwriting. But others may ratify his handwriting. The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps here too, the halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he became an interested party, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 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 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony with regard to another, and his testimony was written in a document before he became that person鈥檚 son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law. In this case, the son-in-law may not testify as to his handwriting, since one cannot bear witness for his relative. But others may testify that it is his handwriting. Is it logical that his testimony is not deemed credible, yet others are deemed credible and may ratify his signature?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And if you would say: Here too, the halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he became a relative, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an says: Others may testify as to the validity of his handwriting even though the signature was not previously presumed by the court to be his handwriting?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 诇讞讜转谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬注讬讚讜 诇讛诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 诇讞讜转谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is the King鈥檚 edict, i.e., a divine decree, that the testimony of a son-in-law is not deemed credible, and yet the testimony of others is deemed credible, and the reason he is disqualified is not that he is suspected of lying. This must be so, as if you do not say so, why are Moses and Aaron disqualified from bearing witness for their father-in-law? Could this be because their testimony is not deemed credible? Rather, it is the King鈥檚 edict that even Moses and Aaron shall not bear witness for their relatives. Here too, it is the King鈥檚 edict that a son-in-law shall not testify as to the validity of his handwriting for his father-in-law.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讛讛讜讗 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘

Rather, the difficulty is actually as we said initially, with regard to the halakha that if a son sold some of his father鈥檚 property and then died, the son鈥檚 son repossesses the property from the buyers. And with regard to the verse that posed a difficulty for you: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 (Psalms 45:17), which apparently indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, this is not difficult. That verse is written as a blessing. The verse does not indicate the halakhic status of the grandson鈥檚 inheritance, and the reason he can repossess the property is still difficult.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But can you say that the verse is written as a blessing,

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 诇讗

but with regard to the halakha it does not indicate anything?

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讜诪专 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna (157a): A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditor says: The father died first and afterward the son died, there is a dispute as to the halakha. The son therefore inherited his father鈥檚 property, and his creditor has a lien upon the property, enabling him to collect payment from the property even after the son鈥檚 death.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讘谞讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讗讞讬 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪转 讛讘谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜讛讜谉 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗

What, is it not correct to explain that the father鈥檚 heirs are the son鈥檚 sons, and the term: Those from whom he stands to inherit, is referring to the deceased son鈥檚 brothers? And if it enters your mind to maintain that the grandson cannot say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, as when it is written in the verse in Psalms: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons,鈥 this is written as a blessing, then the mishna is difficult. According to this understanding, grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father. If so, even if the son died first and afterward the father died, what of it? Let the creditor say to the son鈥檚 sons: It is their father鈥檚 inheritance that I am taking, as the grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father.

诇讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讞讬讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讗讞讬 讚讗讘讜讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, the father鈥檚 heirs are the deceased son鈥檚 brothers, who certainly inherit from their father directly, and the term: Those from whom he stands to inherit, is referring to the deceased son鈥檚 father鈥檚 brothers. Therefore, one cannot derive from the mishna that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讘谉 诪讛讜 砖讬讬专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讗讘 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讘谉 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to a son inheriting from his mother while he is in the grave, in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers? If a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, does the deceased son inherit from his mother, and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother? Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: Consider the case of a father who was taken captive and died in captivity, and his son died in the province, i.e., at home, and consider the case of a son who was taken captive and died, and his father died in the province. Since it is not known who died first, the father鈥檚 heirs and the son鈥檚 heirs divide the inheritance.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讘 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讘谉 讘转讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讘谉 讘转讜 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that the case is as the baraita teaches, the baraita is difficult. Who are the father鈥檚 heirs and who are the son鈥檚 heirs? The same individuals inherit from both of them. Rather, is it not so that this is what the baraita is saying: Consider the case of a father who was taken captive and died in captivity, and his daughter鈥檚 son died in the province, and consider the case of the son of his daughter who was taken captive and died, and the father of the captive鈥檚 mother died in the province, and we do not know which of them died first. If the father died first, his daughter鈥檚 son inherits from him, and the son鈥檚 paternal relatives subsequently inherit from the son. If the son died first, the father鈥檚 heirs inherit the father鈥檚 estate. Since it is unknown which of them died first, the father鈥檚 heirs and the son鈥檚 heirs divide the inheritance.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谉 诪转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬专转讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 讘拽讘专讬讛 讜诇讬专转讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讜讛 诪谉 讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪讗讘

And if it is so that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, although the son indeed died first, he should inherit from his mother鈥檚 father while in his grave and bequeath his inheritance to his paternal brothers, and the son鈥檚 heirs should receive the entire inheritance. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the baraita that the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谉 诪转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬专转讬讛 诇讗诪讬讛 讘拽讘专讬讛 讜诇讬专转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讬 诪讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: We learn this halakha in the mishna (158b) as well: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that the son鈥檚 heirs and the mother鈥檚 heirs divide the property between them. And if it is so that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, although the son indeed died first, he should inherit from his mother while in his grave and they should inherit from him, i.e., he should bequeath his inheritance to his paternal brothers. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from that mishna that the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专讛 住讬讘讛 讘讘谉 讜谞讗诪专讛 住讬讘讛 讘讘注诇 诪讛 住讬讘讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘拽讘专 讗祝 住讬讘讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘谉 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘

And what is the reason that a son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave? Abaye says: The term transfer, concerning the transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another, was stated with regard to the inheritance of a son (see Numbers 36:7), and the term transfer was stated with regard to the inheritance of a husband (see 111b鈥113a and Numbers 36:9). Just as in the case categorized as transfer that was stated with regard to the inheritance of a husband, the husband does not inherit from his wife while he is in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his heirs, so too, in the case categorized as transfer that was stated with regard to the inheritance of a son, the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讻住讬 讚讘专 住讬住讬谉 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讛讜讗讬 讞讚讗 讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬拽专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉

搂 There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling to you all of the property that I own of bar Sisin. There was one parcel of land that was called the tract of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This latter parcel of land is actually not the property of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and therefore it is not included in the sale.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜专诪讬 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The matter came before Rav Na岣an, and he placed the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the halakha? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, which in this case is the buyer. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and between this statement of Rav Na岣an and another statement of Rav Na岣an.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇讬转 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘砖讻讜谞讬 讙讜讗讬 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara explains the contradictions. There was a certain man who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? He said to the claimant: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was traveling among the settlements in a distant location, and I was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讘专讜专 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The one residing in the house came before Rav Na岣an for a judgment. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the claimant should have to prove that the possessor did not reside in the house. The first statement of Rava is difficult, as it is contradicted by the second statement of Rava, and the first statement of Rav Na岣an is difficult, as it is contradicted by the second statement of Rav Na岣an. In the first case, Rav Na岣an ruled in favor of the buyer, and Rava ruled in favor of the seller, whereas in the second case their rulings were reversed.

讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讜讻专 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛 讛转诐 诇讜拽讞 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rava and the second statement of Rava is not difficult. Here, with regard to the property of bar Sisin, the seller stands in possession of his property, and the buyer claims the parcel of land from him. There, the buyer stands in possession of his property, since he dwells in the house, and the seller wishes to evict him.

讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讱 讜拽讜诐 讘谞讻住讬

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Na岣an and the other statement of Rav Na岣an is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that it is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be considered as any case other than one where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn鈥檛 we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established as the owner of the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖诪转

 

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 159b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 159b

讗讬转诪专 讘谉 砖诪讻专 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜诇讬诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讱 诪讝讘讬谉 讜讗转 诪驻讬拽

that it was stated: With regard to a son who sold some of his father鈥檚 property during his father鈥檚 lifetime, and the son died, the son鈥檚 son repossesses the property from the buyers. And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law, as the buyers can say to the son鈥檚 son: Does your father sell the property to us and you repossess it?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 转讚注 讚讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 转砖讬转诪讜 诇砖专讬诐 讘讻诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, as I inherit directly from him. Know that this is so, as it is written: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons; you shall make them into princes throughout the land鈥 (Psalms 45:17). The phrase 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, and he does not inherit through his father.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讘谉 讘讻讜专 砖诪讻专 讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪转 讘讞讬讬 讗讘讬讜 讘谞讜 诪讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讗讘讜讛 诪讝讘讬谉 讗讬讛讜 诪驻讬拽 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讗讬 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗 讗转讬讗 讘讞诇拽 讘讻讜专讛 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: With regard to a firstborn son who sold, during his father鈥檚 lifetime, the portion of the firstborn that he was set to inherit, and he died in his father鈥檚 lifetime, his son can repossess the portion of the firstborn from the buyers. And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law, as his father sells the property and he repossesses it. And if you would say: Here too, he says: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, this is not a valid claim, as, if he comes to repossess the property on the basis of the right of his father鈥檚 father, what is the relevance of the portion of the firstborn, since he is not his grandfather鈥檚 firstborn?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 拽讗讬诪谞讗

The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps he can say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, and yet I receive the portion of the firstborn, as I stand in my father鈥檚 stead.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 注讚讜转 讘砖讟专 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讜谞注砖讛 讙讝诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛砖转讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖拽砖讛 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony supporting another, and his testimony was written in a document before he became a robber, and then he became a robber and was disqualified from bearing witness. In this case, he may not testify as to the legitimacy of his handwriting. But others may testify that it is his handwriting on the document. The difficulty is that now that his testimony is not deemed credible, although he knows of the matter with certainty, is it logical that others are deemed credible and his signature is ratified according to their testimony? And this is a difficult halakha with regard to monetary law.

诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara rejects this: What is the difficulty? Perhaps this halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he was disqualified, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 诇讜 注讚讜转 讘砖讟专 注讚 砖诇讗 转驻讜诇 诇讜 讘讬专讜砖讛 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇拽讬讬诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony supporting another concerning the latter鈥檚 ownership of a plot of land, and his testimony was written in a document before the land came into the witness鈥檚 possession as an inheritance, which caused the witness to become an interested party. In this case, the witness may not ratify his handwriting. But others may ratify his handwriting. The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps here too, the halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he became an interested party, and the witnesses testify merely that the document was already ratified.

讗诇讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 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 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 诪注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬

Rather, if there is a halakha with regard to monetary law that poses a difficulty, this is the difficult halakha: One knew testimony with regard to another, and his testimony was written in a document before he became that person鈥檚 son-in-law, and then he became his son-in-law. In this case, the son-in-law may not testify as to his handwriting, since one cannot bear witness for his relative. But others may testify that it is his handwriting. Is it logical that his testimony is not deemed credible, yet others are deemed credible and may ratify his signature?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉

And if you would say: Here too, the halakha is referring to a case where the signature was already presumed by the court to be his handwriting before he became a relative, this is difficult. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an says: Others may testify as to the validity of his handwriting even though the signature was not previously presumed by the court to be his handwriting?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讬讗 讚讗讬讛讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谉 讜讗讞专讬谞讬 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讜诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖拽专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪砖讛 讜讗讛专谉 诇讞讜转谞诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬注讬讚讜 诇讛诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讙讝讬专转 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬注讬讚 注诇 讻转讘 讬讚讜 诇讞讜转谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps it is the King鈥檚 edict, i.e., a divine decree, that the testimony of a son-in-law is not deemed credible, and yet the testimony of others is deemed credible, and the reason he is disqualified is not that he is suspected of lying. This must be so, as if you do not say so, why are Moses and Aaron disqualified from bearing witness for their father-in-law? Could this be because their testimony is not deemed credible? Rather, it is the King鈥檚 edict that even Moses and Aaron shall not bear witness for their relatives. Here too, it is the King鈥檚 edict that a son-in-law shall not testify as to the validity of his handwriting for his father-in-law.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讛讛讜讗 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘

Rather, the difficulty is actually as we said initially, with regard to the halakha that if a son sold some of his father鈥檚 property and then died, the son鈥檚 son repossesses the property from the buyers. And with regard to the verse that posed a difficulty for you: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons鈥 (Psalms 45:17), which apparently indicates that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly, this is not difficult. That verse is written as a blessing. The verse does not indicate the halakhic status of the grandson鈥檚 inheritance, and the reason he can repossess the property is still difficult.

讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But can you say that the verse is written as a blessing,

讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讚讬谞讗 诇讗

but with regard to the halakha it does not indicate anything?

讜讛转谞讬讗 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗讘讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘谉 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讜诪专 讛讗讘 诪转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讘谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in the mishna (157a): A house collapsed on a son and upon his father, or upon a certain person and upon those from whom he stands to inherit, and it is unknown who died first. If the son bore the responsibility to pay the marriage contract of his wife and to pay a creditor, and the son had no money with which to pay them except that which he might inherit from his father, and the father鈥檚 heirs say: The son died first and afterward the father died, and therefore the son did not inherit property from his father, and the creditor says: The father died first and afterward the son died, there is a dispute as to the halakha. The son therefore inherited his father鈥檚 property, and his creditor has a lien upon the property, enabling him to collect payment from the property even after the son鈥檚 death.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讘谞讬 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讗讞讬 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诪讻讞 讗讘讜讛 讚讗讘讗 拽讗转讬谞讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘 转讞转 讗讘转讬讱 讬讛讬讜 讘谞讬讱 讘讘专讻讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪转 讛讘谉 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转 讛讗讘 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜讛讜谉 拽讗 砖拽讬诇谞讗

What, is it not correct to explain that the father鈥檚 heirs are the son鈥檚 sons, and the term: Those from whom he stands to inherit, is referring to the deceased son鈥檚 brothers? And if it enters your mind to maintain that the grandson cannot say: I come to repossess the property on the basis of the right of my father鈥檚 father to the property, as when it is written in the verse in Psalms: 鈥淚n the place of your fathers shall be your sons,鈥 this is written as a blessing, then the mishna is difficult. According to this understanding, grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father. If so, even if the son died first and afterward the father died, what of it? Let the creditor say to the son鈥檚 sons: It is their father鈥檚 inheritance that I am taking, as the grandsons inherit from their grandfather only through their father.

诇讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讗讞讬讜 诪讜专讬砖讬讜 讗讞讬 讚讗讘讜讛

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, the father鈥檚 heirs are the deceased son鈥檚 brothers, who certainly inherit from their father directly, and the term: Those from whom he stands to inherit, is referring to the deceased son鈥檚 father鈥檚 brothers. Therefore, one cannot derive from the mishna that a grandson inherits from his grandfather directly.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 讘谉 诪讛讜 砖讬讬专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 讛讗讘 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讘谉 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is the halakha with regard to a son inheriting from his mother while he is in the grave, in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers? If a son dies, and afterward his mother dies, does the deceased son inherit from his mother, and subsequently bequeath the inheritance to his paternal brothers, who are not related to the mother? Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: Consider the case of a father who was taken captive and died in captivity, and his son died in the province, i.e., at home, and consider the case of a son who was taken captive and died, and his father died in the province. Since it is not known who died first, the father鈥檚 heirs and the son鈥檚 heirs divide the inheritance.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讛讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讘 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讘谉 讘转讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜讘谉 讘转讜 砖谞砖讘讛 讜诪转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬转 讘专讬砖讗 讬讜专砖讬 讛讗讘 讜讬讜专砖讬 讛讘谉 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that the case is as the baraita teaches, the baraita is difficult. Who are the father鈥檚 heirs and who are the son鈥檚 heirs? The same individuals inherit from both of them. Rather, is it not so that this is what the baraita is saying: Consider the case of a father who was taken captive and died in captivity, and his daughter鈥檚 son died in the province, and consider the case of the son of his daughter who was taken captive and died, and the father of the captive鈥檚 mother died in the province, and we do not know which of them died first. If the father died first, his daughter鈥檚 son inherits from him, and the son鈥檚 paternal relatives subsequently inherit from the son. If the son died first, the father鈥檚 heirs inherit the father鈥檚 estate. Since it is unknown which of them died first, the father鈥檚 heirs and the son鈥檚 heirs divide the inheritance.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谉 诪转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬专转讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪讬讛 讘拽讘专讬讛 讜诇讬专转讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讜讛 诪谉 讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪讗讘

And if it is so that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, although the son indeed died first, he should inherit from his mother鈥檚 father while in his grave and bequeath his inheritance to his paternal brothers, and the son鈥檚 heirs should receive the entire inheritance. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the baraita that the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 谞驻诇 讛讘讬转 注诇讬讜 讜注诇 讗诪讜 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚讘谉 诪转 讘专讬砖讗 诇讬专转讬讛 诇讗诪讬讛 讘拽讘专讬讛 讜诇讬专转讜 讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗讞讬 诪讗讘讜讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: We learn this halakha in the mishna (158b) as well: If the house collapsed on a son and upon his mother, both these Sages and those Sages, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede that the son鈥檚 heirs and the mother鈥檚 heirs divide the property between them. And if it is so that a son inherits from his mother while in the grave, although the son indeed died first, he should inherit from his mother while in his grave and they should inherit from him, i.e., he should bequeath his inheritance to his paternal brothers. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from that mishna that the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that this is so.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞讗诪专讛 住讬讘讛 讘讘谉 讜谞讗诪专讛 住讬讘讛 讘讘注诇 诪讛 住讬讘讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘拽讘专 讗祝 住讬讘讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘谉 讗讬谉 讛讘谉 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗诪讜 讘拽讘专 诇讛谞讞讬诇 诇讗讞讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讘

And what is the reason that a son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave? Abaye says: The term transfer, concerning the transfer of inheritance from one tribe to another, was stated with regard to the inheritance of a son (see Numbers 36:7), and the term transfer was stated with regard to the inheritance of a husband (see 111b鈥113a and Numbers 36:9). Just as in the case categorized as transfer that was stated with regard to the inheritance of a husband, the husband does not inherit from his wife while he is in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his heirs, so too, in the case categorized as transfer that was stated with regard to the inheritance of a son, the son does not inherit from his mother while in the grave in order to bequeath that inheritance to his paternal brothers.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 谞讻住讬 讚讘专 住讬住讬谉 诪讝讘谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讛讜讗讬 讞讚讗 讗专注讗 讚讛讜讛 诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讗讬拽专讜讬讬 讛讜讗 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉

搂 There was a certain person who said to another: I am selling to you all of the property that I own of bar Sisin. There was one parcel of land that was called the tract of the house of bar Sisin. The seller said to the buyer: This latter parcel of land is actually not the property of the house of bar Sisin, and it is merely called: Of the house of bar Sisin, and therefore it is not included in the sale.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讘讬讚讗 讚诇讜拽讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 讜专诪讬 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The matter came before Rav Na岣an, and he placed the land in the possession of the buyer. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the halakha? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, which in this case is the buyer. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rava and another statement of Rava, and between this statement of Rav Na岣an and another statement of Rav Na岣an.

讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讗讻诇讬转 砖谞讬 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘砖讻讜谞讬 讙讜讗讬 讛讜讗讬

The Gemara explains the contradictions. There was a certain man who said to another: What do you want, i.e., what are you doing, with this house of mine? He said to the claimant: I purchased it from you and I worked and profited from it for the years necessary for establishing the presumption of ownership. The claimant said to him: I was traveling among the settlements in a distant location, and I was unaware that you were residing in my house, which is why I did not lodge a protest.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讘专讜专 讗讻讬诇转讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬谞讗 讛讻讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 诪讞讘讬专讜 注诇讬讜 讛专讗讬讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 讜讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉

The one residing in the house came before Rav Na岣an for a judgment. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go clarify your profiting, i.e., prove that you really resided there for three years, and then the case can be judged. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: Is this the correct judgment? The halakha is that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Therefore, the claimant should have to prove that the possessor did not reside in the house. The first statement of Rava is difficult, as it is contradicted by the second statement of Rava, and the first statement of Rav Na岣an is difficult, as it is contradicted by the second statement of Rav Na岣an. In the first case, Rav Na岣an ruled in favor of the buyer, and Rava ruled in favor of the seller, whereas in the second case their rulings were reversed.

讚专讘讗 讗讚专讘讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 诪讜讻专 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛 讛转诐 诇讜拽讞 拽讗讬 讘谞讻住讬讛

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the first statement of Rava and the second statement of Rava is not difficult. Here, with regard to the property of bar Sisin, the seller stands in possession of his property, and the buyer claims the parcel of land from him. There, the buyer stands in possession of his property, since he dwells in the house, and the seller wishes to evict him.

讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 注诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 专诪讬讗 诇讙诇讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜 讚讘讬 讘专 住讬住讬谉 讛讬讗 讛讻讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讱 讜拽讜诐 讘谞讻住讬

The contradiction between one statement of Rav Na岣an and the other statement of Rav Na岣an is not difficult as well, because there, since the seller said to him: I am hereby selling you all of the property that I own of the house of bar Sisin, and this parcel of land is called: Of the house of bar Sisin, it is incumbent on him to reveal that it is not of the house of bar Sisin. But here, in the case where the claimant states that he had been in a distant location, it should not be considered as any case other than one where the possessor is holding a document as evidence that he purchased the house. Wouldn鈥檛 we then say to him: First ratify your document, and only then be established as the owner of the property? In this case as well, since his presumptive ownership is in place of a document, he needs to clarify the matter by means of witnesses.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 诪讬 砖诪转

 

Scroll To Top