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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 5, 2017 | 讬状讗 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 164

Additional laws relating to preventing forged documents are discussed – particularly as relates to documents that were erased and text was written above them. 聽On a tied document (get mekushar) the dating system was different than on the regular document. 聽Based on that, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel’s opinion in the mishna is questioned as he said that a tied docuemnt can be turned into a straight one and if the dating system is different, that could lead to problems? 聽The gemara diverges into a conversation about lashon hara.

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪讜讞拽 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讞拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

And if you say: There is a possibility of forgery with such a document, as the holder of the document can erase the original writing on the paper, then write the text of the document and have witnesses sign on the part that had been erased, then erase the document text once again, substituting for it a text that is more to his advantage, leaving the original signatures in place, this is not a valid argument. Paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice. It will be seen that the signatures are on a place that had been erased once and that the text is written on a place that had been erased twice, and the forgery will be noticed.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 砖讚讬 讚讬讜转讗 讗诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讛讚专 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

The Gemara suggests: But let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will initially, after the entire original document, including the signatures, has been erased, but before the second one is written, throw some ink on the place where the witnesses are to sign under the text of the second document, and then erase that ink. He will do this so that when, after the witnesses have signed, he then erases the document text and writes a false text, it will emerge that both this, the new document鈥檚 text, and that, the signatures, will be on paper that had been erased twice.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽住讘专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪讞拽 讘驻谞讬讛诐

Abaye said in response: Rav holds that witnesses may not sign a document written over an erasure unless the paper was erased in their presence, i.e., unless they saw the paper after its old text had been erased, before the new text was written. They will then see that the place where they are to sign has been erased twice, while the place where the document is to be written has been erased only once. They will realize that this leaves open an opportunity of subsequent erasing and falsification, and they will refrain from signing.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讜讗 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: A document in which its text is on a part of the paper that has never had writing erased and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure is valid. The Gemara suggests: But let us be concerned that perhaps the holder of the document will erase the text and write in its place whatever he wants, and it will then be a document where both its text and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure. Since Rav maintains that such a document is valid, it is easily forgeable in this manner.

讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 讗谞讞谞讗 住讛讚讬 讞转诪谞讗 注诇 诪讞拽讗 讜砖讟专讗 讻转讘 注诇 谞讬讬专讗

The Gemara answers: Such a document is valid only in a case where the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on an erasure, but the document text was written on a part of the paper that never had writing erased. If the holder of the document then tries to erase the original text and write new text in its place, the forgery will be noticed.

讚讻转讘讬 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 诪诇转讞转 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讗讬 注讬诇讗讬 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讘讬 讘讬谉 住讛讚讗 诇住讛讚讗

The Gemara asks: Where do the witnesses write this declaration? If they write it underneath their signatures, the holder of the document can simply excise it. And if they write it above their signatures, the holder of the document can erase it along with the text of the document. The Gemara answers: They write the declaration between the signature of one witness and the signature of the other witness.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 驻住讜诇 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讻转讘讜 讛讻讬 讗谞讞谞讗 住讛讚讬 讞转诪谞讗 注诇 谞讬讬专讗 讜砖讟专讗 注诇 诪讞拽讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the baraita is discussing a case in which the witnesses write a declaration about the circumstances of the document鈥檚 condition, say the latter clause of the baraita: A document in which its text is on an erasure and the signatures of its witnesses are on a part of the paper that never had writing erased is not valid. The Gemara presents its question: Why is such a document not valid? Here, too, let the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on paper that never had writing erased, but the document text was written on an erasure.

[讛砖转讗 谞诪讬] 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜讞拽 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讞拽 讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪讞拽讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪讞拽讗 讗诇讗 讗谞讬讬专讗 诇讗 讬讚讬注

Now in this case as well it should be valid, as what can you say to argue that it is a forgeable document? If you say that the holder of the document, having erased the original document, can erase the writing once again and write a new, false document, this is not a concern, as didn鈥檛 you say that paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice? It would therefore be noticeable that the document had been erased a second time, and the forgery would be noticeable. The Gemara answers: That statement applies only when the witnesses are signed on an erasure, and the appearance of that erasure can be compared with the appearance of a double erasure. But in a case where the witnesses are signed not on an erasure but on paper that has not had its writing erased, so that there is no contrast between a single erasure and a double erasure, the forgery would not be known.

讜诇讬转讬 诪讙讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇诪讞讜拽 讜诇讬讚诪讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讞拽讗 讚讛讗 诪讙讬诇转讗 诇诪讞拽讗 讚讛讗 诪讙讬诇转讗

The Gemara suggests: But let the court bring another parchment, write something on it and erase it, and then compare this single erasure with the erasure on the document in question. If the document were erased twice, a contrast would be seen between a single erasure and a double erasure. The Gemara answers: The erasure of this parchment is not necessarily similar to the erasure of that parchment. A single erasure on one parchment might resemble a double erasure on a different parchment.

讜诇拽讘诇讛 诇讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗 讚住讛讚讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诇诪讞讜拽 讜诇讬讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 诇谞诪讞拽 讘谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara continues to suggest: But let us accept, i.e., verify, the signatures of the witnesses on the document in court, after which they may safely be erased; and then erase the signatures and compare that erasure to the erasure of the document text, to see if it was erased once or twice. In response to this question Rav Hoshaya says: That which is erased on the same day that it was written is not necessarily similar to that which was erased two days ago, i.e., more than a day after it was written. An older erasure looks different from a new one, so the comparison might not show that there was a double erasure in the document.

讜诇讬砖讛讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

The Gemara suggests: But let us retain the document for an extra day, at which point both erasures will be old and can be compared. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response: We are concerned for the possibility of an erring court. If such complicated procedures were used in order to declare a document valid, there would be a chance that a particular court would not apply them properly, and that court would end up ratifying a document that was not valid.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖专 讜讻讜壮 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel:

讜讛诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝诪谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻砖讜讟 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 诪拽讜砖专 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖

But the date of this one, a tied document, is not the same as the date of that one, an ordinary document. In an ordinary document, when the king has reigned for one year, one year is counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, two years are counted for him. By contrast, in a tied document, when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. If a tied document is simply opened up and used as an ordinary document, then it will emerge that it is postdated by a year.

讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讬讝讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜驻专注 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 转讘专讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And there are times this can be problematic, as in a case where the debtor borrows money from the creditor, and the details of the loan are written in a tied document. And the debtor chances upon some money in the interim, i.e., during the first year after the document was written, and he repays the creditor, and says to him: Give me back my promissory note, as I have just repaid you. And the creditor says to the debtor: I lost the document and cannot give it to you. And in lieu of returning the promissory note, the creditor writes a receipt for the debtor, as protection against a second collection.

讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讬讝驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And then, when the time for repayment written in the promissory note arrives, the creditor will make it into an ordinary document by undoing its stitches and opening it up, and he can then say to the debtor: It is now that you borrowed this money from me, as attested in this promissory note, and the receipt you have in your possession is for a previous debt, as its date precedes the date on my document.

拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel holds that one does not write a receipt in such cases. If a creditor loses his promissory note, the debtor need not pay him at all, out of concern that the debt may one day be collected again when the promissory note is found. He is not required to pay the debt and accept only a receipt, which he will then have to guard permanently to protect himself against a second collection.

讜诪讬 讘拽讬 专讘讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 诪拽讜砖专 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜谞讬谉 诇专讘讬 讻讱 诪谞讛讙讛 砖诇 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖

The Gemara asks with regard to the previous discussion: And was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expert in the halakhot of tied documents? But wasn鈥檛 there a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw the date he said: This is a postdated document. And a Sage named Zunin said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Such is the custom of this nation; when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. The document is therefore not postdated. From this anecdote it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself had not been familiar with this practice.

讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪讝讜谞讬谉 住讘专讛

The Gemara answers: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard it from Zunin he accepted the explanation and held this way himself, and that is what prompted him to raise his objection.

讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讘砖谞转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗专讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讘讚拽 讗讬诪转讬 注诪讚 讗专讻谉 讘讗专讻谞讜转讬讛

搂 There was a certain document on which was written, as its date: In the year of so-and-so, Archon [Arkhan], a title for a ruler, without stating any particular year of his reign. Rabbi 岣nina said: Let it be investigated when it was that this Archon rose to his position of archon, i.e., find out the year he came to power, and the validity of the document is established from that year.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讗专讬讱 诪诇讻讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讻讱 诪谞讛讙讛 砖诇 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 讗专讻谉 砖谞讬讛 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 讚讬讙讜谉

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the writer of the document was using an Aramaic or Hebrew term, and intended to say that the reign of so-and-so had already extended [arikh] for several years. Rav Hoshaya says: Such is the custom of this nation where the document was written: In the first year of the king鈥檚 reign they refer to him with the title Archon; in his second year they refer to him with the title Digon.

讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讜专讬 注讘专讜讛讜 讜讛讚专 讗讜拽诪讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗专讻谉 讚讬讙讜谉 拽专讗讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the people deposed the ruler and then reinstated him, and the document was written in the first year of his second reign. Rabbi Yirmeya said: In that case, they would refer to him with the title Archon Digon.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬谞讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专 讛讬谞讗 讗讞转 讚讬讙讜谉 砖转讬诐 讟专讬讙讜谉 砖诇砖 讟讟专讬讙讜谉 讗专讘注 驻谞讟讬讙讜谉 讞诪砖

搂 Apropos these Greek terms, the Gemara cites two baraitot that mention them. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Nazir 1:2) that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite heina, or stated a similar expression with other comparable Greek terms, Sumakhos said that his status depends on which term he used. If he used the word heina, he is a nazirite for one term of naziriteship, i.e., thirty days; if he said digon, he is a nazirite for two terms of thirty days each; if he said terigon, he is a nazirite for three terms; tetrigon, for four terms; pentigon, for five terms.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 注讙讜诇 讚讬讙讜谉 讟专讬讙讜谉 驻谞讟讬讙讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讟讟专讬讙讜谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐

The Sages taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 6:3): A round house, or one that is shaped like a digon, i.e., it has two walls, one straight and one curved, or one that is shaped like a terigon, i.e., a triangle, or one that is shaped like a pentagon, does not become susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots. If it is shaped like a tetrigon, i.e., a quadrilateral, it becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜诪专 拽讬专 拽讬专转 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讗讜诪专 拽讬专 拽讬专转 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states above: 鈥淚f the plague be in the walls of the house鈥 (Leviticus 14:37). The verse did not state: A wall, but 鈥渨alls,鈥 indicating that the house in question has at least two walls. And where it states below: 鈥淚f the plague has spread in the walls of the house鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), instead of stating: A wall, the verse states 鈥渨alls,鈥 indicating another two walls. There are a total of four walls mentioned here in order to indicate that a house can become impure through leprous spots only if it has four sides.

讛讛讜讗 诪拽讜砖专 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讝诪谉 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪讗 讘讬谉 拽砖专讬讜 诪讜讘诇注 驻诇讬讬讛 讜讞讝讬讬讛 讛讚专 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讘讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讻转讘转讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讟讗 讻转讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诪诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讝讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda 岣yyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讜拽讗 驻住讬拽 住讬讚专讗 讘住驻专 转讛诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 诪讬讜砖专 讻转讘 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讻转讘转讬讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讟讗 讻转讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诪诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讝讛

Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda 岣yyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬住驻专 讗讚诐 讘讟讜讘转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖诪转讜讱 讟讜讘转讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 专注转讜

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖 注讘讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 谞讬爪讜诇 诪讛谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讜注讬讜谉 转驻诇讛 讜诇砖讜谉 讛专注 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱

Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?

  • 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 164

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 164

讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪讜讞拽 讜讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讞拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

And if you say: There is a possibility of forgery with such a document, as the holder of the document can erase the original writing on the paper, then write the text of the document and have witnesses sign on the part that had been erased, then erase the document text once again, substituting for it a text that is more to his advantage, leaving the original signatures in place, this is not a valid argument. Paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice. It will be seen that the signatures are on a place that had been erased once and that the text is written on a place that had been erased twice, and the forgery will be noticed.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 砖讚讬 讚讬讜转讗 讗诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讛讚专 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐

The Gemara suggests: But let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will initially, after the entire original document, including the signatures, has been erased, but before the second one is written, throw some ink on the place where the witnesses are to sign under the text of the second document, and then erase that ink. He will do this so that when, after the witnesses have signed, he then erases the document text and writes a false text, it will emerge that both this, the new document鈥檚 text, and that, the signatures, will be on paper that had been erased twice.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽住讘专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞诪讞拽 讘驻谞讬讛诐

Abaye said in response: Rav holds that witnesses may not sign a document written over an erasure unless the paper was erased in their presence, i.e., unless they saw the paper after its old text had been erased, before the new text was written. They will then see that the place where they are to sign has been erased twice, while the place where the document is to be written has been erased only once. They will realize that this leaves open an opportunity of subsequent erasing and falsification, and they will refrain from signing.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讜讗 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专 讜谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讻转讬讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: A document in which its text is on a part of the paper that has never had writing erased and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure is valid. The Gemara suggests: But let us be concerned that perhaps the holder of the document will erase the text and write in its place whatever he wants, and it will then be a document where both its text and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure. Since Rav maintains that such a document is valid, it is easily forgeable in this manner.

讚讻转讘讬 讛讻讬 讗谞讞谞讗 住讛讚讬 讞转诪谞讗 注诇 诪讞拽讗 讜砖讟专讗 讻转讘 注诇 谞讬讬专讗

The Gemara answers: Such a document is valid only in a case where the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on an erasure, but the document text was written on a part of the paper that never had writing erased. If the holder of the document then tries to erase the original text and write new text in its place, the forgery will be noticed.

讚讻转讘讬 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 诪诇转讞转 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 讗讬 注讬诇讗讬 诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 讚讻转讘讬 讘讬谉 住讛讚讗 诇住讛讚讗

The Gemara asks: Where do the witnesses write this declaration? If they write it underneath their signatures, the holder of the document can simply excise it. And if they write it above their signatures, the holder of the document can erase it along with the text of the document. The Gemara answers: They write the declaration between the signature of one witness and the signature of the other witness.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讛讜讗 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 驻住讜诇 讗诪讗讬 驻住讜诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讻转讘讜 讛讻讬 讗谞讞谞讗 住讛讚讬 讞转诪谞讗 注诇 谞讬讬专讗 讜砖讟专讗 注诇 诪讞拽讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the baraita is discussing a case in which the witnesses write a declaration about the circumstances of the document鈥檚 condition, say the latter clause of the baraita: A document in which its text is on an erasure and the signatures of its witnesses are on a part of the paper that never had writing erased is not valid. The Gemara presents its question: Why is such a document not valid? Here, too, let the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on paper that never had writing erased, but the document text was written on an erasure.

[讛砖转讗 谞诪讬] 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讜讞拽 讞讜讝专 讜诪讜讞拽 讛讗 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 驻注诐 讗讞转 诇谞诪讞拽 砖转讬 驻注诪讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪讞拽讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪讞拽讗 讗诇讗 讗谞讬讬专讗 诇讗 讬讚讬注

Now in this case as well it should be valid, as what can you say to argue that it is a forgeable document? If you say that the holder of the document, having erased the original document, can erase the writing once again and write a new, false document, this is not a concern, as didn鈥檛 you say that paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice? It would therefore be noticeable that the document had been erased a second time, and the forgery would be noticeable. The Gemara answers: That statement applies only when the witnesses are signed on an erasure, and the appearance of that erasure can be compared with the appearance of a double erasure. But in a case where the witnesses are signed not on an erasure but on paper that has not had its writing erased, so that there is no contrast between a single erasure and a double erasure, the forgery would not be known.

讜诇讬转讬 诪讙讬诇转讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇诪讞讜拽 讜诇讬讚诪讬 诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讞拽讗 讚讛讗 诪讙讬诇转讗 诇诪讞拽讗 讚讛讗 诪讙讬诇转讗

The Gemara suggests: But let the court bring another parchment, write something on it and erase it, and then compare this single erasure with the erasure on the document in question. If the document were erased twice, a contrast would be seen between a single erasure and a double erasure. The Gemara answers: The erasure of this parchment is not necessarily similar to the erasure of that parchment. A single erasure on one parchment might resemble a double erasure on a different parchment.

讜诇拽讘诇讛 诇讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗 讚住讛讚讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜诇诪讞讜拽 讜诇讬讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 谞诪讞拽 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 诇谞诪讞拽 讘谉 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara continues to suggest: But let us accept, i.e., verify, the signatures of the witnesses on the document in court, after which they may safely be erased; and then erase the signatures and compare that erasure to the erasure of the document text, to see if it was erased once or twice. In response to this question Rav Hoshaya says: That which is erased on the same day that it was written is not necessarily similar to that which was erased two days ago, i.e., more than a day after it was written. An older erasure looks different from a new one, so the comparison might not show that there was a double erasure in the document.

讜诇讬砖讛讬讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讟讜注讬谉

The Gemara suggests: But let us retain the document for an extra day, at which point both erasures will be old and can be compared. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response: We are concerned for the possibility of an erring court. If such complicated procedures were used in order to declare a document valid, there would be a chance that a particular court would not apply them properly, and that court would end up ratifying a document that was not valid.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜砖专 讜讻讜壮 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel:

讜讛诇讗 讗讬谞讜 讚讜诪讛 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇讝诪谞讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻砖讜讟 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 诪拽讜砖专 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖

But the date of this one, a tied document, is not the same as the date of that one, an ordinary document. In an ordinary document, when the king has reigned for one year, one year is counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, two years are counted for him. By contrast, in a tied document, when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. If a tied document is simply opened up and used as an ordinary document, then it will emerge that it is postdated by a year.

讜讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讬讝讬祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜诪讬转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜驻专注 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 转讘专讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And there are times this can be problematic, as in a case where the debtor borrows money from the creditor, and the details of the loan are written in a tied document. And the debtor chances upon some money in the interim, i.e., during the first year after the document was written, and he repays the creditor, and says to him: Give me back my promissory note, as I have just repaid you. And the creditor says to the debtor: I lost the document and cannot give it to you. And in lieu of returning the promissory note, the creditor writes a receipt for the debtor, as protection against a second collection.

讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 驻砖讜讟 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 讚讬讝驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And then, when the time for repayment written in the promissory note arrives, the creditor will make it into an ordinary document by undoing its stitches and opening it up, and he can then say to the debtor: It is now that you borrowed this money from me, as attested in this promissory note, and the receipt you have in your possession is for a previous debt, as its date precedes the date on my document.

拽讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣nina ben Gamliel holds that one does not write a receipt in such cases. If a creditor loses his promissory note, the debtor need not pay him at all, out of concern that the debt may one day be collected again when the promissory note is found. He is not required to pay the debt and accept only a receipt, which he will then have to guard permanently to protect himself against a second collection.

讜诪讬 讘拽讬 专讘讬 讘诪拽讜砖专 讜讛讗 讛讛讜讗 诪拽讜砖专 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讝讛 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜谞讬谉 诇专讘讬 讻讱 诪谞讛讙讛 砖诇 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 诪诇讱 砖谞讛 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖转讬诐 砖转讬诐 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖诇砖

The Gemara asks with regard to the previous discussion: And was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expert in the halakhot of tied documents? But wasn鈥檛 there a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw the date he said: This is a postdated document. And a Sage named Zunin said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Such is the custom of this nation; when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. The document is therefore not postdated. From this anecdote it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself had not been familiar with this practice.

讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪讝讜谞讬谉 住讘专讛

The Gemara answers: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard it from Zunin he accepted the explanation and held this way himself, and that is what prompted him to raise his objection.

讛讛讜讗 砖讟专讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 讘砖谞转 驻诇讜谞讬 讗专讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讬讘讚拽 讗讬诪转讬 注诪讚 讗专讻谉 讘讗专讻谞讜转讬讛

搂 There was a certain document on which was written, as its date: In the year of so-and-so, Archon [Arkhan], a title for a ruler, without stating any particular year of his reign. Rabbi 岣nina said: Let it be investigated when it was that this Archon rose to his position of archon, i.e., find out the year he came to power, and the validity of the document is established from that year.

讜讚诇诪讗 讚讗专讬讱 诪诇讻讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讻讱 诪谞讛讙讛 砖诇 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 讗专讻谉 砖谞讬讛 拽讜专讬谉 诇讜 讚讬讙讜谉

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the writer of the document was using an Aramaic or Hebrew term, and intended to say that the reign of so-and-so had already extended [arikh] for several years. Rav Hoshaya says: Such is the custom of this nation where the document was written: In the first year of the king鈥檚 reign they refer to him with the title Archon; in his second year they refer to him with the title Digon.

讜讚诇诪讗 注讘讜专讬 注讘专讜讛讜 讜讛讚专 讗讜拽诪讜讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讗专讻谉 讚讬讙讜谉 拽专讗讜 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the people deposed the ruler and then reinstated him, and the document was written in the first year of his second reign. Rabbi Yirmeya said: In that case, they would refer to him with the title Archon Digon.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 讛讬谞讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专 讛讬谞讗 讗讞转 讚讬讙讜谉 砖转讬诐 讟专讬讙讜谉 砖诇砖 讟讟专讬讙讜谉 讗专讘注 驻谞讟讬讙讜谉 讞诪砖

搂 Apropos these Greek terms, the Gemara cites two baraitot that mention them. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Nazir 1:2) that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite heina, or stated a similar expression with other comparable Greek terms, Sumakhos said that his status depends on which term he used. If he used the word heina, he is a nazirite for one term of naziriteship, i.e., thirty days; if he said digon, he is a nazirite for two terms of thirty days each; if he said terigon, he is a nazirite for three terms; tetrigon, for four terms; pentigon, for five terms.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 注讙讜诇 讚讬讙讜谉 讟专讬讙讜谉 驻谞讟讬讙讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 讟讟专讬讙讜谉 诪讟诪讗 讘谞讙注讬诐

The Sages taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Nega鈥檌m 6:3): A round house, or one that is shaped like a digon, i.e., it has two walls, one straight and one curved, or one that is shaped like a terigon, i.e., a triangle, or one that is shaped like a pentagon, does not become susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots. If it is shaped like a tetrigon, i.e., a quadrilateral, it becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗讜诪专 拽讬专 拽讬专转 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讗讜诪专 拽讬专 拽讬专转 砖转讬诐 讛专讬 讻讗谉 讗专讘注

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states above: 鈥淚f the plague be in the walls of the house鈥 (Leviticus 14:37). The verse did not state: A wall, but 鈥渨alls,鈥 indicating that the house in question has at least two walls. And where it states below: 鈥淚f the plague has spread in the walls of the house鈥 (Leviticus 14:39), instead of stating: A wall, the verse states 鈥渨alls,鈥 indicating another two walls. There are a total of four walls mentioned here in order to indicate that a house can become impure through leprous spots only if it has four sides.

讛讛讜讗 诪拽讜砖专 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 讝诪谉 讘讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪讗 讘讬谉 拽砖专讬讜 诪讜讘诇注 驻诇讬讬讛 讜讞讝讬讬讛 讛讚专 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 专讘讬 讘讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讻转讘转讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讟讗 讻转讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诪诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讝讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda 岣yyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 讜拽讗 驻住讬拽 住讬讚专讗 讘住驻专 转讛诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讻诪讛 诪讬讜砖专 讻转讘 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讻转讘转讬讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬讟讗 讻转讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诪诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讛讝讛

Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda 岣yyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讚转谞讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘 住驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇 讬住驻专 讗讚诐 讘讟讜讘转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 砖诪转讜讱 讟讜讘转讜 讘讗 诇讬讚讬 专注转讜

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment.

讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖诇砖 注讘讬专讜转 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 谞讬爪讜诇 诪讛谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛专讛讜专 注讘讬专讛 讜注讬讜谉 转驻诇讛 讜诇砖讜谉 讛专注 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱

Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?

Scroll To Top