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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 7, 2017 | 讬状讙 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 166

How can one tell whether dinarim is referring to gold or silver? 聽In which types of discrepancies between the top part of the document and the bottom part do we hold by the bottom and in which cases by the top? 聽If an amount is given but not the type of coin, how do we determine which coin was meant? 聽Abaye teaches halachot regarding how to avoid forgeries and then several cases ar brought where people tried to defraud him or others but was brought before him and he detected the forgery. 聽The mishna teaches what types of documents can be written by one side without the knowledge of the other and which ones need to be written with the knowledge of both sides? 聽Who pays for the document to be written? 聽Also the scribe needs to know the people involved to prevent the person from giving the document to someone else with the same聽name.


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

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讬讟讬 驻专讬讟讬 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks further: But why not say that the intent is not a dinar, but smaller coins, such as perutot? The Gemara answers: People do not make perutot of gold.

讝讛讘 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讘砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讻住祝 讝讛讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讘转专讬 讚讬谞专讬 讚讛讘讗 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which states: If it is written: Gold, in dinars, the amount must be no less than two silver dinars鈥 worth of gold. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the document is speaking of two golden dinars鈥 worth of pieces of gold? Abaye says: This interpretation is also possible, but the guiding principle in all interpretations of ambiguities is that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讝讛讘 讻住祝 讗诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 讻住驻讗 谞住讻讗 讘转专讬 讚讬谞专讬 讻住驻讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks a question from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the document states: Silver in dinars, the amount must be no less than two golden dinars鈥 worth of silver. Why is he entitled to so much? Say that the document is speaking of silver only, and means: Two silver dinars鈥 worth of silver pieces. This interpretation would be a lower value than the interpretation assigned to it by the baraita, and would be in keeping with the principle that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讬砖讗 讚讻转讘 讚讬谞专讬 住讬驻讗 讚讻转讘 讚讬谞专讬谉

Rav Ashi said in reply that the text of the baraita should be emended: In the first clause the case is that the scribe wrote: Silver in dinars, using the plural form dinarei, which refers specifically to golden dinars. In the latter clause, the case is that the scribe wrote: Gold in dinars, using the plural form dinarin, which denotes silver dinars specifically.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讚讬谞专讬 诇讚讬谞专讬谉

The Gemara supports its assertion that there is a difference between these two plural forms: And from where do you say that there is a difference between the words dinarei and dinarin?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 住驻拽 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

This is as it is taught in a mishna (Karetot 8a): In the case of a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five births, and likewise a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five irregular discharges of blood from the uterus [ziva], she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. If she has in her case five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava, she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are an obligation for her.

诪注砖讛 讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 讗诐 讗诇讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讬诪讚 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

That mishna continues: There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at golden dinarei, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in dinarin. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman for whom there were five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.

讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讘专讘注转讬诐

The mishna concludes: And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased. It is clear in the mishna that the term dinarei indicates a higher value than the term dinarin.

讻转讜讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诇诪讚 讛转讞转讜谉 诪谉 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If it is written in the document above that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below it is written two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred and below one hundred, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:4): Information concerning what is written below may be learned from what is written above if the lower text is missing one letter, but not if it is missing two letters. In that case, in the event of a discrepancy between information written above and information written below, the document is not valid.

讻讙讜谉 讞谞谉 诪讞谞谞讬 讜注谞谉 诪注谞谞讬

For example, if the name of one party is written as 岣nan below and 岣nani above, it may be derived from the word 岣nani written above that the party is named 岣nani. And similarly, if a name is written Anan below, it may be learned from the name Anani written above that the party is named Anani.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讚诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 讗专讘注 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讚砖诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讚砖诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about two letters missing, that the baraita teaches that the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above? The Gemara suggests: It is out of concern that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a four-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be half of the name, and for this reason the Sages extended this concern to all cases where two letters are missing. The Gemara challenges: If so, the same could be said when one letter is missing as well, as perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a two-letter name, and the omission of one letter would be half of the name.

讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 砖诇砖 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讜讘讗 讚砖诪讗

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the reason that when two letters are missing the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above: The concern is that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a three-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be a majority of the name. The Sages applied this concern to all cases where two letters are missing.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 住驻诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜拽驻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛转讞转讜谉

The Gemara continues to discuss discrepancies between the information written above and below in a document. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that if a document states above that one owes a sefel, a type of cup, and below it states kefel, a type of garment, everything is determined by the information written below. In this case there is not a missing letter at the bottom but an altered letter. Therefore, the information written below is not corrected from the information written above.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽驻诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜住驻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讘讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What if it is stated kefel above and sefel below? The difference between the two words is that the former begins with kuf, whereas the latter begins with samekh. The orthographical difference between these two letters is a single stroke that extends downward, as the omission of the extension of this stroke would change kuf into samekh. Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma is: Are we concerned for the possibility that a fly landed on the stroke of the kuf, removing the ink and changing it into samekh? Or are we not concerned with this possibility? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讜讝讜讝讗 砖诇讞讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讗讬住转讬专讬 讜讝讜讝讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讬转 诪讗讛 驻专讬讟讬 讜讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇 驻专讬讟讬 讚诇讗 讻转讘讬 讘砖讟专讗 讚讗住讜讻讬 诪住讻谉 诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain document in which it was written that the amount due was six hundred and a dinar, without specifying to which denomination the six hundred amount referred. Rav Sherevya sent this question before Abaye: Does the holder of the document collect six hundred istira and a dinar? Istira is another name for a sela, which equals four dinars. Or is he perhaps entitled to collect only six hundred perutot and a dinar, a peruta being a small fraction of a dinar? Abaye said to him: Remove the possibility of six hundred perutot, since people do not write large numbers of perutot in a document, as they instead combine them into larger denominations

  • 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 shleima 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 166

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 166

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讬讟讬 驻专讬讟讬 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬

The Gemara asks further: But why not say that the intent is not a dinar, but smaller coins, such as perutot? The Gemara answers: People do not make perutot of gold.

讝讛讘 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪讘砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讻住祝 讝讛讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讘转专讬 讚讬谞专讬 讚讛讘讗 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讬讚 讘注诇 讛砖讟专 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita, which states: If it is written: Gold, in dinars, the amount must be no less than two silver dinars鈥 worth of gold. The Gemara asks: But why not say that the document is speaking of two golden dinars鈥 worth of pieces of gold? Abaye says: This interpretation is also possible, but the guiding principle in all interpretations of ambiguities is that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 讻住祝 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 讚讬谞专讬谉 讝讛讘 讻住祝 讗诪讗讬 讗讬诪讗 讻住驻讗 谞住讻讗 讘转专讬 讚讬谞专讬 讻住驻讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara asks a question from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches that if the document states: Silver in dinars, the amount must be no less than two golden dinars鈥 worth of silver. Why is he entitled to so much? Say that the document is speaking of silver only, and means: Two silver dinars鈥 worth of silver pieces. This interpretation would be a lower value than the interpretation assigned to it by the baraita, and would be in keeping with the principle that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讬砖讗 讚讻转讘 讚讬谞专讬 住讬驻讗 讚讻转讘 讚讬谞专讬谉

Rav Ashi said in reply that the text of the baraita should be emended: In the first clause the case is that the scribe wrote: Silver in dinars, using the plural form dinarei, which refers specifically to golden dinars. In the latter clause, the case is that the scribe wrote: Gold in dinars, using the plural form dinarin, which denotes silver dinars specifically.

讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚砖讗谞讬 讘讬谉 讚讬谞专讬 诇讚讬谞专讬谉

The Gemara supports its assertion that there is a difference between these two plural forms: And from where do you say that there is a difference between the words dinarei and dinarin?

讚转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 住驻拽 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 住驻拽 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

This is as it is taught in a mishna (Karetot 8a): In the case of a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five births, and likewise a woman for whom there was uncertainty with regard to five irregular discharges of blood from the uterus [ziva], she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her. If she has in her case five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava, she brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are an obligation for her.

诪注砖讛 讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬诐 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛诪注讜谉 讛讝讛 讗诐 讗诇讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 讘讚讬谞专讬谉 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜诇讬诪讚 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讞诪砖 诇讬讚讜转 讜讚讗讜转 讞诪砖 讝讬讘讜转 讜讚讗讜转 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讗讞讚 讜讗讜讻诇转 讘讝讘讞讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讗专 注诇讬讛 讞讜讘讛

That mishna continues: There was an incident where the price of nests, i.e., pairs of birds, stood in Jerusalem at golden dinarei, as the great demand for birds for the offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava led to an increase in the price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that I will not lie down tonight until the price of nests will be in dinarin. Ultimately, he entered the court and taught: A woman for whom there were five definite births or five definite discharges of a zava brings one offering, and then she may partake of the meat of offerings. And the remaining offerings are not an obligation for her.

讜注诪讚讜 拽讬谞讬谉 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讘专讘注转讬诐

The mishna concludes: And as a result, the price of the nests stood that day at one-quarter of a silver dinar, as the demand for nests decreased. It is clear in the mishna that the term dinarei indicates a higher value than the term dinarin.

讻转讜讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬诇诪讚 讛转讞转讜谉 诪谉 讛注诇讬讜谉 讘讗讜转 讗讞转 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If it is written in the document above that someone owes one hundred dinars, and below it is written two hundred dinars, or if above it is written two hundred and below one hundred, everything follows the bottom amount. If so, why does one write the information in the upper part of the document at all? It is a safety measure, so that if one letter is erased from the lower part of the document, thereby rendering it illegible, the information can be learned from the upper part of the document. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:4): Information concerning what is written below may be learned from what is written above if the lower text is missing one letter, but not if it is missing two letters. In that case, in the event of a discrepancy between information written above and information written below, the document is not valid.

讻讙讜谉 讞谞谉 诪讞谞谞讬 讜注谞谉 诪注谞谞讬

For example, if the name of one party is written as 岣nan below and 岣nani above, it may be derived from the word 岣nani written above that the party is named 岣nani. And similarly, if a name is written Anan below, it may be learned from the name Anani written above that the party is named Anani.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讚诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 讗专讘注 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讚砖诪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讜转 讗讞转 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讙讬讛 讚砖诪讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about two letters missing, that the baraita teaches that the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above? The Gemara suggests: It is out of concern that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a four-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be half of the name, and for this reason the Sages extended this concern to all cases where two letters are missing. The Gemara challenges: If so, the same could be said when one letter is missing as well, as perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a two-letter name, and the omission of one letter would be half of the name.

讗诇讗 砖转讬 讗讜转讬讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇诪讗 诪讬转专诪讬 砖诐 讘谉 砖诇砖 讗讜转讬讜转 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专讜讘讗 讚砖诪讗

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the reason that when two letters are missing the name written below cannot be corrected from the name written above: The concern is that perhaps it will occur by chance that there is a three-letter name, and the omission of two letters would be a majority of the name. The Sages applied this concern to all cases where two letters are missing.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 住驻诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜拽驻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 讛讻诇 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛转讞转讜谉

The Gemara continues to discuss discrepancies between the information written above and below in a document. Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me that if a document states above that one owes a sefel, a type of cup, and below it states kefel, a type of garment, everything is determined by the information written below. In this case there is not a missing letter at the bottom but an altered letter. Therefore, the information written below is not corrected from the information written above.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 拽驻诇 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜住驻诇 诪诇诪讟讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讘讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: What if it is stated kefel above and sefel below? The difference between the two words is that the former begins with kuf, whereas the latter begins with samekh. The orthographical difference between these two letters is a single stroke that extends downward, as the omission of the extension of this stroke would change kuf into samekh. Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma is: Are we concerned for the possibility that a fly landed on the stroke of the kuf, removing the ink and changing it into samekh? Or are we not concerned with this possibility? The Gemara comments: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讘 讘讬讛 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讜讝讜讝讗 砖诇讞讛 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 砖讬转 诪讗讛 讗讬住转讬专讬 讜讝讜讝讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讬转 诪讗讛 驻专讬讟讬 讜讝讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇 驻专讬讟讬 讚诇讗 讻转讘讬 讘砖讟专讗 讚讗住讜讻讬 诪住讻谉 诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain document in which it was written that the amount due was six hundred and a dinar, without specifying to which denomination the six hundred amount referred. Rav Sherevya sent this question before Abaye: Does the holder of the document collect six hundred istira and a dinar? Istira is another name for a sela, which equals four dinars. Or is he perhaps entitled to collect only six hundred perutot and a dinar, a peruta being a small fraction of a dinar? Abaye said to him: Remove the possibility of six hundred perutot, since people do not write large numbers of perutot in a document, as they instead combine them into larger denominations

Scroll To Top