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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2017 | 讟状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Batra 168

The gemara discusses why in particular cases one side needs to pay for the document to be written or why the mishna needed to specify that they needed to pay – isn’t is obvious? 聽A classic case of asmachta is brought – where one pays back part of one’s loan and both sides agree to give the document to a third party (instead of writing a receipt that part was paid). 聽If the borrower declares, “I will pay by a particular date and if not, you can return the document to the creditor,” there is a debate about whether or not the creditor can claim the whole amount (in the event that the loan is not paid back on time). 聽The gemara concludes that asmachta is not a valid transaction and one would not need to pay in this case. 聽What does one do if the document聽is erased or torn?


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

讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬讚 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙讬讚 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽

Once one has stated his testimony he may not then state a revision, this case of Rav Yirmeya is an exception, and he can retract his initial statement in which he supported the woman鈥檚 claim. The reason is that it is not the manner of a Torah scholar to be careful about identifying women, for reasons of modesty.

讛讛讜讗 转讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬讘专讗 讗谞转 讛讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讻讬讜谉 讚讚拽 讚拽

The Gemara relates: There was a certain receipt of payment for a marriage contract upon which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was signed. A woman whose name appeared on the receipt, who was seeking to collect payment of her marriage contract, said to him: It was not I, but another woman with the same name, who had this receipt written. He said to her: But it was you, and you are lying now. Abaye said: Although I said that it is not the manner of a Torah scholar to be careful about identifying women, once he is careful about such an identification and states positively that he recognizes a particular woman, he is careful.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讝讬诇 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗讬转转讗 谞讬讚讘专 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讞诇驻讜 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

Abaye said: A Torah scholar who goes to betroth a woman should take an ignoramus with him to establish a positive identity of the woman, lest people exchange another woman for her when given to him for marriage, taking advantage of his innocence.

讜讛讘注诇 谞讜转谉 砖讻专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻转讘 讜谞转谉 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 砖讚讬讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讗砖讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讛讬讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches that the husband gives the scribe鈥檚 wages for writing a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, he shall write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). It is therefore the husband鈥檚 responsibility to have the bill of divorce written. The Gemara adds: But today, the reason that we do not do so, but instead have the woman pay the scribe, is that the Sages placed the burden upon the woman, so that the husband should not delay the divorce by refusing to pay the scribe.

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诪讜 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘注讬住拽讗

The mishna teaches: A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him, and it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the debtor pays the wages? After all, he is the beneficiary of the loan. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as there are times when the loan is beneficial to the creditor as well, as in a case of a joint venture, where the creditor receives a share of the profits engendered by the money provided to the borrower (see Bava Metzia 104a).

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of property who requests one, even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, and it is the purchaser who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the purchaser pays the wages? After all, he is the beneficiary of the sale. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as sometimes the sale is beneficial to the seller as well, as in a case of one who sells a field because of its poor quality, as he is anxious to be rid of it.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞诪讜讛 诇拽专讜讘讬讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both the groom and the bride, and it is the groom who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the groom pays the wages? After all, he is the one acquiring his betrothed. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, to teach us that it applies even when the groom is a Torah scholar, in which case it gives his father-in-law satisfaction to bring him into his family by having him marry his daughter. Even in such a case, where the bride鈥檚 family is a beneficiary, it is the groom who pays the wages.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 讗专讬住讜转 讜拽讘诇谞讜转 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讘讜专讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him, and it is the sharecropper or contractor who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the contractor pays the wages? After all, the contract details his rights to the field. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as sometimes the deal is detrimental to the contractor, as in the case of a fallow field. It might have been thought that in this case the cost of the document is borne by the landowner.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 砖讟专讬 讟注谞转讗 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. The Gemara asks: What is meant by documents testifying to arbitration? Here in Babylonia the Sages interpreted it to mean documents recording the claims of the two parties to the litigation. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: A document testifying to arbitration is one that records the procedure in which the composition of the court is chosen, as described in tractate Sanhedrin (23a), whereby this litigant chooses one judge and that litigant chooses one judge, and these two judges choose the third one.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬讛诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜诇讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 诇讬诪讗 讘讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself and one for that one by himself. The Gemara analyzes the disagreement between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the first tanna, who did not call for two separate documents: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the principle that the court coerces people to prevent conduct characteristic of Sodom, i.e., selfish behavior? That is, the case is where one of the litigants does not want to contribute to the writing of a joint document, and insists that each litigant pay to have his own document written, which would entail an additional expenditure on the part of the other party.

讚诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉

The dispute is then as follows: As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the court coerces people to prevent this conduct, so the obstinate litigant is forced to pay his share of a joint document, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the court does not coerce people to prevent this conduct, and a litigant can insist upon paying only for a document of his own.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚转讛讜讬 讝讻讜转讱 讙讘讬 讝讻讜转讬 讚讚诪讬转 注诇讗讬 讻讬 讗专讬讗 讗专讘讗

The Gemara rejects this analysis: No, everyone in the mishna holds that the court coerces people to prevent conduct characteristic of Sodom, and here this is the reason for the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: It is because the litigant demanding separate documents is not making a pointless, selfish request at all, as he says to the other litigant: It is not amenable for me that your defense, i.e., the record of your claims, should be together with my defense, as you are to me like an ambushing lion, i.e., our interests are in conflict.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 讜讛砖诇讬砖 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 谞转转讬 诇讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 转谉 诇讜 砖讟专讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉

MISHNA: In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt and with the agreement of the creditor deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee to ensure that the creditor would not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I have not given you the balance from now until such and such a day, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated on the note, if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor did not give the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee should give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor鈥檚 stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee should not give it, as the stipulation is void.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

GEMARA: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? Rabbi Yosei holds that a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. In this case, the debtor willingly undertook a penalty if he would not repay the remainder of the debt on time. Yet, he did not think that he would miss the deadline and be held accountable to pay that penalty. Rabbi Yosei holds that he is nevertheless bound by his word. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, i.e., it is not binding.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇诪讚谞讜 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. When questioners came before Rabbi Ami, inquiring of him what the halakha is in this matter, he said to them: But since it is the case that Rabbi Yo岣nan taught us a first time and a second time, i.e., repeatedly, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, what can I do to contradict his words?

讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: But in fact the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., an asmakhta is not binding.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞诪讞拽 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜 诪注诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 拽讬讜诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 谞诪讞拽 砖讟专讜 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

MISHNA: In the case of a creditor whose promissory note has become erased, he should produce witnesses who remember the details of the document to testify about it. And they come before the court, and they ratify his promissory note for him, stating: The promissory note of so-and-so was erased, and it stated that a loan for such and such an amount took place on such and such a date,

讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜

and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. The ratification document is signed, and it may be used as a replacement for the erased document.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬讜诪讜 讘诪讜转讘 转诇转讗 讛讜讬谞讗 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讟专 诪讞讜拽 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讜讗诐 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛讜讝拽拽谞讜 诇注讚讜转谉 砖诇 注讚讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗转 注讚讜转谉 诪讻讜讜谞转 讙讜讘讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 1:16): What is the text of the ratification document of an erased document? The court writes as follows: We, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, were sitting as three judges, and so-and-so, son of so-and-so, produced an erased document before us, which was written on such and such a date, and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. And if it is written in this ratification document also: We engaged in the investigation of the testimony of the witnesses and their testimony has been found to be congruent, the creditor can collect his debt on the basis of this ratification document, and he does not need to bring further proof. But if this formula is not written, the creditor needs to bring further proof of the loan in order to collect it.

谞拽专注 驻住讜诇 谞转拽专注 讻砖专 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞讟砖讟砖 讗诐 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻砖专

The baraita continues with its discussion of damaged documents: If a promissory note was torn intentionally it is not valid, but if it became torn accidentally it is valid. In a case where it was erased or smudged, if its imprint is recognizable, i.e., if the words are still legible, though barely, it is valid.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞拽专注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞转拽专注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞拽专注 拽专注 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞转拽专注 拽专注 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara seeks to clarify the terms in the second part of the baraita: What are the circumstances, i.e., what are the defining characteristics, of a document that was torn, and what are the circumstances of a document that became torn? Rav Yehuda says: A document that was torn means that it had a tear created by the court, because they wished to render it not valid due to payment of the loan or some other circumstance. A document that became torn means it had a tear that was not created by the court.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专注 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜诪拽讜诐 讛讝诪谉 讜诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖转讬 讜注专讘

The Gemara seeks further clarification: What are the circumstances, i.e., what are the signs, of a document that had a tear created by the court? Rav Yehuda says: The document has a tear that ruins the place of the witnesses鈥 signatures and the place of the date and the place of the essential part of a document. Abaye says: It has a tear that goes both lengthwise and widthwise.

讛谞讛讜 注专讘讗讬 讚讗转讜 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 讗谞住讬 讗专注转讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗转讜 诪专讜讜转讬讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讞讝讬 诪专 砖讟专讬谉 讜诇讻转讜讘 诇谉 诪专 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诪讬转谞讬住 讞讚 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 讞讚 讘讬讚谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was once a certain group of Arabs who came to Pumbedita and who would rob people鈥檚 land and force the victims to surrender the deeds to their property to prevent subsequent legal action. The owners of land who had not yet had fallen victim to these Arabs came before Abaye and said to him: Let the Master look at our deeds to our property and let the Master write us another deed for it, so that if one of the deeds is robbed we will have the other one in our possession.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讻讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讚诇诪讗 讟专讬祝 讜讛讚专 讟专讬祝

Abaye said to them: What can I do for you? I cannot comply with your request, as Rav Safra says: One may not write two deeds of ownership for one field, lest the owner of that land repossess property once and then go back and repossess it once again. Generally, whenever real estate is sold there is a guarantee given to the purchaser in the event that the land is repossessed by the seller鈥檚 creditor or by someone else who proves that the land rightfully belongs to him. If the seller of the repossessed land has no money to honor the guarantee, the purchaser can repossess property from others who had purchased property from the same seller subsequent to the sale of the repossessed land. In order to do so, he would have to produce the bill of sale proving that he had purchased the repossessed property. If he has two such deeds, he would be able to collect payment twice. To eliminate this possibility, duplicate property deeds are not written.

讛讜讜 拽讗 讟专讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇住驻专讬讛 讝讬诇 讻转讜讘 诇讛讜 讛讜讗 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讚驻住讜诇

The landowners kept badgering Abaye to write the duplicate documents, until, in order to be rid of them, he said to his scribe: Go write the document for them, but first write on paper and then erase it, and then write the desired document over the erased text, so that the text of the document will be written over an erasure, and the signatures of its witnesses will be on a part of the paper where the writing had not been erased, a situation in which the document is not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞讟砖讟砖 讗诐 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: But perhaps the first writing on the paper was not erased thoroughly, so its imprint is recognizable, and it is taught in the baraita that in a case where the writing on a document was erased or smudged, if its imprint is recognizable, the document is valid. Abaye said to him: Did I say that he should write a proper document and then erase it? I said, i.e., I intended, that he should merely write letters of the alphabet [alef beit], not actual words.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讚 砖讟专 讞讜讘讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讻转讘谞讜 讜讞转诪谞讜 讜谞转谞谞讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one came to court and said: My promissory note was lost, even if witnesses said: We wrote and signed such a promissory note and gave it to this man, the court may not write a new document for him. The Gemara asks: In what case is this statement said? In the case of documents detailing loans. But in a case of deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the standard guarantee that was in the first document, which states that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 168

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 168

讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬讚 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜诪讙讬讚 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽

Once one has stated his testimony he may not then state a revision, this case of Rav Yirmeya is an exception, and he can retract his initial statement in which he supported the woman鈥檚 claim. The reason is that it is not the manner of a Torah scholar to be careful about identifying women, for reasons of modesty.

讛讛讜讗 转讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讞转讬诐 注诇讬讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗讬讘专讗 讗谞转 讛讜转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讚拽 讻讬讜谉 讚讚拽 讚拽

The Gemara relates: There was a certain receipt of payment for a marriage contract upon which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was signed. A woman whose name appeared on the receipt, who was seeking to collect payment of her marriage contract, said to him: It was not I, but another woman with the same name, who had this receipt written. He said to her: But it was you, and you are lying now. Abaye said: Although I said that it is not the manner of a Torah scholar to be careful about identifying women, once he is careful about such an identification and states positively that he recognizes a particular woman, he is careful.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗讝讬诇 诇拽讚讜砖讬 讗讬转转讗 谞讬讚讘专 注诐 讛讗专抓 讘讛讚讬讛 讚诇诪讗 诪讞诇驻讜 诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛

Abaye said: A Torah scholar who goes to betroth a woman should take an ignoramus with him to establish a positive identity of the woman, lest people exchange another woman for her when given to him for marriage, taking advantage of his innocence.

讜讛讘注诇 谞讜转谉 砖讻专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻转讘 讜谞转谉 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 砖讚讬讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 讗讗砖讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇砖讛讬讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches that the husband gives the scribe鈥檚 wages for writing a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara answers: As the verse states: 鈥淲hen a man takes a wife and marries her, and it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter in her, he shall write her a scroll of severance and give it in her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). It is therefore the husband鈥檚 responsibility to have the bill of divorce written. The Gemara adds: But today, the reason that we do not do so, but instead have the woman pay the scribe, is that the Sages placed the burden upon the woman, so that the husband should not delay the divorce by refusing to pay the scribe.

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诪讜 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘注讬住拽讗

The mishna teaches: A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him, and it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the debtor pays the wages? After all, he is the beneficiary of the loan. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as there are times when the loan is beneficial to the creditor as well, as in a case of a joint venture, where the creditor receives a share of the profits engendered by the money provided to the borrower (see Bava Metzia 104a).

讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of property who requests one, even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, and it is the purchaser who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the purchaser pays the wages? After all, he is the beneficiary of the sale. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as sometimes the sale is beneficial to the seller as well, as in a case of one who sells a field because of its poor quality, as he is anxious to be rid of it.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讞诪讜讛 诇拽专讜讘讬讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both the groom and the bride, and it is the groom who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the groom pays the wages? After all, he is the one acquiring his betrothed. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, to teach us that it applies even when the groom is a Torah scholar, in which case it gives his father-in-law satisfaction to bring him into his family by having him marry his daughter. Even in such a case, where the bride鈥檚 family is a beneficiary, it is the groom who pays the wages.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 讗专讬住讜转 讜拽讘诇谞讜转 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讘讜专讛

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him, and it is the sharecropper or contractor who provides the scribe鈥檚 wages. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that the contractor pays the wages? After all, the contract details his rights to the field. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to state this, as sometimes the deal is detrimental to the contractor, as in the case of a fallow field. It might have been thought that in this case the cost of the document is borne by the landowner.

讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 砖讟专讬 讟注谞转讗 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚

The mishna teaches: A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. The Gemara asks: What is meant by documents testifying to arbitration? Here in Babylonia the Sages interpreted it to mean documents recording the claims of the two parties to the litigation. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: A document testifying to arbitration is one that records the procedure in which the composition of the court is chosen, as described in tractate Sanhedrin (23a), whereby this litigant chooses one judge and that litigant chooses one judge, and these two judges choose the third one.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇砖谞讬讛诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 讜诇讝讛 讘注爪诪讜 诇讬诪讗 讘讻讜驻讬谉 注诇 诪讚转 住讚讜诐 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself and one for that one by himself. The Gemara analyzes the disagreement between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the first tanna, who did not call for two separate documents: Shall we say that they disagree with regard to the principle that the court coerces people to prevent conduct characteristic of Sodom, i.e., selfish behavior? That is, the case is where one of the litigants does not want to contribute to the writing of a joint document, and insists that each litigant pay to have his own document written, which would entail an additional expenditure on the part of the other party.

讚诪专 住讘专 讻讜驻讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉

The dispute is then as follows: As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the court coerces people to prevent this conduct, so the obstinate litigant is forced to pay his share of a joint document, and one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the court does not coerce people to prevent this conduct, and a litigant can insist upon paying only for a document of his own.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚转讛讜讬 讝讻讜转讱 讙讘讬 讝讻讜转讬 讚讚诪讬转 注诇讗讬 讻讬 讗专讬讗 讗专讘讗

The Gemara rejects this analysis: No, everyone in the mishna holds that the court coerces people to prevent conduct characteristic of Sodom, and here this is the reason for the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: It is because the litigant demanding separate documents is not making a pointless, selfish request at all, as he says to the other litigant: It is not amenable for me that your defense, i.e., the record of your claims, should be together with my defense, as you are to me like an ambushing lion, i.e., our interests are in conflict.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 讜讛砖诇讬砖 讗转 砖讟专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讗诐 诇讗 谞转转讬 诇讱 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 转谉 诇讜 砖讟专讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉

MISHNA: In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt and with the agreement of the creditor deposited the promissory note with a third party serving as a trustee to ensure that the creditor would not collect the full amount, and the debtor said to the trustee: If I have not given you the balance from now until such and such a day, give the creditor his promissory note, thereby enabling him to collect the full amount stated on the note, if the stipulated time arrived and the debtor did not give the balance to the trustee, Rabbi Yosei says: The trustee should give the promissory note to the creditor, in accordance with the debtor鈥檚 stipulation. Rabbi Yehuda says: The trustee should not give it, as the stipulation is void.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗住诪讻转讗 拽谞讬讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

GEMARA: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? Rabbi Yosei holds that a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta] effects acquisition. In this case, the debtor willingly undertook a penalty if he would not repay the remainder of the debt on time. Yet, he did not think that he would miss the deadline and be held accountable to pay that penalty. Rabbi Yosei holds that he is nevertheless bound by his word. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, i.e., it is not binding.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诇诪讚谞讜 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗谞讬 诪讛 讗注砖讛

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. When questioners came before Rabbi Ami, inquiring of him what the halakha is in this matter, he said to them: But since it is the case that Rabbi Yo岣nan taught us a first time and a second time, i.e., repeatedly, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, what can I do to contradict his words?

讜讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara concludes: But in fact the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., an asmakhta is not binding.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞诪讞拽 砖讟专 讞讜讘讜 诪注诪讬讚 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讜 拽讬讜诐 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 谞诪讞拽 砖讟专讜 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬

MISHNA: In the case of a creditor whose promissory note has become erased, he should produce witnesses who remember the details of the document to testify about it. And they come before the court, and they ratify his promissory note for him, stating: The promissory note of so-and-so was erased, and it stated that a loan for such and such an amount took place on such and such a date,

讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜

and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. The ratification document is signed, and it may be used as a replacement for the erased document.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 拽讬讜诪讜 讘诪讜转讘 转诇转讗 讛讜讬谞讗 讗谞讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讛讜爪讬讗 驻诇讜谞讬 讘谉 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讟专 诪讞讜拽 诇驻谞讬谞讜 讘讬讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讜讗诐 讻转讜讘 讘讜 讛讜讝拽拽谞讜 诇注讚讜转谉 砖诇 注讚讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗转 注讚讜转谉 诪讻讜讜谞转 讙讜讘讛 讜讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 1:16): What is the text of the ratification document of an erased document? The court writes as follows: We, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so, were sitting as three judges, and so-and-so, son of so-and-so, produced an erased document before us, which was written on such and such a date, and so-and-so and so-and-so were its witnesses. And if it is written in this ratification document also: We engaged in the investigation of the testimony of the witnesses and their testimony has been found to be congruent, the creditor can collect his debt on the basis of this ratification document, and he does not need to bring further proof. But if this formula is not written, the creditor needs to bring further proof of the loan in order to collect it.

谞拽专注 驻住讜诇 谞转拽专注 讻砖专 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞讟砖讟砖 讗诐 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻砖专

The baraita continues with its discussion of damaged documents: If a promissory note was torn intentionally it is not valid, but if it became torn accidentally it is valid. In a case where it was erased or smudged, if its imprint is recognizable, i.e., if the words are still legible, though barely, it is valid.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞拽专注 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 谞转拽专注 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 谞拽专注 拽专注 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞转拽专注 拽专注 砖讗讬谞讜 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara seeks to clarify the terms in the second part of the baraita: What are the circumstances, i.e., what are the defining characteristics, of a document that was torn, and what are the circumstances of a document that became torn? Rav Yehuda says: A document that was torn means that it had a tear created by the court, because they wished to render it not valid due to payment of the loan or some other circumstance. A document that became torn means it had a tear that was not created by the court.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 拽专注 砖诇 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪拽讜诐 注讚讬诐 讜诪拽讜诐 讛讝诪谉 讜诪拽讜诐 讛转讜专祝 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 砖转讬 讜注专讘

The Gemara seeks further clarification: What are the circumstances, i.e., what are the signs, of a document that had a tear created by the court? Rav Yehuda says: The document has a tear that ruins the place of the witnesses鈥 signatures and the place of the date and the place of the essential part of a document. Abaye says: It has a tear that goes both lengthwise and widthwise.

讛谞讛讜 注专讘讗讬 讚讗转讜 诇驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讚讛讜讜 拽讗 讗谞住讬 讗专注转讗 讚讗讬谞砖讬 讗转讜 诪专讜讜转讬讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讬讞讝讬 诪专 砖讟专讬谉 讜诇讻转讜讘 诇谉 诪专 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 注诇讬讛 讚讗讬 诪讬转谞讬住 讞讚 谞拽讬讟讬谞谉 讞讚 讘讬讚谉

搂 The Gemara relates: There was once a certain group of Arabs who came to Pumbedita and who would rob people鈥檚 land and force the victims to surrender the deeds to their property to prevent subsequent legal action. The owners of land who had not yet had fallen victim to these Arabs came before Abaye and said to him: Let the Master look at our deeds to our property and let the Master write us another deed for it, so that if one of the deeds is robbed we will have the other one in our possession.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讗注讘讬讚 诇讻讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转 讚诇诪讗 讟专讬祝 讜讛讚专 讟专讬祝

Abaye said to them: What can I do for you? I cannot comply with your request, as Rav Safra says: One may not write two deeds of ownership for one field, lest the owner of that land repossess property once and then go back and repossess it once again. Generally, whenever real estate is sold there is a guarantee given to the purchaser in the event that the land is repossessed by the seller鈥檚 creditor or by someone else who proves that the land rightfully belongs to him. If the seller of the repossessed land has no money to honor the guarantee, the purchaser can repossess property from others who had purchased property from the same seller subsequent to the sale of the repossessed land. In order to do so, he would have to produce the bill of sale proving that he had purchased the repossessed property. If he has two such deeds, he would be able to collect payment twice. To eliminate this possibility, duplicate property deeds are not written.

讛讜讜 拽讗 讟专讚讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇住驻专讬讛 讝讬诇 讻转讜讘 诇讛讜 讛讜讗 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讚驻住讜诇

The landowners kept badgering Abaye to write the duplicate documents, until, in order to be rid of them, he said to his scribe: Go write the document for them, but first write on paper and then erase it, and then write the desired document over the erased text, so that the text of the document will be written over an erasure, and the signatures of its witnesses will be on a part of the paper where the writing had not been erased, a situation in which the document is not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讚诇诪讗 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讜转谞讬讗 谞诪讞拽 讗讜 谞讟砖讟砖 讗诐 专讬砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讗诇祝 讘讬转 讘注诇诪讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rav A岣 bar Minyumi said to Abaye: But perhaps the first writing on the paper was not erased thoroughly, so its imprint is recognizable, and it is taught in the baraita that in a case where the writing on a document was erased or smudged, if its imprint is recognizable, the document is valid. Abaye said to him: Did I say that he should write a proper document and then erase it? I said, i.e., I intended, that he should merely write letters of the alphabet [alef beit], not actual words.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讘讚 砖讟专 讞讜讘讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 注讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讻转讘谞讜 讜讞转诪谞讜 讜谞转谞谞讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讻讜转讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讗讞专讬讜转 砖讘讜

The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one came to court and said: My promissory note was lost, even if witnesses said: We wrote and signed such a promissory note and gave it to this man, the court may not write a new document for him. The Gemara asks: In what case is this statement said? In the case of documents detailing loans. But in a case of deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the standard guarantee that was in the first document, which states that if the field is repossessed the seller will compensate the purchaser for his loss.

Scroll To Top