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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 11, 2017 | 讬状讝 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 170

Study Guide Bava Batra 170. A braita is brought regarding one who comes to court claiming one has proof of ownership of the land both in the form of a shtar and a chazaka (lived on the land for 3 years without the owner protesting). 聽There is a debate between Rebbi and Rashbag about whether one needs to bring the shtar聽or the chazaka as proof (or either or). 聽The gemara聽brings 5 explanations as to what the case is and therefore what is at the root of the debate. 聽If one pays back half of a loan – what is do

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 住讘专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

The Gemara explains: This is a case where one party sold land to another, who then sold it to a third party by transferring the bill of sale to him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are not acquired by transferring possession of the document. Handing the bill to the third party is therefore not a valid act of acquisition. In in order to establish that the land is his, one must prove presumptive ownership by demonstrating that he has lived in the land uncontested for three years. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the letters are acquired by transferring possession of the document. Therefore, if the third party produces the bill of sale that had been transferred to him, this is sufficient proof that the land is his.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜转驻诇讜讙

Abaye objected and said to Rav Dimi: If that is so, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that letters are not acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale, this would be in disagreement with what the Master, Rabba, said earlier, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that letters are acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale. Rav Dimi said back to him: And let it be in disagreement. I am not obligated to be in agreement with Rabba.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬转专爪讗 讗诇讗 讻讚诪转专爪讗 诪专 讜讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Abaye clarified his objection and said to him: This is what I meant to say to you. The baraita (168b), which Rabba was explaining, can be explained only the way the Master, Rabba, explained it. And if so, i.e., if you do not agree with Rabba鈥檚 understanding of the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is a difficulty, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the other statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇

Rather, Abaye said that the explanation of the baraita concerning one who appears before a court to be judged is as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one of the witnesses signed on the bill was found to be a relative to one of the parties, or he was found to be disqualified from bearing witness for another reason, and therefore the document is rendered invalid.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

Abaye continues: And the two opinions in the baraita disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of the transmission of the document effect the transaction, meaning that witnesses are not required to be signed on a document at all, provided that there are witnesses who saw the transfer of the document to the relevant party. It is therefore inconsequential that one of the witnesses that signed the document is disqualified. This is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the claim is judged based on the deed, i.e., the deed is valid.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction, meaning that it is necessary for a document to have witnesses sign it. If there are no witnesses or if one or both of them are disqualified, the document is not valid even if its transmission is witnessed by qualified witnesses. This is why Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the claim is judged based on the claimant鈥檚 presumptive ownership; this is his only valid proof since the deed he possesses is not valid.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇

The Gemara objects to Abaye鈥檚 explanation: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rabbi Elazar concedes that in the case of a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is not valid? Rabbi Elazar said only that a document that has no witnesses signed on it at all is valid if its transmission was witnessed. If the document has disqualified witnesses, he agrees it is not valid.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 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 诪讝讜讬讬驻转 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

Rather, Rabbi Avina said a modification of Abaye鈥檚 explanation. All concede that if it is written in the document: We, the court, engaged in an investigation of the testimony of the witnesses and have determined that they signed the document, and their testimony was found to be false, the document is not valid, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba. They disagree only with regard to a document upon which there are no witnesses signed at all. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of the transmission of the document effect the transaction. Signatory witnesses are not necessary, and the deed can therefore be used as proof. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction, so the deed cannot be used. Therefore, the only valid proof would be based on his presumptive ownership.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara suggests: And if you wish, say instead: The case in the baraita is one where the alleged purchaser has a bill of sale for the land, but the alleged seller, although he admits that the document was written with his consent, claims that the sale did not ultimately occur, and that the alleged purchaser took the document from him. And the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree, with regard to the halakha in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, whether the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to collect, and, by extension, in a case where a seller admits that he wrote a bill of sale, whether the purchaser must ratify it in court in order to establish its validity.

讚专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

As, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect what is owed to him. In this case as well, the purchaser can use the bill of sale as proof that he is the rightful owner of the property. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to use it to collect the debt. In this case as well, since the purchaser is unable to ratify it, his only recourse to prove his ownership is showing that he lived in the land uncontested for three years.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讚讜拽讬谉 讘砖讟专 诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 讜谞驻诇 诪诪谞讬 讜诪爪讗转讜 讜诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讜驻专注转讬讜 诇讱 讬转拽讬讬诐 讛砖讟专 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we hear the opposite concerning Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 1:8) that if two people, the debtor and the creditor, are grasping a promissory note, and the creditor says: It is mine, i.e., the debt has not yet been paid, and it fell from me, and you, the debtor, found it, and the debtor says: It is in fact yours, i.e., I did borrow the money from you, but I paid you and was given the promissory note, and it fell from me, and you found it, the promissory note must be ratified through its signatories, even though the debtor admits it is a valid document. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They should divide the amount written in the promissory note, i.e., the debtor must pay half of the recorded sum to the creditor.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘讟诇讬转 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 诪爪讗转讬讛 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 诪爪讗转讬讛 讝讛 讬砖讘注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞爪讬讛 讜讝讛 讬砖讘注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞爪讬讛 讜讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara explains: And we discussed it once before and asked the following question about it: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree to that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 2a), with regard to two people who came to court holding a garment, where this one is saying: I found it, and that one is saying: I found it; that this one takes an oath that he does not have claim to less than half of it, and that one takes an oath that he does not have claim to less than half of it, and they divide it? Why does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that in a case where the debtor and creditor are grasping a promissory note, there too they should divide the money?

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪拽讜讬讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讬讞诇讜拽讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜讬讬诐 专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讗讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And in response to this question Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: In the case of a ratified promissory note, everyone agrees that they should divide it. Where they disagree is in the case of a note that is not ratified. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt from him. And if he successfully ratifies it, the creditor collects half of the recorded sum, since the two parties are contesting ownership of the document. And if he is not successful in ratifying the note, it is merely a shard, i.e., a worthless piece of paper.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讬讞诇讜拽讜

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. Since the note is valid and fit for collection, they should divide it, i.e., the creditor collects half the sum, as the ownership of the document is contested. The positions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are therefore the reverse of what the Gemara proposed in its explanation of the first baraita.

讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Reverse the way the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are recorded in one of the two baraitot so that they are consistent in both baraitot.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诇讘专专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not reverse their opinions. There is no contradiction between them, because the issue in the first baraita is not whether or not a bill of sale must be ratified when the seller admits that he wrote it. Rather, here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to verifying, i.e., they disagree about whether a litigant is required to verify all his claims in circumstances where his case is strong enough to have the court rule in his favor even if they were to disregard some of his claims. Generally, if one has evidence of presumptive ownership of a field he does not have to produce a bill of sale for it. Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since the one occupying the land claims that he has a bill of sale, he must verify this claim by producing it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is not required to produce it, as the claim of presumptive ownership suffices.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讬讘讜讗讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬谞讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专注讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara explains: It is like this case where Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. The case came before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. Rabbi Abba said: I already repaid you the debt in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: The witnesses you have named, so-and-so and so-and-so, must come and testify that they saw you repay the loan. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: If they do not come, am I not deemed credible to say that I repaid the loan? But don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the debtor need not repay him in the presence of witnesses, as he is deemed credible to say he repaid the debt even with no supporting testimony?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讻砖诪注转讗 讚诪专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讜讗讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗祝 专讘讬 诇讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: With regard to this issue, I hold like the halakha said by the Master, i.e., you yourself. As Rabbi Abba says that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav says: If one says to another, i.e., if a debtor says to his creditor: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, it is required that so-and-so and so-and-so come to court and testify that they witnessed the repayment. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that it is not required that a litigant verify all his stated claims if his case is sufficiently strong without those claims? And moreover, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not

讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讘专专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讘专专 拽讗诪讬谞讗

say that the litigant loses the case if he cannot produce verification of his extraneous claims, but only that he is told to verify those claims if he can. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: I, too, am saying only that you are required to verify your claim if you can; if you cannot, you will not be required to pay.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讬祝 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻转讜讘 砖讜讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讬讜转 砖讜诪专 砖讜讘专讜 诪谉 讛注讻讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讬驻讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 讬专注 讻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛

MISHNA: In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to this arrangement: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice, as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him; it is better that this procedure be followed, and the strength of the claim of this creditor not be weakened.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽专注讬谉 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

GEMARA: Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rather, the halakha is that the court tears up the original promissory note and writes a different promissory note for the creditor, listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讗 [讘专讬讬转讗] 讚转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 诪拽专注讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said this to Rav Huna: If Rav would have heard this following baraita, as it is taught in a baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda the proper procedure is that the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for the creditor listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document, he would have retracted his statement that the court tears the promissory note and writes a new one.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

Rav Huna said to him: Rav heard the baraita, and nevertheless he did not retract his statement. While Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita that the witnesses write a new promissory note, Rav maintains that this must be done specifically by a court. Why is this?

  • 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 170

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 170

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛 讜专讘讬 住讘专 讗讜转讬讜转 谞拽谞讜转 讘诪住讬专讛

The Gemara explains: This is a case where one party sold land to another, who then sold it to a third party by transferring the bill of sale to him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the letters are not acquired by transferring possession of the document. Handing the bill to the third party is therefore not a valid act of acquisition. In in order to establish that the land is his, one must prove presumptive ownership by demonstrating that he has lived in the land uncontested for three years. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the letters are acquired by transferring possession of the document. Therefore, if the third party produces the bill of sale that had been transferred to him, this is sufficient proof that the land is his.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 讻谉 驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜转驻诇讜讙

Abaye objected and said to Rav Dimi: If that is so, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that letters are not acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale, this would be in disagreement with what the Master, Rabba, said earlier, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that letters are acquired by transferring possession of the bill of sale. Rav Dimi said back to him: And let it be in disagreement. I am not obligated to be in agreement with Rabba.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 诪转谞讬转讗 诇讗 诪讬转专爪讗 讗诇讗 讻讚诪转专爪讗 诪专 讜讗诐 讻谉 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Abaye clarified his objection and said to him: This is what I meant to say to you. The baraita (168b), which Rabba was explaining, can be explained only the way the Master, Rabba, explained it. And if so, i.e., if you do not agree with Rabba鈥檚 understanding of the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is a difficulty, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the other statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞诪爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 拽专讜讘 讗讜 驻住讜诇

Rather, Abaye said that the explanation of the baraita concerning one who appears before a court to be judged is as follows: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where one of the witnesses signed on the bill was found to be a relative to one of the parties, or he was found to be disqualified from bearing witness for another reason, and therefore the document is rendered invalid.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬

Abaye continues: And the two opinions in the baraita disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of the transmission of the document effect the transaction, meaning that witnesses are not required to be signed on a document at all, provided that there are witnesses who saw the transfer of the document to the relevant party. It is therefore inconsequential that one of the witnesses that signed the document is disqualified. This is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the claim is judged based on the deed, i.e., the deed is valid.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction, meaning that it is necessary for a document to have witnesses sign it. If there are no witnesses or if one or both of them are disqualified, the document is not valid even if its transmission is witnessed by qualified witnesses. This is why Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that the claim is judged based on the claimant鈥檚 presumptive ownership; this is his only valid proof since the deed he possesses is not valid.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讝讜讬讬祝 诪转讜讻讜 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇

The Gemara objects to Abaye鈥檚 explanation: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba say that Rabbi Elazar concedes that in the case of a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is not valid? Rabbi Elazar said only that a document that has no witnesses signed on it at all is valid if its transmission was witnessed. If the document has disqualified witnesses, he agrees it is not valid.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 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 诪讝讜讬讬驻转 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 讻讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 讻专转讬

Rather, Rabbi Avina said a modification of Abaye鈥檚 explanation. All concede that if it is written in the document: We, the court, engaged in an investigation of the testimony of the witnesses and have determined that they signed the document, and their testimony was found to be false, the document is not valid, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Abba. They disagree only with regard to a document upon which there are no witnesses signed at all. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: The witnesses of the transmission of the document effect the transaction. Signatory witnesses are not necessary, and the deed can therefore be used as proof. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: The signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction, so the deed cannot be used. Therefore, the only valid proof would be based on his presumptive ownership.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara suggests: And if you wish, say instead: The case in the baraita is one where the alleged purchaser has a bill of sale for the land, but the alleged seller, although he admits that the document was written with his consent, claims that the sale did not ultimately occur, and that the alleged purchaser took the document from him. And the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree, with regard to the halakha in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, whether the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to collect, and, by extension, in a case where a seller admits that he wrote a bill of sale, whether the purchaser must ratify it in court in order to establish its validity.

讚专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜

As, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect what is owed to him. In this case as well, the purchaser can use the bill of sale as proof that he is the rightful owner of the property. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to use it to collect the debt. In this case as well, since the purchaser is unable to ratify it, his only recourse to prove his ownership is showing that he lived in the land uncontested for three years.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讗讚讜拽讬谉 讘砖讟专 诪诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 讜谞驻诇 诪诪谞讬 讜诪爪讗转讜 讜诇讜讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讜驻专注转讬讜 诇讱 讬转拽讬讬诐 讛砖讟专 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we hear the opposite concerning Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 1:8) that if two people, the debtor and the creditor, are grasping a promissory note, and the creditor says: It is mine, i.e., the debt has not yet been paid, and it fell from me, and you, the debtor, found it, and the debtor says: It is in fact yours, i.e., I did borrow the money from you, but I paid you and was given the promissory note, and it fell from me, and you found it, the promissory note must be ratified through its signatories, even though the debtor admits it is a valid document. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They should divide the amount written in the promissory note, i.e., the debtor must pay half of the recorded sum to the creditor.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗 讚转谞谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讜讞讝讬谉 讘讟诇讬转 讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 诪爪讗转讬讛 讜讝讛 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 诪爪讗转讬讛 讝讛 讬砖讘注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞爪讬讛 讜讝讛 讬砖讘注 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞爪讬讛 讜讬讞诇讜拽讜

The Gemara explains: And we discussed it once before and asked the following question about it: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree to that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 2a), with regard to two people who came to court holding a garment, where this one is saying: I found it, and that one is saying: I found it; that this one takes an oath that he does not have claim to less than half of it, and that one takes an oath that he does not have claim to less than half of it, and they divide it? Why does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that in a case where the debtor and creditor are grasping a promissory note, there too they should divide the money?

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘诪拽讜讬讬诐 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讬讞诇讜拽讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪拽讜讬讬诐 专讘讬 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讗讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讙讘讬 驻诇讙讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

And in response to this question Rava said that Rav Na岣an said: In the case of a ratified promissory note, everyone agrees that they should divide it. Where they disagree is in the case of a note that is not ratified. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt from him. And if he successfully ratifies it, the creditor collects half of the recorded sum, since the two parties are contesting ownership of the document. And if he is not successful in ratifying the note, it is merely a shard, i.e., a worthless piece of paper.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 诪讜讚讛 讘砖讟专 砖讻转讘讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽讬讬诪讜 讜讬讞诇讜拽讜

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. Since the note is valid and fit for collection, they should divide it, i.e., the creditor collects half the sum, as the ownership of the document is contested. The positions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are therefore the reverse of what the Gemara proposed in its explanation of the first baraita.

讗讬驻讜讱

The Gemara answers: Reverse the way the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are recorded in one of the two baraitot so that they are consistent in both baraitot.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诇讘专专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, do not reverse their opinions. There is no contradiction between them, because the issue in the first baraita is not whether or not a bill of sale must be ratified when the seller admits that he wrote it. Rather, here the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to verifying, i.e., they disagree about whether a litigant is required to verify all his claims in circumstances where his case is strong enough to have the court rule in his favor even if they were to disregard some of his claims. Generally, if one has evidence of presumptive ownership of a field he does not have to produce a bill of sale for it. Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that since the one occupying the land claims that he has a bill of sale, he must verify this claim by producing it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is not required to produce it, as the claim of presumptive ownership suffices.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讬讘讜讗讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讜 诇讗 诪讛讬诪谞讬谞讗 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇驻专注讜 讘注讚讬诐

The Gemara explains: It is like this case where Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. The case came before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. Rabbi Abba said: I already repaid you the debt in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: The witnesses you have named, so-and-so and so-and-so, must come and testify that they saw you repay the loan. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: If they do not come, am I not deemed credible to say that I repaid the loan? But don鈥檛 we maintain that with regard to one who lends money to another in the presence of witnesses, the debtor need not repay him in the presence of witnesses, as he is deemed credible to say he repaid the debt even with no supporting testimony?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讘讛讛讬讗 讻砖诪注转讗 讚诪专 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘驻谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 爪专讬讱 砖讬讘讜讗讜 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜讬注讬讚讜 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗祝 专讘讬 诇讗

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: With regard to this issue, I hold like the halakha said by the Master, i.e., you yourself. As Rabbi Abba says that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav says: If one says to another, i.e., if a debtor says to his creditor: I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, it is required that so-and-so and so-and-so come to court and testify that they witnessed the repayment. Rabbi Abba said to Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, that it is not required that a litigant verify all his stated claims if his case is sufficiently strong without those claims? And moreover, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not

讗诪专 讗诇讗 诇讘专专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讘专专 拽讗诪讬谞讗

say that the litigant loses the case if he cannot produce verification of his extraneous claims, but only that he is told to verify those claims if he can. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said to Rabbi Abba: I, too, am saying only that you are required to verify your claim if you can; if you cannot, you will not be required to pay.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖驻专注 诪拽爪转 讞讜讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讞诇讬祝 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讻转讜讘 砖讜讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪爪讗 讝讛 爪专讬讱 诇讛讬讜转 砖讜诪专 砖讜讘专讜 诪谉 讛注讻讘专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讻讱 讬驻讛 诇讜 讜诇讗 讬专注 讻讞讜 砖诇 讝讛

MISHNA: In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. Rabbi Yehuda said with regard to this arrangement: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice, as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him; it is better that this procedure be followed, and the strength of the claim of this creditor not be weakened.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪拽专注讬谉 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

GEMARA: Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rather, the halakha is that the court tears up the original promissory note and writes a different promissory note for the creditor, listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讗 [讘专讬讬转讗] 讚转谞讬讗 注讚讬诐 诪拽专注讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said this to Rav Huna: If Rav would have heard this following baraita, as it is taught in a baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda the proper procedure is that the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for the creditor listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document, he would have retracted his statement that the court tears the promissory note and writes a new one.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛

Rav Huna said to him: Rav heard the baraita, and nevertheless he did not retract his statement. While Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita that the witnesses write a new promissory note, Rav maintains that this must be done specifically by a court. Why is this?

Scroll To Top