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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2017 | 讻状讘 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 175a

More discussions regarding different types of guarantors for different types of situations. 聽In which cases do we assume the guarantor will have to pay and in which do we not assume? 聽Do we take into consideration whether or not the debtor had money at the time of the transaction? 聽If one says on one’s deathbed that money is owed to someone – is that statement believed or should we assume that the person was only trying to make it look like his/her sons don’t have a lot of money. 聽Would the same apply in a case where all the money was dedicated to the temple rather than to his sons? 聽Another law is brought regarding the inheritor’s ability to claim that the bequeather may have said he/she owed someone money but then said that they had paid them back – in what case are they believed and in what case are they not believed.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜

Here, too, with regard to the Temple treasury, apply the same principle and say: A person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated. It is therefore possible that the money was not owed, and payment should not be made from the consecrated property.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛转诐 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗

The Gemara answers: When does Rav Huna say that payment should be made there, in the case of a person on his deathbed who consecrated all his property? In a case where the creditor, to whom the deceased admitted owing money, holds a promissory note corroborating the deceased鈥檚 admission.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

The Gemara comments: By inference, the statement of Rav and Shmuel, where the money is not given to the creditor unless the person on his deathbed explicitly requests that it be given, is applicable in a case where the creditor does not hold a promissory note corroborating the admission. The Gemara asks: If so, how can it be that if the deceased says: Give him the money, the children give it to him, i.e., it is collected from the estate left to the heirs, as it is a loan by oral contract, and as Rav and Shmuel both say: One does not collect a loan by oral contract from heirs nor from purchasers who bought land from the debtor after the loan was granted?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪拽讜讬讬诐 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讜讬讬诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛

The Gemara gives a different answer to this question. Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Both this case and that case are discussing where the creditor holds a promissory note corroborating the deceased鈥檚 admission. And yet it is not difficult. In this ruling of Rav Huna, the case is where the creditor鈥檚 promissory note has been ratified by the court, and in that ruling of Rav and Shmuel, the case is where the creditor鈥檚 promissory note has not been ratified by the court. Therefore, in the latter case, if the person on his deathbed says: Give him the money, he has in effect ratified the creditor鈥檚 promissory note, and if he did not say: Give him the money, he has not ratified the creditor鈥檚 promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 驻专注谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 驻专注谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉

Rabba says that in the case of a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, and the orphans who inherited his property subsequently said: We repaid the debt, they are deemed credible. But if the father said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe it to him, and subsequently the orphans said: We repaid him the money, they are not deemed credible.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 诇诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚驻专注讬讛 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽 讗讘讜讛讜谉 诇诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇讗 驻专注讬讛

The Gemara objects: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelappei layya]? The opposite is more reasonable. If the father says: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, since their father stated the matter assertively, as he gave an explicit directive, it could be said that the heirs repaid the money. But if he said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, since the orphans鈥 father did not state the matter assertively, it could be said that the heirs did not repay the creditor.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讚讻讜专讬 诪讬讚讻专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讗 驻专注转讬 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专 转谞讜

The Gemara reformulates Rabba鈥檚 statement: Rather, if Rabba鈥檚 statement was stated, it was stated as follows: In a case of a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, and the orphans subsequently said: After his admission, Father retracted his words and said to us: I repaid the debt, they are deemed credible. What is the reason for this? At first the father had forgotten, but subsequently he remembered repaying the debt. But if the father says assertively: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and the orphans subsequently said: Afterward Father retracted his words and said: I repaid the debt, they are not deemed credible. The reason is that if it is so that the father repaid the debt or was uncertain about the matter, he would not say with such assertiveness: Give the money to him.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讻转讜讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讻转讜讘讜 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛

Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to a person on his deathbed who, upon hearing someone鈥檚 monetary claim against him, admitted owing the money to him, what is the halakha? Is it required for him to say to two people: You are my witnesses, as is usually necessary in order to prove that an admission is stated in earnest and not in jest? Or is it perhaps not required for him to say: You are my witnesses, since he is a person on his deathbed, whose instructions are generally binding? Is it required that he say to two people: Write my admission in a document, as is usually required, or is it not required for him to say: Write my admission in a document? The issue in question here is: Does a person sometimes jest at the time of death, i.e., while on his deathbed, or can it be assumed that a person does not jest at the time of death?

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讜讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬谉 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜

After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolved it, and ruled: A person does not jest at the time of death, and therefore the statements of a person on his deathbed are considered as if they were written in a document and transmitted to the relevant party.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

MISHNA: One who lends money to another by means of a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that had been sold to others by the debtor after the loan was granted. One who lends money by means of witnesses, without recording the loan in a promissory note, can collect the debt only from unsold property.

讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讜 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property.

注专讘 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讗讞专 讞讬转讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

In the case of a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the signing of the promissory note, the creditor can collect the sum only from unsold property of the guarantor.

诪注砖讛 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The mishna relates: An incident occurred where such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor can collect the sum from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the sum from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讞讜谞拽 讗转 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇讜 [ 讜讗谞讬 讗转谉 诇讱] 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 注诇 讗诪讜谞转讜 讛诇讜讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 注专讘 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 注诇 讗诪讜谞转讜 讛诇讜讛讜

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Why not? Ben Nannas said to him: If one was strangling someone in the marketplace, demanding repayment of a loan, and another person found him doing so and said to the attacker: Leave him alone and I will give you the money he owes, the person who intervened is exempt from paying, as the creditor did not loan the money in the first place based on his trust of the one who intervened. Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: Lend money to him, and I will give you the repayment, as in that case the creditor did loan the money based on his trust of the guarantor.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讞讻讬诐 讬注住讜拽 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 诪拽爪讜注 讘转讜专讛 讬讜转专 诪讛谉 讜讛谉 讻诪注讬讬谉 讛谞讜讘注 讜讛专讜爪讛 砖讬注住讜拽 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讬砖诪砖 讗转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 谞谞住

And Rabbi Yishmael thereupon said: One who wants to become wise should engage in the study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And, he added, one who wants to engage in the study of monetary law should attend to, i.e., become a disciple of, Shimon ben Nannas.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 讚诇拽讜讞讜转

GEMARA: Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor, whether in the case of a loan with a promissory note or the case of a loan by oral contract, can collect the debt from liened property that has been sold by the debtor subsequent to his receiving the loan. What is the reason for this? The property of a debtor at the time of the loan, even an oral loan, is liened by Torah law. And what is the reason the Sages said that one who gives a loan by oral contract can collect the debt only from unsold property? Because of the loss that would be incurred by purchasers of land if the seller鈥檚 creditors could seize the land they have purchased.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗驻住讬讚讜 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, a loan with a promissory note should also not be collected from purchasers of property, as this would cause them a loss. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a loan recorded in a promissory note, the purchasers, who neglected to investigate the financial status of the seller before purchasing land from him, brought the loss upon themselves. By contrast, loans by oral contract are often impossible to discover, even with a thorough investigation.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讬谉

And Rabba says: By Torah law, a creditor, whether in the case of a loan with a promissory note or the case of a loan by oral contract, can collect the debt only from the debtor鈥檚 unsold property. What is the reason for this? The property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law. And what is the reason the Sages said that one who gives a loan with a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that has been sold? So as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If one could not collect a debt by taking liened property that has been sold, people would be hesitant to put their money at risk by lending it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that there is a desire to encourage people to lend money by granting greater power of collection to creditors, a loan by oral contract should also be collectible from liened property that has been sold. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a loan by oral contract, it has no publicity associated with it, so that purchasers often cannot find out about it, even after a thorough investigation, and it would be an unfair burden on them to have the property purchased by them seized in such cases.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabba really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba say, in the case of a firstborn son, that if he and his brothers collected a debt from land, he has the right to receive a double portion of that payment, but if they collected a debt from money, he does not have the right to a double portion? A firstborn son is entitled to a double share of inheritance of any property that was owned by his father at the time of his death, but not to profits or income that accrue to the estate after his death. If a debt owed to the father is collected from land after his death, Rabba said that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion, indicating that the land was considered in the father鈥檚 possession even before he died, which indicates that Rabba holds that the property of a debtor is liened to a creditor by Torah law.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讛 诇注讜诇讗 讜讚注讜诇讗 诇专讘讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讬谞讬讛 讘讝讘讜专讬转

And if you would say: The opinions as they were cited earlier are attributed incorrectly, and it is necessary to reverse the two opinions, and exchange the opinion of Rabba for that of Ulla, and that of Ulla for that of Rabba, there is a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Ulla say elsewhere: By Torah law the halakha of a creditor is to collect his debt only from inferior-quality land?

讗诇讗 专讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘谞讬 诪注专讘讗 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between Rabba鈥檚 two statements: Rather, Rabba was stating an explanation for the opinion of the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, cited earlier (125a), but he himself does not hold accordingly, as he holds that a firstborn son is not entitled to a double portion of a debt collected from land.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of the extent of liens on a debtor鈥檚 property. Rav and Shmuel both say: In the case of a loan by oral contract, the creditor can collect the debt only from the one who took the loan, but not from the heirs of the debtor after his death, and not from purchasers of his property. What is the reason for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both say: In the case of a loan by oral contract, the creditor can collect the debt both from the heirs of the debtor after his death and from the purchasers of his property. What is the reason for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 砖讜专 讜讛专讙讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 诪转 讛砖讜专 讬讜专砖讬 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讞讬讬讘讬诐 诇砖诇诐 讚诪讬 砖讜专 诇讘注诇讬讜

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 6:2): If one was digging a pit in the public domain, and an ox fell on him and killed him as he was in the pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying for the damage caused, as it is the one who dug the pit who is at fault. Moreover, if it occurred that the ox died as a result of the fall, the heirs of the owner of the pit are liable to pay the value of the ox to its owner. Compensation for damages is comparable to a loan by oral contract, and yet the baraita states that the heirs of the culpable party must pay it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

Rabbi Ela says that Rav says: The baraita is discussing a case in which the one who dug the pit stood trial for the damage before he died, and once judgment is rendered by a court, the resulting financial liability is comparable to a loan with a promissory note.

讜讛讗 讛专讙讜 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖注砖讗讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara objects: But it is taught in the baraita that the ox killed him by falling on him. How then can one say that he stood trial? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The baraita does not mean that the ox killed him instantly, but that it rendered him one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa], and there was enough time before his death to try him and deem him liable to pay for damages.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讬 转谞讗 诪转 讜拽讘专讜 讛转诐 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讘讬专讗 讜讞讬讬讘讜讛讜

The Gemara objects that there is a different version of the baraita according to which this interpretation is not possible: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that a certain tanna taught the baraita with a different formulation, stating that the one who dug the pit died from the impact of the ox and the ox in effect buried him in the ground at the bottom of the pit? In this scenario it would be impossible to take the one who dug the pit to court to stand trial. The Gemara answers: There, according to that second version, it is discussing a case where judges sat at the opening of the pit and deemed liable the one who dug the pit to pay for the damage before he died.

  • 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 175a

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 175a

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讘讬注 讗转 注爪诪讜

Here, too, with regard to the Temple treasury, apply the same principle and say: A person is prone to make false statements so as not to make himself appear sated. It is therefore possible that the money was not owed, and payment should not be made from the consecrated property.

讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛转诐 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗

The Gemara answers: When does Rav Huna say that payment should be made there, in the case of a person on his deathbed who consecrated all his property? In a case where the creditor, to whom the deceased admitted owing money, holds a promissory note corroborating the deceased鈥檚 admission.

诪讻诇诇 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讗 谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转

The Gemara comments: By inference, the statement of Rav and Shmuel, where the money is not given to the creditor unless the person on his deathbed explicitly requests that it be given, is applicable in a case where the creditor does not hold a promissory note corroborating the admission. The Gemara asks: If so, how can it be that if the deceased says: Give him the money, the children give it to him, i.e., it is collected from the estate left to the heirs, as it is a loan by oral contract, and as Rav and Shmuel both say: One does not collect a loan by oral contract from heirs nor from purchasers who bought land from the debtor after the loan was granted?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 砖讟专讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪拽讜讬讬诐 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪拽讜讬讬诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇砖讟专讬讛

The Gemara gives a different answer to this question. Rather, Rav Na岣an said: Both this case and that case are discussing where the creditor holds a promissory note corroborating the deceased鈥檚 admission. And yet it is not difficult. In this ruling of Rav Huna, the case is where the creditor鈥檚 promissory note has been ratified by the court, and in that ruling of Rav and Shmuel, the case is where the creditor鈥檚 promissory note has not been ratified by the court. Therefore, in the latter case, if the person on his deathbed says: Give him the money, he has in effect ratified the creditor鈥檚 promissory note, and if he did not say: Give him the money, he has not ratified the creditor鈥檚 promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 驻专注谞讜 谞讗诪谞讬谉 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 驻专注谞讜 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉

Rabba says that in the case of a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, and the orphans who inherited his property subsequently said: We repaid the debt, they are deemed credible. But if the father said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, as I owe it to him, and subsequently the orphans said: We repaid him the money, they are not deemed credible.

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗讬驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住拽讛 讗讘讜讛讜谉 诇诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚驻专注讬讛 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 驻住拽 讗讘讜讛讜谉 诇诪讬诇转讗 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇讗 驻专注讬讛

The Gemara objects: Isn鈥檛 it the opposite [kelappei layya]? The opposite is more reasonable. If the father says: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, since their father stated the matter assertively, as he gave an explicit directive, it could be said that the heirs repaid the money. But if he said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, since the orphans鈥 father did not state the matter assertively, it could be said that the heirs did not repay the creditor.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 驻专注转讬 谞讗诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讚讻讜专讬 诪讬讚讻专 转谞讜 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讗诪专讜 讬转讜诪讬谉 讞讝专 讜讗诪专 讗讘讗 驻专注转讬 讗讬谉 谞讗诪谞讬谉 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗诪专 转谞讜

The Gemara reformulates Rabba鈥檚 statement: Rather, if Rabba鈥檚 statement was stated, it was stated as follows: In a case of a person on his deathbed who says: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, and the orphans subsequently said: After his admission, Father retracted his words and said to us: I repaid the debt, they are deemed credible. What is the reason for this? At first the father had forgotten, but subsequently he remembered repaying the debt. But if the father says assertively: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and the orphans subsequently said: Afterward Father retracted his words and said: I repaid the debt, they are not deemed credible. The reason is that if it is so that the father repaid the debt or was uncertain about the matter, he would not say with such assertiveness: Give the money to him.

讘注讬 专讘讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛讜讚讛 诪讛讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讗转诐 注讚讬 爪专讬讱 砖讬讗诪专 讻转讜讘讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讻转讜讘讜 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛

Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to a person on his deathbed who, upon hearing someone鈥檚 monetary claim against him, admitted owing the money to him, what is the halakha? Is it required for him to say to two people: You are my witnesses, as is usually necessary in order to prove that an admission is stated in earnest and not in jest? Or is it perhaps not required for him to say: You are my witnesses, since he is a person on his deathbed, whose instructions are generally binding? Is it required that he say to two people: Write my admission in a document, as is usually required, or is it not required for him to say: Write my admission in a document? The issue in question here is: Does a person sometimes jest at the time of death, i.e., while on his deathbed, or can it be assumed that a person does not jest at the time of death?

讘转专 讚讘注讬讗 讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪砖讟讛 讘砖注转 诪讬转讛 讜讚讘专讬 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讻讻转讜讘讬谉 讜讻诪住讜专讬谉 讚诪讜

After Rava raised the dilemma, he then resolved it, and ruled: A person does not jest at the time of death, and therefore the statements of a person on his deathbed are considered as if they were written in a document and transmitted to the relevant party.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讙讜讘讬谉 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

MISHNA: One who lends money to another by means of a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that had been sold to others by the debtor after the loan was granted. One who lends money by means of witnesses, without recording the loan in a promissory note, can collect the debt only from unsold property.

讛讜爪讬讗 注诇讬讜 讻转讘 讬讚讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property.

注专讘 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讗讞专 讞讬转讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

In the case of a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the signing of the promissory note, the creditor can collect the sum only from unsold property of the guarantor.

诪注砖讛 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗诪专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉

The mishna relates: An incident occurred where such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor can collect the sum from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the sum from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讞讜谞拽 讗转 讗讞讚 讘砖讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇讜 [ 讜讗谞讬 讗转谉 诇讱] 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 注诇 讗诪讜谞转讜 讛诇讜讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 注专讘 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讛诇讜讛讜 讜讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讱 讞讬讬讘 砖讻谉 注诇 讗诪讜谞转讜 讛诇讜讛讜

Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Why not? Ben Nannas said to him: If one was strangling someone in the marketplace, demanding repayment of a loan, and another person found him doing so and said to the attacker: Leave him alone and I will give you the money he owes, the person who intervened is exempt from paying, as the creditor did not loan the money in the first place based on his trust of the one who intervened. Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: Lend money to him, and I will give you the repayment, as in that case the creditor did loan the money based on his trust of the guarantor.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讞讻讬诐 讬注住讜拽 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 诪拽爪讜注 讘转讜专讛 讬讜转专 诪讛谉 讜讛谉 讻诪注讬讬谉 讛谞讜讘注 讜讛专讜爪讛 砖讬注住讜拽 讘讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讬砖诪砖 讗转 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 谞谞住

And Rabbi Yishmael thereupon said: One who wants to become wise should engage in the study of monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And, he added, one who wants to engage in the study of monetary law should attend to, i.e., become a disciple of, Shimon ben Nannas.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讻住讬谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 讚诇拽讜讞讜转

GEMARA: Ulla says: By Torah law, a creditor, whether in the case of a loan with a promissory note or the case of a loan by oral contract, can collect the debt from liened property that has been sold by the debtor subsequent to his receiving the loan. What is the reason for this? The property of a debtor at the time of the loan, even an oral loan, is liened by Torah law. And what is the reason the Sages said that one who gives a loan by oral contract can collect the debt only from unsold property? Because of the loss that would be incurred by purchasers of land if the seller鈥檚 creditors could seize the land they have purchased.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬谞讛讜 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讗驻住讬讚讜 讗谞驻砖讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: If so, a loan with a promissory note should also not be collected from purchasers of property, as this would cause them a loss. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a loan recorded in a promissory note, the purchasers, who neglected to investigate the financial status of the seller before purchasing land from him, brought the loss upon themselves. By contrast, loans by oral contract are often impossible to discover, even with a thorough investigation.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讜讗讞讚 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诪诇讜讛 讘砖讟专 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 转谞注讜诇 讚诇转 讘驻谞讬 诇讜讬谉

And Rabba says: By Torah law, a creditor, whether in the case of a loan with a promissory note or the case of a loan by oral contract, can collect the debt only from the debtor鈥檚 unsold property. What is the reason for this? The property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law. And what is the reason the Sages said that one who gives a loan with a promissory note can collect the debt from liened property that has been sold? So as not to lock the door in the face of potential borrowers. If one could not collect a debt by taking liened property that has been sold, people would be hesitant to put their money at risk by lending it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽诇讗

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that there is a desire to encourage people to lend money by granting greater power of collection to creditors, a loan by oral contract should also be collectible from liened property that has been sold. The Gemara answers: There, in the case of a loan by oral contract, it has no publicity associated with it, so that purchasers often cannot find out about it, even after a thorough investigation, and it would be an unfair burden on them to have the property purchased by them seized in such cases.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讙讘讜 拽专拽注 讬砖 诇讜 讙讘讜 诪注讜转 讗讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabba really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rabba say, in the case of a firstborn son, that if he and his brothers collected a debt from land, he has the right to receive a double portion of that payment, but if they collected a debt from money, he does not have the right to a double portion? A firstborn son is entitled to a double share of inheritance of any property that was owned by his father at the time of his death, but not to profits or income that accrue to the estate after his death. If a debt owed to the father is collected from land after his death, Rabba said that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion, indicating that the land was considered in the father鈥檚 possession even before he died, which indicates that Rabba holds that the property of a debtor is liened to a creditor by Torah law.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬驻讜讱 讚专讘讛 诇注讜诇讗 讜讚注讜诇讗 诇专讘讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讬谞讬讛 讘讝讘讜专讬转

And if you would say: The opinions as they were cited earlier are attributed incorrectly, and it is necessary to reverse the two opinions, and exchange the opinion of Rabba for that of Ulla, and that of Ulla for that of Rabba, there is a difficulty: But doesn鈥檛 Ulla say elsewhere: By Torah law the halakha of a creditor is to collect his debt only from inferior-quality land?

讗诇讗 专讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚讘谞讬 诪注专讘讗 拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between Rabba鈥檚 two statements: Rather, Rabba was stating an explanation for the opinion of the people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, cited earlier (125a), but he himself does not hold accordingly, as he holds that a firstborn son is not entitled to a double portion of a debt collected from land.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of the extent of liens on a debtor鈥檚 property. Rav and Shmuel both say: In the case of a loan by oral contract, the creditor can collect the debt only from the one who took the loan, but not from the heirs of the debtor after his death, and not from purchasers of his property. What is the reason for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is not liened by Torah law.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪诇讜讛 注诇 驻讛 讙讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜讘讬谉 诪谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 砖注讘讜讚讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both say: In the case of a loan by oral contract, the creditor can collect the debt both from the heirs of the debtor after his death and from the purchasers of his property. What is the reason for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is liened by Torah law.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 砖讜专 讜讛专讙讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 诪转 讛砖讜专 讬讜专砖讬 讘注诇 讛讘讜专 讞讬讬讘讬诐 诇砖诇诐 讚诪讬 砖讜专 诇讘注诇讬讜

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel from a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 6:2): If one was digging a pit in the public domain, and an ox fell on him and killed him as he was in the pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from paying for the damage caused, as it is the one who dug the pit who is at fault. Moreover, if it occurred that the ox died as a result of the fall, the heirs of the owner of the pit are liable to pay the value of the ox to its owner. Compensation for damages is comparable to a loan by oral contract, and yet the baraita states that the heirs of the culpable party must pay it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注诪讚 讘讚讬谉

Rabbi Ela says that Rav says: The baraita is discussing a case in which the one who dug the pit stood trial for the damage before he died, and once judgment is rendered by a court, the resulting financial liability is comparable to a loan with a promissory note.

讜讛讗 讛专讙讜 拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖注砖讗讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara objects: But it is taught in the baraita that the ox killed him by falling on him. How then can one say that he stood trial? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The baraita does not mean that the ox killed him instantly, but that it rendered him one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa], and there was enough time before his death to try him and deem him liable to pay for damages.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 转谞讬 转谞讗 诪转 讜拽讘专讜 讛转诐 讚讬转讘讬 讚讬讬谞讬 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讘讬专讗 讜讞讬讬讘讜讛讜

The Gemara objects that there is a different version of the baraita according to which this interpretation is not possible: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that a certain tanna taught the baraita with a different formulation, stating that the one who dug the pit died from the impact of the ox and the ox in effect buried him in the ground at the bottom of the pit? In this scenario it would be impossible to take the one who dug the pit to court to stand trial. The Gemara answers: There, according to that second version, it is discussing a case where judges sat at the opening of the pit and deemed liable the one who dug the pit to pay for the damage before he died.

Scroll To Top