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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 23, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘砖讘讟 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 32

Rav Nachman was not concerned that overturning a ruling of the court based on new testimony would cause a lack fo respect in the future for the courts. 聽He relied on Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling in a case of a kohen about whom concern was raised that he was the son of a kohen and a divorcee. 聽The details of the exact case are clarified and lead to the fact that all agree that one can overturn a ruling – the debate was over a different issue – can 2 individual witnesses testify each separately and it can be considered one testimony? 聽Other cases are brought where one brings a document and the other side accuses him for bringing a false document. 聽Then the one who brought the document says that the document is a forgery but there was a real document that got lot. 聽Is the claim valid as a “ma li leshaker” – since he could have lied and said it was a valid docuemnt. 聽The commentaries disagree as to the exact details of the case – was it really a forged document or was it a shtar amana? 聽How do we rule in cases like this?


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

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 注专注专 转专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that an effective challenge requires two witnesses, one could then ask: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讗住拽讬谞讬讛

Rather, the challenge was established by two witnesses. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where we presume with regard to the father of that man that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a priest and a 岣lutza, and we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on that rumor, and one witness came and said that the man in question is a priest of unflawed lineage, and we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate a rumor.

讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 注讚讜转

The Gemara continues the case: And then two witnesses came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and we downgraded him from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then one witness came and said that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses testifying that his lineage is unflawed, and two testifying that it is flawed. And everyone agrees that the testimony of the two single witnesses combine to produce testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬讞砖 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗谞谉 讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞谉 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara explains the dispute: And here it is with regard to concern about contempt of court that they disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, we do not then elevate him, as we are concerned about contempt of court, as a reversal in the court鈥檚 decision creates the impression that the court operates indecisively. And Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds: We downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood and we then elevate him, and we are not concerned about contempt of court. The primary concern is that the matter should be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诇爪专祝 注讚讜转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬

Rav Ashi objects to the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: If so, why specifically is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first one witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? The same would hold true even in a case where two witnesses testified together that he is unfit for the priesthood and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testified together that he is fit for the priesthood and the court elevated him. The tanna鈥檌m would also disagree, as the same concern applies. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned about contempt of court. And here, it is with regard to whether the court is able to combine the testimony of two single witnesses that they disagree, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the following dispute between these tanna鈥檌m.

讚转谞讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 5:5): The testimony of individual witnesses never combines unless it is so that the two of them see the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimony combines even in a case where they witnessed the event one after the other, but their testimony is established in court only if it is so that the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They are not required to testify together. Their testimony is combined even if the court hears the statement of this witness today and when the other witness arrives tomorrow the court hears his statement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, whether the separate testimonies can be combined.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗

搂 The Gemara relates an incident where two people disputed the ownership of land. There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from you, and this is the bill of sale.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讙讞讬谉 诇讞讬砖 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗讬谉 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 讜讗讬专讻住 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞拽讬讟 讛讗讬 讘讬讚讗讬 讻诇 讚讛讜

The first said to him in response: It is a forged bill of sale. The possessor leaned over and whispered to Rabba: Yes, it is a forged bill. But I had a proper bill of sale and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this bill of sale in my possession, such as it is.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讗讬 住诪讻转 讗讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper bill of sale, and he would have been deemed credible and awarded the field. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the land? On this bill of sale? This admittedly forged bill is merely a worthless shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讙讞讬谉 诇讞讬砖 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗讬谉 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 诪讬讛讜 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 讜讗讬专讻住 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞拽讬讟 讛讗讬 讘讬讚讗讬 讻诇 讚讛讜

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me one hundred dinars that I am attempting to collect from you, and this is the promissory note that attests to the debt. The latter said to him in response: It is a forged promissory note. The first person leaned over and whispered to Rava: Yes, it is a forged promissory note. But I had a proper promissory note and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this promissory note in my possession, such as it is.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 住诪讻转 讗讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper promissory note, and he will be deemed credible and awarded the money. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the money? On this promissory note? This document is merely a shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讗专注讗 转讬拽讜诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讚讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讜拽诪讬

The Gemara notes the final ruling in these two cases. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the possessor is awarded the land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, and the one demanding payment is not awarded the money. He explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, as the court rules that the land should remain where it is, i.e., with the possessor. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is, i.e., in the possession of the purported debtor.

讛讛讜讗 注专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚驻专注转讬 诇诪诇讜讛 注讬诇讜讱 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 驻专注转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讛讚专转 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who said to a debtor: Give me one hundred dinars for the money that I repaid the creditor on your behalf, and this is the document that I received from him when I repaid your debt. The debtor said to the guarantor: Is it not so that I repaid you? The guarantor said to the debtor: Yes, you did, but is it not so that you later took the money from me again?

砖诇讞讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讜拽诪讜 讝讜讝讬 诇讜拽诪讜

Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question before Abaye: What is the halakha in a case like this? Abaye sent him the following response: What does he, i.e., Rav Idi bar Avin, ask? Isn鈥檛 he the one who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is? Based on his own ruling, the money should remain with the debtor.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专转 讗讜讝驻转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讱 诪讞诪转 讚讛讜讜 砖讬讬驻讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 讗讻转讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讗 讚砖讟专讗

The Gemara notes: And this matter applies only in a case where the guarantor says to the debtor: You later borrowed the money from me after you had repaid me. But if the guarantor said to the debtor: I returned to you the money that you had repaid me because of the fact that the coins were worn out or overly reddish, i.e., discolored, and would not be easily accepted as currency, then the lien of the document is still in effect. The debt to the guarantor had not actually been repaid, and the document is still in effect. In that case, the guarantor collects from the debtor.

专讘讗 讘专 砖专砖讜诐 谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讘诪砖讻讜谞转讗 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诪讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬

The Gemara relates: A rumor emerged concerning Rava bar Sharshom that he was profiting from land belonging to orphans. Abaye said to him: Tell me, my friend, concerning the incident itself, how is it that this rumor was generated? Rava bar Sharshom said to him: I was holding on to the land as collateral from the father of the orphans, and I had

  • 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 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 32

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 注专注专 转专讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

and Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that an effective challenge requires two witnesses, one could then ask: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

讗诇讗 注专注专 转专讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讞讝拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讗住拽讬谞讬讛

Rather, the challenge was established by two witnesses. And with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where we presume with regard to the father of that man that he is a priest, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a priest and a divorced woman, or the son of a priest and a 岣lutza, and we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on that rumor, and one witness came and said that the man in question is a priest of unflawed lineage, and we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate a rumor.

讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 注讚讜转

The Gemara continues the case: And then two witnesses came and said that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and we downgraded him from the priesthood based on their testimony. Then one witness came and said that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, resulting in two witnesses testifying that his lineage is unflawed, and two testifying that it is flawed. And everyone agrees that the testimony of the two single witnesses combine to produce testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬讞砖 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗谞谉 讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞谉 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The Gemara explains the dispute: And here it is with regard to concern about contempt of court that they disagree. Rabbi Elazar holds: Once we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood based on the testimony of two witnesses, we do not then elevate him, as we are concerned about contempt of court, as a reversal in the court鈥檚 decision creates the impression that the court operates indecisively. And Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel holds: We downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood and we then elevate him, and we are not concerned about contempt of court. The primary concern is that the matter should be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转专讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诇爪专祝 注讚讜转 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬

Rav Ashi objects to the analysis that they disagree with regard to concern about contempt of court: If so, why specifically is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where first one witness testified as to his unflawed lineage, and then another testified later? The same would hold true even in a case where two witnesses testified together that he is unfit for the priesthood and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testified together that he is fit for the priesthood and the court elevated him. The tanna鈥檌m would also disagree, as the same concern applies. Rather, Rav Ashi said: Everyone agrees that we are not concerned about contempt of court. And here, it is with regard to whether the court is able to combine the testimony of two single witnesses that they disagree, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the following dispute between these tanna鈥檌m.

讚转谞讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 5:5): The testimony of individual witnesses never combines unless it is so that the two of them see the incident transpire together as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimony combines even in a case where they witnessed the event one after the other, but their testimony is established in court only if it is so that the two of them testify together as one. Rabbi Natan says: They are not required to testify together. Their testimony is combined even if the court hears the statement of this witness today and when the other witness arrives tomorrow the court hears his statement. Rabbi Elazar and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, whether the separate testimonies can be combined.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讘讛讗讬 讗专注讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 讝讘讬谞转讛 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗

搂 The Gemara relates an incident where two people disputed the ownership of land. There was a certain person who said to another: What do you want with this land of mine? The possessor said to him: I purchased it from you, and this is the bill of sale.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讙讞讬谉 诇讞讬砖 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讗讬谉 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 诪讬讛讜 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 讜讗讬专讻住 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞拽讬讟 讛讗讬 讘讬讚讗讬 讻诇 讚讛讜

The first said to him in response: It is a forged bill of sale. The possessor leaned over and whispered to Rabba: Yes, it is a forged bill. But I had a proper bill of sale and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this bill of sale in my possession, such as it is.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讗讬 住诪讻转 讗讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper bill of sale, and he would have been deemed credible and awarded the field. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the land? On this bill of sale? This admittedly forged bill is merely a worthless shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞讘专讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚诪住讬拽谞讗 讘讱 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 讛讜讗 讙讞讬谉 诇讞讬砖 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讗讬谉 砖讟专讗 讝讬讬驻讗 诪讬讛讜 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讛 诇讬 讜讗讬专讻住 讜讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬谞拽讬讟 讛讗讬 讘讬讚讗讬 讻诇 讚讛讜

The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain person who said to another: Give me one hundred dinars that I am attempting to collect from you, and this is the promissory note that attests to the debt. The latter said to him in response: It is a forged promissory note. The first person leaned over and whispered to Rava: Yes, it is a forged promissory note. But I had a proper promissory note and it was lost, and I said to myself: I will hold this promissory note in my possession, such as it is.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讛 诇讜 诇砖拽专 讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪讗讬 拽讗 住诪讻转 讗讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专讗 讞住驻讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabba said: Why would he lie and state this claim? If he wants to lie, he can say to him that it is a proper promissory note, and he will be deemed credible and awarded the money. Rav Yosef said to Rabba: In the final analysis, on what are you relying to award him the money? On this promissory note? This document is merely a shard, and cannot be used in court as evidence.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讗专注讗 转讬拽讜诐 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讚讛讬讻讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讜拽诪讬

The Gemara notes the final ruling in these two cases. Rav Idi bar Avin said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the possessor is awarded the land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, and the one demanding payment is not awarded the money. He explains: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, as the court rules that the land should remain where it is, i.e., with the possessor. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is, i.e., in the possession of the purported debtor.

讛讛讜讗 注专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 讛讘 诇讬 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚驻专注转讬 诇诪诇讜讛 注讬诇讜讱 讜讛讗 砖讟专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 驻专注转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讛讚专转 砖拽诇转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain guarantor who said to a debtor: Give me one hundred dinars for the money that I repaid the creditor on your behalf, and this is the document that I received from him when I repaid your debt. The debtor said to the guarantor: Is it not so that I repaid you? The guarantor said to the debtor: Yes, you did, but is it not so that you later took the money from me again?

砖诇讞讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讚讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘讗专注讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讝讜讝讬 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讗讜拽诪讜 讝讜讝讬 诇讜拽诪讜

Rav Idi bar Avin sent the following question before Abaye: What is the halakha in a case like this? Abaye sent him the following response: What does he, i.e., Rav Idi bar Avin, ask? Isn鈥檛 he the one who said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba with regard to land, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef with regard to money, as the court rules that the money should remain where it is? Based on his own ruling, the money should remain with the debtor.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专转 讗讜讝驻转讬谞讛讜 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专转讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讱 诪讞诪转 讚讛讜讜 砖讬讬驻讬 讜住讜诪拽讬 讗讻转讬 讗讬转讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讗 讚砖讟专讗

The Gemara notes: And this matter applies only in a case where the guarantor says to the debtor: You later borrowed the money from me after you had repaid me. But if the guarantor said to the debtor: I returned to you the money that you had repaid me because of the fact that the coins were worn out or overly reddish, i.e., discolored, and would not be easily accepted as currency, then the lien of the document is still in effect. The debt to the guarantor had not actually been repaid, and the document is still in effect. In that case, the guarantor collects from the debtor.

专讘讗 讘专 砖专砖讜诐 谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚拽讗 讗讻讬诇 讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讘诪砖讻讜谞转讗 讛讜讛 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诪讗讘讜讛讜谉 讚讬转诪讬 讜讛讜讛 诇讬

The Gemara relates: A rumor emerged concerning Rava bar Sharshom that he was profiting from land belonging to orphans. Abaye said to him: Tell me, my friend, concerning the incident itself, how is it that this rumor was generated? Rava bar Sharshom said to him: I was holding on to the land as collateral from the father of the orphans, and I had

Scroll To Top