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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 27, 2017 | 讻状讟 讘讟讘转 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 5

If a neighbor is surrounded on three sides by one land owner and that land owner put up 3 walls, the inner neighbor doesn’t need to pay. 聽But if a fourth wall is put up, he does. 聽There is a debate about whether it matters who put up the fourth wall and whether or not the inner neighbor needs to share the costs of just the 4th wall or all the walls. 聽Or whether he needs to pay according to the actual cost of the wall or only according to the cheapest market rate for a wall or possibly even only for what it would cost to hire a watchman to protect the field. 聽A story is brought about Ravina and Runia who were neighbors and got into a court case about this as Runia didn’t want to share in the costs. 聽If a wall between 2 neighbors falls, even if the wall was higher to begin with, one need only chip in to build a four cubit聽high wall. 聽However if one builds an inner walls and plans to attach a roof from the high was to the new inner wall, one shows that the high wall serves his needs and needs to share the cost. 聽The mishna makes assumptions about in which situations we can assume the neighbor has already paid and in which not. 聽The gemara attempts to connect this with assumptions about one was can be believed that one returned a loan if the lender says he/she did not. 聽The gemara rejects the connection between the cases.

Study Guide Bava Batra 5.

专讜谞讬讗 讗拽驻讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讻诪讛 讚讙讚专讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诇驻讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

It is related that a man named Ronya had a field that was surrounded by fields belonging to Ravina on all four sides. Ravina built partitions around his fields and said to him: Give me your share of the expense in accordance with what I actually spent when I built the partitions, i.e., half the cost of the partitions. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least your share of the expense in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least the wage of a watchman. But he did not give even this to him.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讚专 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诪谞讬讛 拽讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讛讬谞讬 讗讝诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讚注转讱 讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 注讬讝讗 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讝讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讻诇讜讬讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讙讘专讗 讘注讬转 讚诪讬讻诇讬 诇讛

One day, Ronya was harvesting dates. Ravina said to his sharecropper: Go take a cluster [kibbura] of dates from him. The sharecropper went to bring them, but Ronya raised his voice at him in protest, whereupon Ravina said to him: You have revealed that you are pleased with the partitions and the protection that they provide you. Even if it were only a goat that entered your field, wouldn鈥檛 the field need safeguarding, to prevent the goat from eating the dates? Ronya said to him: If it were only a goat, doesn鈥檛 one need merely to chase it away [le鈥檃khluyei]? No partition is required. Ravina said to him: But wouldn鈥檛 you need a man to chase the goat away? Pay me then at least the wage of a watchman.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻讬讬住讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚讗讬驻讬讬住 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚讗讬谞谞讗 诇讱 讚讬谞讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Ravina came before Rava to adjudicate the matter. Rava said to Ronya: Go appease Ravina with what he expressed his willingness to be appeased with, namely, the wage of a watchman. And if not, I will judge you in accordance with the ruling of Rav Huna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and you will be required to pay half the cost of the partition based on what Ravina actually spent on it.

专讜谞讬讗 讝讘谉 讗专注讗 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇住诇讜拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗专讘注讛 诇爪诇讗 讗专讘注讛 诇爪诇诇讗

Incidental to that episode, the Gemara relates another encounter between Ravina and Ronya. Ronya once bought land adjoining property belonging to Ravina. Ravina considered removing him due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. When land is up for sale, the owners of the adjoining fields have the right of first refusal. If one of the neighbors is willing to match the highest price being offered to the seller, that neighbor has the preemptive right to purchase the property, and if somebody else buys it, that buyer can be removed. Since Ravina owned the adjacent property, he thought that he enjoyed the right of first refusal. Rav Safra, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Ravina: People say: Four dinars for a large hide [tzalla], four for a small hide [tzelala]. Since Ronya also owned land bordering the desired parcel, you cannot remove him even though his plot of land is smaller than yours.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讜转诇 讞爪专 砖谞驻诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转讜 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉

MISHNA: In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him up to a height of four cubits. If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part.

诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诇诪注诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转拽专讛 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉

The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. Since he has demonstrated his desire to make use of what his neighbor built, he must participate in the cost of its construction. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛拽讜讘注 讝诪谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜诇讜讗讬 砖讬驻专注 讘讝诪谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬驻专注讬讛

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says: If a lender set a time for another to repay the loan that he had extended to him and when the debt came due the borrower said to the lender: I already repaid you within the time, he is not deemed credible, as people do not ordinarily repay their debts before they are due. The lender would be happy if the borrower would only repay his debt on time. Abaye and Rava disagree with Reish Lakish, as they both say: A person is apt to repay his debt within its time, i.e., before it is due. This is because sometimes he happens to have money and the borrower says to himself: I will go and repay my debt

讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟专讚谉

so that he will not trouble me later by constantly demanding the money.

转谞谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof in support of the opinion of Abaye and Rava from what we learned in the mishna (5a): If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注讬讛 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诇 砖驻讗 讜砖驻讗 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he said to him: I paid you at the time when the payment became due, when the wall was completed, it is obvious that he is presumed to have given his part. Rather, is it not that he said to him: I paid you within the time before the payment became due, while the wall was still under construction? And with regard to such a case the mishna states that he is presumed to have given his share. Apparently, a person is apt to repay his debt within its time, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, because the time to pay is upon the completion of each and every row. Payment does not become due specifically at the completion of the entire wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish from the continuation of the mishna (5a): The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. If the builder of the first wall later claims he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讞讬讬讘讜 诇讬 专讘谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, when the wall was completed, why is he not deemed credible? Rather, is it not that he said to him: I paid you within the time before the payment became due, and therefore he is not deemed credible? Apparently, a person is not apt to repay his debt within its time, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, since the reluctant neighbor says: Who says that the Rabbis will obligate me to pay for this wall? In such a case he certainly does not pay before the payment becomes due.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讚讬 讻讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in such a case in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava. Mar bar Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that one is not deemed credible when he says that he repaid a loan before it became due. And if the debtor dies, the court collects payment even from his orphans based on this assumption. And even though the Master said that one who comes to collect money from the property of orphans cannot collect unless he first takes an oath that he did not already collect the debt from the deceased, here he can collect without taking an oath because there is a presumption that a person is not apt to repay his debt within its time.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if the lender stipulated a time with the borrower for repayment of the debt, and he demanded payment of the money after the time that the payment became due had passed, and the borrower said to him: I already repaid you within the time before the payment became due? Do we say that even where there is a presumption against someone鈥檚 claim, as in this case where there is a presumption that people do not pay their debts before they become due, we say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? If one of the litigants could have advanced a claim more advantageous to his cause than the one he actually did, the assumption is that he is telling the truth. Consequently, in this case had the borrower wished to lie, he could have said that he repaid his debt when it became due, and he would have been deemed credible. Therefore, when he claims that he repaid it before it came due he should also be deemed credible.

  • 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 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 5

专讜谞讬讗 讗拽驻讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转讬讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讻诪讛 讚讙讚专讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 诇驻讬 拽谞讬诐 讘讝讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讗讙专 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛

It is related that a man named Ronya had a field that was surrounded by fields belonging to Ravina on all four sides. Ravina built partitions around his fields and said to him: Give me your share of the expense in accordance with what I actually spent when I built the partitions, i.e., half the cost of the partitions. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least your share of the expense in accordance with a reduced assessment of the price of reeds. Ronya did not give it to him. Ravina said to him: Give me then at least the wage of a watchman. But he did not give even this to him.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 拽讗 讙讚专 讚讬拽诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诪谞讬讛 拽讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讛讬谞讬 讗讝诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 专诪讗 讘讬讛 拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讚注转讱 讚诪讬谞讞 谞讬讞讗 诇讱 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 注讬讝讗 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬讝讗 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诇讗讻诇讜讬讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讙讘专讗 讘注讬转 讚诪讬讻诇讬 诇讛

One day, Ronya was harvesting dates. Ravina said to his sharecropper: Go take a cluster [kibbura] of dates from him. The sharecropper went to bring them, but Ronya raised his voice at him in protest, whereupon Ravina said to him: You have revealed that you are pleased with the partitions and the protection that they provide you. Even if it were only a goat that entered your field, wouldn鈥檛 the field need safeguarding, to prevent the goat from eating the dates? Ronya said to him: If it were only a goat, doesn鈥檛 one need merely to chase it away [le鈥檃khluyei]? No partition is required. Ravina said to him: But wouldn鈥檛 you need a man to chase the goat away? Pay me then at least the wage of a watchman.

讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻讬讬住讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讚讗讬驻讬讬住 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚讗讬谞谞讗 诇讱 讚讬谞讗 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Ravina came before Rava to adjudicate the matter. Rava said to Ronya: Go appease Ravina with what he expressed his willingness to be appeased with, namely, the wage of a watchman. And if not, I will judge you in accordance with the ruling of Rav Huna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and you will be required to pay half the cost of the partition based on what Ravina actually spent on it.

专讜谞讬讗 讝讘谉 讗专注讗 讗诪讬爪专讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇住诇讜拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬讘讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讗专讘注讛 诇爪诇讗 讗专讘注讛 诇爪诇诇讗

Incidental to that episode, the Gemara relates another encounter between Ravina and Ronya. Ronya once bought land adjoining property belonging to Ravina. Ravina considered removing him due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. When land is up for sale, the owners of the adjoining fields have the right of first refusal. If one of the neighbors is willing to match the highest price being offered to the seller, that neighbor has the preemptive right to purchase the property, and if somebody else buys it, that buyer can be removed. Since Ravina owned the adjacent property, he thought that he enjoyed the right of first refusal. Rav Safra, son of Rav Yeiva, said to Ravina: People say: Four dinars for a large hide [tzalla], four for a small hide [tzelala]. Since Ronya also owned land bordering the desired parcel, you cannot remove him even though his plot of land is smaller than yours.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讜转诇 讞爪专 砖谞驻诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇讘谞讜转讜 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉

MISHNA: In the case of a dividing wall in a jointly owned courtyard that fell, if one of the owners wishes to rebuild the wall, the court obligates the other owner to build the wall with him up to a height of four cubits. If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part.

诪讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讜诇诪注诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 住诪讱 诇讜 讻讜转诇 讗讞专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛转拽专讛 诪讙诇讙诇讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讻诇 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉

The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. Since he has demonstrated his desire to make use of what his neighbor built, he must participate in the cost of its construction. If the builder of the first wall later claims that he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛拽讜讘注 讝诪谉 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 讜诇讜讗讬 砖讬驻专注 讘讝诪谞讜 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪转专诪讜 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬驻专注讬讛

GEMARA: Reish Lakish says: If a lender set a time for another to repay the loan that he had extended to him and when the debt came due the borrower said to the lender: I already repaid you within the time, he is not deemed credible, as people do not ordinarily repay their debts before they are due. The lender would be happy if the borrower would only repay his debt on time. Abaye and Rava disagree with Reish Lakish, as they both say: A person is apt to repay his debt within its time, i.e., before it is due. This is because sometimes he happens to have money and the borrower says to himself: I will go and repay my debt

讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟专讚谉

so that he will not trouble me later by constantly demanding the money.

转谞谉 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖诇讗 谞转谉

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof in support of the opinion of Abaye and Rava from what we learned in the mishna (5a): If after the wall was built one of the neighbors claims he alone constructed it and the other did not participate in its building, the latter is nevertheless presumed to have given his share of the money, unless the claimant brings proof that the other did not give his part.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讞讝拽转 砖谞转谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注讬讛 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讻诇 砖驻讗 讜砖驻讗 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he said to him: I paid you at the time when the payment became due, when the wall was completed, it is obvious that he is presumed to have given his part. Rather, is it not that he said to him: I paid you within the time before the payment became due, while the wall was still under construction? And with regard to such a case the mishna states that he is presumed to have given his share. Apparently, a person is apt to repay his debt within its time, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, because the time to pay is upon the completion of each and every row. Payment does not become due specifically at the completion of the entire wall.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讞讝拽转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 注讚 砖讬讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 砖谞转谉

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof in support of the opinion of Reish Lakish from the continuation of the mishna (5a): The court does not obligate the reluctant neighbor to contribute to the building of the wall higher than four cubits. But if the reluctant neighbor built another wall close to the wall that had been built higher than four cubits, in order to set a roof over the room that was thereby created, the court imposes upon him the responsibility to pay his share for all of the rebuilt wall, even though he has not yet set a roof over it. If the builder of the first wall later claims he did not receive payment from his neighbor, the neighbor is presumed not to have given his share of the money, unless he brings proof that he did in fact give money for the building of the wall.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘讝诪谞讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讞讬讬讘讜 诇讬 专讘谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the matter: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say that he said to him: I paid you at the time that the payment became due, when the wall was completed, why is he not deemed credible? Rather, is it not that he said to him: I paid you within the time before the payment became due, and therefore he is not deemed credible? Apparently, a person is not apt to repay his debt within its time, in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here it is different, since the reluctant neighbor says: Who says that the Rabbis will obligate me to pay for this wall? In such a case he certainly does not pay before the payment becomes due.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 注讘讚讬 讻讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讘讗 诇讬驻专注 诪谞讻住讬 讬转讜诪讬诐 诇讗 讬驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讞讝拽讛 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚驻专注 讘讙讜 讝讬诪谞讬讛

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in such a case in accordance with the opinion of Abaye and Rava. Mar bar Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish that one is not deemed credible when he says that he repaid a loan before it became due. And if the debtor dies, the court collects payment even from his orphans based on this assumption. And even though the Master said that one who comes to collect money from the property of orphans cannot collect unless he first takes an oath that he did not already collect the debt from the deceased, here he can collect without taking an oath because there is a presumption that a person is not apt to repay his debt within its time.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讘注讜 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 驻专注转讬讱 讘转讜讱 讝诪谞讬 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讘诪拽讜诐 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讬 诇砖拽专

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha if the lender stipulated a time with the borrower for repayment of the debt, and he demanded payment of the money after the time that the payment became due had passed, and the borrower said to him: I already repaid you within the time before the payment became due? Do we say that even where there is a presumption against someone鈥檚 claim, as in this case where there is a presumption that people do not pay their debts before they become due, we say that the borrower can claim: Why would I lie? If one of the litigants could have advanced a claim more advantageous to his cause than the one he actually did, the assumption is that he is telling the truth. Consequently, in this case had the borrower wished to lie, he could have said that he repaid his debt when it became due, and he would have been deemed credible. Therefore, when he claims that he repaid it before it came due he should also be deemed credible.

Scroll To Top