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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 2, 2017 | 讜壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 70

If generally something is not included in a sale – like trees in the field, if one says I am selling you the field without one specific tree, does that mean that all the other trees are included or are none of the trees included? 聽By adding words, can聽it actually make it worse for the seller? 聽If one gives something to another to watch and has a document to prove it, can the shomer claim he/she returned it (even though the document is still in the hands of the other) because since he/she could claim accidental damage, he/she聽is believed by a migo that it was returned?


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

讜讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讛注讜诇 讻讜讘砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛注讜诇 讻讜讘砖讜 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讛讗 讘讗讬诇谞讬

But the judges of the exile, Shmuel and Karna, say: Any tree that is bent back by the yoke of oxen as the animals plow the ground under the tree, and in this way the tree does not impede the plowing, is not retained by the seller, as it is not a significant tree. Any tree that is not bent back by the yoke of the oxen is retained by the seller and not included in the sale. The Gemara comments: And these amora鈥檌m do not disagree with regard to the halakha: That which Rav said, that the only trees that the seller retains for himself and excludes from the sale are those that must be climbed by means of a rope, was said with regard to palm trees, while that which the judges of the exile said, that the only trees that are retained are those that are not bent back by the yoke of the oxen, was said with regard to other types of trees.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讞讜抓 诪讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬诐 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites a discussion related to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk are not included in the sale of the field: Rav A岣 bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for such and such grafted carob tree, or except for such and such sycamore trunk, and there were other grafted carob trees or sycamore trunks in the field, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does the seller mean to say that it is this carob tree that the buyer does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees, or perhaps he means that he also does not acquire the rest of the carob trees? Rav Sheshet said to him in response: The buyer does not acquire any of them.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 拽谞讛

Rav A岣 raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from a baraita that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this field except for such and such carob tree, or except for such and such sycamore trunk, the buyer does not acquire it. What, is it not that it is this carob tree that he does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讞讜抓 诪砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讛讛讬讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, what this means is that he does not acquire even the other carob trees. Know that this is correct, as if a person selling a field said to the buyer: My field is sold to you except for such and such field that is adjacent to it, would you say that it is only that adjacent field that he does not acquire, but he acquires all the other fields owned by the seller? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field, not all of his fields. Rather, everyone would agree that the buyer does not acquire the other fields. Therefore, here too, the buyer does not acquire the other carob trees.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬

And there are those who say that the discussion took place as follows: Rav A岣 bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for half of such and such carob tree, or except for half of such and such sycamore trunk, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Do we say that the buyer certainly does not acquire the other carob trees, but he does acquire what remains from that carob tree that was mentioned, that is, the half of the carob tree that the seller did not specifically retain for himself? Or perhaps he does not acquire even what remains from that carob tree? Rav Sheshet said to him: Even what remains from that carob tree the buyer does not acquire.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 拽谞讛

Rav A岣 raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from a baraita that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for half of such and such carob tree, or except for half of such and such sycamore trunk, the buyer does not acquire the other carob trees. What, is it not that it is the other carob trees that he does not acquire, but what remains of that carob tree he does acquire?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, what this means is that he does not acquire even what remains of that carob tree. Know that this is correct, as if a person selling a field said to the buyer: My field is sold to you except for half of such and such field that is adjacent to it, would you say that it is only that half of the field that he does not acquire, but he acquires the other half of the field? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field and nothing else. Rather, everyone would agree that the buyer does not acquire the other half of the field. Therefore, here too, the buyer does not acquire what remains of the carob tree.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬诐 诇讱 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 谞讗谞住讜 诪讛讬诪谉 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉

Rav Amram raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: If one deposits certain items with another and receives a document signed by witnesses testifying that he deposited these items with this individual, and the bailee later says to him: I returned the items to you, but the document is still in the hands of the depositor, what is the halakha? Do we say that since if the bailee wanted to lie he could have said that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, and he would have been deemed credible; therefore now too, when he claims that he returned the items, he is deemed credible as well? Or perhaps, the one who deposited the items can say to him: If you returned the items, what is your document doing in my possession? Upon return of the deposit, you should have retrieved the document. Rav 岣sda said to him: The bailee is deemed credible.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讜讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞住讜 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Amram asked: But let the depositor say to the bailee: If you returned the items, what is your document doing in my possession? Rav 岣sda said to him: And according to your reasoning, if the bailee had said to him that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, would he be able to say to him: What is your document doing in my possession? Since this claim could not have been stated had the bailee stated the alternative claim, it can also not be stated when the bailee claims that the items were returned. Rav Amram said to him:

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗讜 砖讘讜注讛 讘注讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 谞讗诪谉 谞讗诪谉 讘砖讘讜注讛

Ultimately, even when the bailee says to the depositor that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, is he not required to take an oath? How, then, can you assert that he is deemed credible to claim that he returned the items without taking an oath? Rav 岣sda said to him: Here too, what did I mean when I said that he is deemed credible? It means that he is deemed credible when he takes an oath.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 砖讟专 讻讬住 讛讬讜爪讗 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 讻讜诇讜 讜讚讬讬谞讬 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讬 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav Amram and Rav 岣sda disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as a halakha is taught in a baraita with regard to a purse document, i.e., a document that records an arrangement whereby one gives another money as an investment in a joint venture on condition that the profits will be divided equally between the two parties. If the person who received the money died, and this document was presented by the lender against the orphans, the judges of the exile say that the lender takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him, and he collects the entire sum. And the judges of Eretz Yisrael say that he takes an oath and collects only half of the sum.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚谞讛专讚注讬 讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讛讗讬 注讬住拽讗 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讜驻诇讙讗 驻拽讚讜谉

And it is understood that everyone agrees with the opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃, as the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: With regard to this joint venture, whereby one person gives money to another on condition that it will be used for business purposes and that the profits will be divided equally between the two parties, half of the invested money is considered a loan, for which the borrower is exclusively liable, and half is considered a deposit, so that if it is lost under circumstances beyond his control, the borrower is exempt from the liability to return it.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬

According to this assumption, everyone agrees that the claimant can recover from the orphans by means of an oath the half of the money that is considered a loan, just as he would have been able to demand that money from their father. Concerning the half that is considered a deposit, what, is it not with regard to this point that they disagree, as one Sage, the judges of the exile, holds like Rav Amram that the depositor can say to the bailee: What is your document doing in my possession? Therefore, neither the father nor his children are deemed credible to claim that they had returned the half that is considered a deposit, and the investor can collect that half as well. And one Sage, the judges of Eretz Yisrael, holds like Rav 岣sda, that one cannot assert this claim, and therefore the investor can collect only the half that is considered a loan. But as for the half that is considered a deposit, the father would have been deemed credible in his claim that he had already returned it.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬诪讜专 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗谞住讬讛

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, everyone, i.e., both the judges of the exile and the judges of Eretz Yisrael, agrees with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, that the father can claim that he returned the money. And here, they disagree about the following issue, as one Sage, the judges of the exile, holds that if it is so that he had in fact repaid the money, he would have told his children that he repaid it. Since he did not tell them, it may be assumed that he never repaid the money. And one Sage, the judges of Eretz Yisrael, holds that you can say that it was the Angel of Death that prevented him from doing so, meaning he died before he had the opportunity to give his children a detailed report concerning his financial affairs.

砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 谞讗诪谉 讜砖讟专 讻讬住 讛讬讜爪讗 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 讻讜诇讜

Apropos this discussion, it is related that Rav Huna bar Avin sent the following ruling: If one deposits an item with another and receives a document attesting to the deposit, and the bailee later says to him: I returned the item to you, the bailee is deemed credible even if the document is still in the hands of the depositor. And with regard to a purse document attesting to a joint venture that was presented by the lender to support his claim against the borrower鈥檚 orphans, the lender takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him and collects the entire sum from the orphans.

转专转讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 these two halakhot contradict each other? If the father is deemed credible when he claims that he repaid a loan, the court should present this claim on behalf of his orphans. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as if it is so that the father had, in fact, repaid the money, he would have told his children that he repaid it. Since he did not tell them anything about it, it may be assumed that he never repaid the money.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛

Rava said: With regard to the case of a purse document that was presented to support a claim against orphans, the halakha is that the claimant takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him and then collects half of the sum recorded in the document, in accordance with the judges of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates that two generations later, Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. Ravina said to Mar Zutra: Didn鈥檛 Rava say that the claimant takes an oath and collects half of the sum? Mar Zutra said to him: With regard to the opinion of the judges of the exile, we

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 70

讜讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 讻诇 砖讛注讜诇 讻讜讘砖讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛注讜诇 讻讜讘砖讜 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讚讬拽诇讬 讛讗 讘讗讬诇谞讬

But the judges of the exile, Shmuel and Karna, say: Any tree that is bent back by the yoke of oxen as the animals plow the ground under the tree, and in this way the tree does not impede the plowing, is not retained by the seller, as it is not a significant tree. Any tree that is not bent back by the yoke of the oxen is retained by the seller and not included in the sale. The Gemara comments: And these amora鈥檌m do not disagree with regard to the halakha: That which Rav said, that the only trees that the seller retains for himself and excludes from the sale are those that must be climbed by means of a rope, was said with regard to palm trees, while that which the judges of the exile said, that the only trees that are retained are those that are not bent back by the yoke of the oxen, was said with regard to other types of trees.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讞讜抓 诪讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬诐 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites a discussion related to the mishna鈥檚 ruling that a grafted carob tree and a sycamore trunk are not included in the sale of the field: Rav A岣 bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for such and such grafted carob tree, or except for such and such sycamore trunk, and there were other grafted carob trees or sycamore trunks in the field, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does the seller mean to say that it is this carob tree that the buyer does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees, or perhaps he means that he also does not acquire the rest of the carob trees? Rav Sheshet said to him in response: The buyer does not acquire any of them.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 拽谞讛

Rav A岣 raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from a baraita that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you this field except for such and such carob tree, or except for such and such sycamore trunk, the buyer does not acquire it. What, is it not that it is this carob tree that he does not acquire, but he does acquire the other carob trees?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讞讜抓 诪砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讛讛讬讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, what this means is that he does not acquire even the other carob trees. Know that this is correct, as if a person selling a field said to the buyer: My field is sold to you except for such and such field that is adjacent to it, would you say that it is only that adjacent field that he does not acquire, but he acquires all the other fields owned by the seller? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field, not all of his fields. Rather, everyone would agree that the buyer does not acquire the other fields. Therefore, here too, the buyer does not acquire the other carob trees.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讗 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 拽谞讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬

And there are those who say that the discussion took place as follows: Rav A岣 bar Huna raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one selling a field said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for half of such and such carob tree, or except for half of such and such sycamore trunk, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Do we say that the buyer certainly does not acquire the other carob trees, but he does acquire what remains from that carob tree that was mentioned, that is, the half of the carob tree that the seller did not specifically retain for himself? Or perhaps he does not acquire even what remains from that carob tree? Rav Sheshet said to him: Even what remains from that carob tree the buyer does not acquire.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 讞专讜讘 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 住讚谉 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗专 讞专讜讘讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 拽谞讛

Rav A岣 raised an objection to Rav Sheshet from a baraita that states: If the seller said to the buyer: I am selling you the entire field except for half of such and such carob tree, or except for half of such and such sycamore trunk, the buyer does not acquire the other carob trees. What, is it not that it is the other carob trees that he does not acquire, but what remains of that carob tree he does acquire?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讛 砖砖讬讬专 讘讗讜转讜 讞专讜讘 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讛 转讚注 讚讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 讞讜抓 诪讞爪讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讛讜讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讛 讛讗 讗讬讚讱 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬

Rav Sheshet said to him: No, what this means is that he does not acquire even what remains of that carob tree. Know that this is correct, as if a person selling a field said to the buyer: My field is sold to you except for half of such and such field that is adjacent to it, would you say that it is only that half of the field that he does not acquire, but he acquires the other half of the field? This is clearly not the case, as the seller explicitly stated that he is selling a certain field and nothing else. Rather, everyone would agree that the buyer does not acquire the other half of the field. Therefore, here too, the buyer does not acquire what remains of the carob tree.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬诐 诇讱 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 谞讗谞住讜 诪讛讬诪谉 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诪讛讬诪谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讬诪谉

Rav Amram raised a dilemma before Rav 岣sda: If one deposits certain items with another and receives a document signed by witnesses testifying that he deposited these items with this individual, and the bailee later says to him: I returned the items to you, but the document is still in the hands of the depositor, what is the halakha? Do we say that since if the bailee wanted to lie he could have said that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, and he would have been deemed credible; therefore now too, when he claims that he returned the items, he is deemed credible as well? Or perhaps, the one who deposited the items can say to him: If you returned the items, what is your document doing in my possession? Upon return of the deposit, you should have retrieved the document. Rav 岣sda said to him: The bailee is deemed credible.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讜讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞住讜 诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Amram asked: But let the depositor say to the bailee: If you returned the items, what is your document doing in my possession? Rav 岣sda said to him: And according to your reasoning, if the bailee had said to him that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, would he be able to say to him: What is your document doing in my possession? Since this claim could not have been stated had the bailee stated the alternative claim, it can also not be stated when the bailee claims that the items were returned. Rav Amram said to him:

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讗谞住讜 诇讗讜 砖讘讜注讛 讘注讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 谞讗诪谉 谞讗诪谉 讘砖讘讜注讛

Ultimately, even when the bailee says to the depositor that the items were taken from him under circumstances beyond his control, is he not required to take an oath? How, then, can you assert that he is deemed credible to claim that he returned the items without taking an oath? Rav 岣sda said to him: Here too, what did I mean when I said that he is deemed credible? It means that he is deemed credible when he takes an oath.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 砖讟专 讻讬住 讛讬讜爪讗 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬诐 讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专讬 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 讻讜诇讜 讜讚讬讬谞讬 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专讬 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav Amram and Rav 岣sda disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as a halakha is taught in a baraita with regard to a purse document, i.e., a document that records an arrangement whereby one gives another money as an investment in a joint venture on condition that the profits will be divided equally between the two parties. If the person who received the money died, and this document was presented by the lender against the orphans, the judges of the exile say that the lender takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him, and he collects the entire sum. And the judges of Eretz Yisrael say that he takes an oath and collects only half of the sum.

讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚谞讛专讚注讬 讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讛讗讬 注讬住拽讗 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讜驻诇讙讗 驻拽讚讜谉

And it is understood that everyone agrees with the opinion of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃, as the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: With regard to this joint venture, whereby one person gives money to another on condition that it will be used for business purposes and that the profits will be divided equally between the two parties, half of the invested money is considered a loan, for which the borrower is exclusively liable, and half is considered a deposit, so that if it is lost under circumstances beyond his control, the borrower is exempt from the liability to return it.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讘讬讚讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬

According to this assumption, everyone agrees that the claimant can recover from the orphans by means of an oath the half of the money that is considered a loan, just as he would have been able to demand that money from their father. Concerning the half that is considered a deposit, what, is it not with regard to this point that they disagree, as one Sage, the judges of the exile, holds like Rav Amram that the depositor can say to the bailee: What is your document doing in my possession? Therefore, neither the father nor his children are deemed credible to claim that they had returned the half that is considered a deposit, and the investor can collect that half as well. And one Sage, the judges of Eretz Yisrael, holds like Rav 岣sda, that one cannot assert this claim, and therefore the investor can collect only the half that is considered a loan. But as for the half that is considered a deposit, the father would have been deemed credible in his claim that he had already returned it.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬诪讜专 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讛讜讗 讚讗谞住讬讛

The Gemara rejects this opinion: No, everyone, i.e., both the judges of the exile and the judges of Eretz Yisrael, agrees with the opinion of Rav 岣sda, that the father can claim that he returned the money. And here, they disagree about the following issue, as one Sage, the judges of the exile, holds that if it is so that he had in fact repaid the money, he would have told his children that he repaid it. Since he did not tell them, it may be assumed that he never repaid the money. And one Sage, the judges of Eretz Yisrael, holds that you can say that it was the Angel of Death that prevented him from doing so, meaning he died before he had the opportunity to give his children a detailed report concerning his financial affairs.

砖诇讞 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讛诪驻拽讬讚 讗爪诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讟专 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讛讞讝专转讬讜 诇讱 谞讗诪谉 讜砖讟专 讻讬住 讛讬讜爪讗 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讬谉 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 讻讜诇讜

Apropos this discussion, it is related that Rav Huna bar Avin sent the following ruling: If one deposits an item with another and receives a document attesting to the deposit, and the bailee later says to him: I returned the item to you, the bailee is deemed credible even if the document is still in the hands of the depositor. And with regard to a purse document attesting to a joint venture that was presented by the lender to support his claim against the borrower鈥檚 orphans, the lender takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him and collects the entire sum from the orphans.

转专转讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 诪讬诪专 讛讜讛 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 these two halakhot contradict each other? If the father is deemed credible when he claims that he repaid a loan, the court should present this claim on behalf of his orphans. The Gemara answers: It is different there, as if it is so that the father had, in fact, repaid the money, he would have told his children that he repaid it. Since he did not tell them anything about it, it may be assumed that he never repaid the money.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛诇讻转讗 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 谞砖讘注 讜讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讙讜诇讛

Rava said: With regard to the case of a purse document that was presented to support a claim against orphans, the halakha is that the claimant takes an oath that the money had never been returned to him and then collects half of the sum recorded in the document, in accordance with the judges of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara relates that two generations later, Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the judges of the exile. Ravina said to Mar Zutra: Didn鈥檛 Rava say that the claimant takes an oath and collects half of the sum? Mar Zutra said to him: With regard to the opinion of the judges of the exile, we

Scroll To Top