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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Bava Kamma 112

The different opinions of amoraim regarding whether or not the owner gave up or whether an inheritor is considered like a buyer (that if the owner gives up on getting the item back and it changes hands from the robber to another person, he acquires the item legally) are questioned based on tannaitic sources on this topic. 聽Since the tannaitic sources raise the issue of cases in which minors would or wouldn’t be responsible, the issue of whether one can have a judgement without one side appearing is raised (since a minor cannot appear in court). 聽There are different opinions about the matter and聽the amoraim explain the circumstances under which one can have a court session without the other side appearing.

诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖

it is referring to a case where it is before the owners have despaired of retrieving their property. Consequently, the heirs have not acquired the stolen property, and it must be returned.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讛讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬

Rav Adda bar Ahava teaches that statement of Rami bar 岣ma cited above with regard to this baraita: If their father left them money that he obtained by taking interest, which is prohibited, even if they are aware that the money is from interest, they are not obligated to return the money to the debtor who paid it. Rami bar 岣ma said: That is to say that the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser, and because the money has changed domains, the heirs have acquired it.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讞讬 讘讛讚讱 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: Actually, I will say to you that the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. And the reason they do not have to return the money is because it is different here, as the verse states: 鈥淭ake no interest of him or increase, but fear your God, that your brother may live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), which teaches that you must return the interest to him so that he may live with you. Since the interest is returned for this reason and not because it is considered stolen goods, it is apparent that the Merciful One is cautioning him, the lender, to return it, but the Merciful One is not cautioning his son to return it.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讘专讬讬转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara points out: The one who teaches Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement with regard to the baraita, i.e., Rav Adda bar Ahava, all the more so would apply it to the mishna, since there is no other explanation for why the heirs are exempt from payment. Conversely, according to the one who teaches Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement with regard to the mishna, it is limited to that case. But with regard to the baraita, he holds that Rami bar 岣ma teaches it as explained by Rava, that the heirs are not exempt from payment because the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser, but rather because heirs are never required to return interest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讞砖讘 讗讘讬谞讜 注诪讱 驻讟讜专讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:21): With regard to one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying the owner. In a case where he left the stolen items to them as an inheritance, if the heirs are adults they are obligated to pay, and if they are minors they are exempt from paying. If the adult heirs said: We do not know what calculations our father made with you and whether he paid you for the stolen goods, they are exempt.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讚讜诇讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗谞讜 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讞砖讘 讗讘讬谞讜 注诪讱 讜诇讗 驻砖 诇讱 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 驻讟讜专讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: Because they say: We do not know, they are exempt? Since it is clear that they are in possession of stolen property, how can they be exempt due to the uncertain claim that perhaps their father repaid the owner after the theft? Rava said that the heirs are certain about their claim and that the baraita should be formulated differently, and this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of adult heirs who said to the claimant: We know the calculations our father made with you and there is nothing of yours left with him, as he paid his debt to you, they are exempt.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讝讬拽 讗讝讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying. If he left stolen items to them as an inheritance and they consumed them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara asks: Are minors obligated to pay? Let it be only like a case where one caused damage, and a minor who causes damage is exempt. Rav Pappa said that the baraita should be formulated differently, and this is what the baraita is saying: If he left the stolen items to them as an inheritance and they did not yet consume them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to return the stolen items, since the items are still extant.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 砖讗诇转讛 诪转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 讻住讘讜专讬诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讛诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讘讞讜讛 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

Rava says: In the case of children whose father died and left them a cow that he had borrowed, they may use it for the entire duration of its loan. Nevertheless, if it died, they are not liable to pay if its death was caused by an unavoidable accident, despite the fact that a borrower is liable for damage caused by an unavoidable accident. This is because liability for accidental damage pertains only to the actual borrower, i.e., the deceased father. If the children thought that it actually belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they are liable to pay the owner the value of inexpensive meat. Rava adds: If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are liable to pay.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗

The Gemara comments: Some teach this final statement of Rava with regard to the first clause, which states that the heirs are exempt from payment for accidental damage. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they are obligated to pay for the cow if it dies due to unavoidable accident. And some teach it with regard to the latter clause, which states that heirs who slaughter and consume a cow must pay the owner the value of inexpensive meat. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they must pay for the full value of the cow.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗

The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause holds it to be true all the more so with regard to the latter clause, where the heirs actually consumed the meat themselves. And, accordingly, this understanding differs with the forthcoming opinion of Rav Pappa. By contrast, the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause holds it to be true in that clause exclusively, but with regard to the first clause, it is not true. And this is consistent with the forthcoming opinion of Rav Pappa.

讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讙谞讜讘讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

As Rav Pappa says: If he had a stolen cow in his possession, and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay because he was already rendered liable for the theft before he came to transgress the Shabbat prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. But if he had a borrowed cow in his possession and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from payment, as the transgression of the Shabbat prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat and the prohibition against theft occur as one, as the act of slaughter is tantamount to the theft of the animal. This indicates that according to Rav Pappa, a borrower鈥檚 liability to pay for accidental damage is initiated only when the damage is inflicted. Accordingly, in the case discussed by Rava, since the damage was not inflicted during the father鈥檚 lifetime, the deceased鈥檚 property was never liened to the cow鈥檚 owner, and consequently the heirs are not obligated to pay for any accidental damage.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讬讞讝讬专 讻注讬谉 砖讙讝诇

After having cited two baraitot that express different opinions with regard to the obligation of heirs to pay for property stolen by their deceased father, the Gemara cites a third baraita that presents both opinions. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore the item that he robbed鈥 (Leviticus 5:23); what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢hat he robbed鈥? It means that the robber must return the same item that he robbed.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉

From here, based on this exposition, the Sages stated: In a case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying the owner. If he left stolen goods to them as an inheritance, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to return the stolen goods. They said in the name of Sumakhos: If the heirs are adults they are obligated, but if they are minors they are exempt.

讘专 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讟专拽 讙诇讬 讘讗驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉

The Gemara recounts a related incident: The son of Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 father-in-law, i.e., his wife鈥檚 brother, who was a minor, shut the doors of his father鈥檚 house before Rabbi Yirmeya in order to prevent Rabbi Yirmeya from establishing legal possession of the house or a chamber that he claimed belonged to him. Rabbi Yirmeya came before Rabbi Avin to file a legal claim against his brother-in-law.

讗诪专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讝拽讬 讘讬讛 讘讞讬讬 讚讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐

Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Your brother-in-law is claiming ownership of that which is his, since he retains the presumptive ownership of his father鈥檚 house upon his father鈥檚 death. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: But I can bring witnesses who can testify that I took possession of it during his father鈥檚 lifetime. Rabbi Avin said to him: But does the court accept witnesses

砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 住讜诪讻讜住 讘爪讬讚讱 讗诪专 讗讬讻驻诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讻住讜诪讻讜住 诇讗驻拽讜注谉 诇讚讬讚讬

who testify in the absence of a litigant? Since the defendant is a minor his presence is not legally recognized, and the court does not accept testimony against him. Rabbi Yirmeya questioned this assertion: And is it so that the court does not accept such testimony? But isn鈥檛 it taught that if a robber leaves stolen goods to his children, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to pay the owner? If the court obligates minors to pay, it must accept testimony about them. Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Sumakhos鈥檚 dispute is at your side, i.e., Sumakhos disagrees with this ruling and holds that the minors are exempt from paying. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Did the whole world go to the effort to hold in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos in order to seize what is mine?

讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转讬谞讜拽 砖转拽祝 讘注讘讚讬讜 讜讬专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙讚讬诇 讗诇讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜 诪讬讚 讜诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讬讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 讜谞专讗讛

In the meantime, the matter circulated and eventually came before Rabbi Abbahu, who said: Did you not hear that which Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Oshaya says? As Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a child who took his slaves and descended into the field of another and said: It is mine, the court does not say: Let us wait until he matures before we assess his claims. Rather, the court removes it from his possession immediately, and when he matures he may bring witnesses to attest to his claim and we will see how to judge the case. Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya should be awarded the disputed property until his minor brother-in-law may litigate in court.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讜讛 诇讗

The Gemara rejects Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 assertion: Is the case that Rav Yosef bar 岣ma discusses comparable to the case of Rabbi Yirmeya? It is there, in Rav Yosef bar 岣ma鈥檚 case, that we seize the property from him, because there is no presumption of ownership from his father; but where he does have a presumption of ownership from his father, no, we do not seize his property. Since Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 brother-in-law has a presumption of ownership due to the fact that the property belonged to his father, he retains control of the property.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讘转讗讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉

搂 Having mentioned the issue of testimony in the absence of a litigant, the Gemara discusses this matter in greater detail. Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Shabbtai says: The court accepts witnesses even in the absence of a litigant. Rabbi Yo岣nan wondered at this statement of Rav Ashi, and said: Does the court in fact accept witnesses in the absence of a litigant?

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 注讚讬讜 讞讜诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诇讬诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讗

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina received the following guideline from Rabbi Yo岣nan: The court accepts testimony in the absence of the defendant only in a case where the plaintiff was ill, or his witnesses were ill, or his witnesses wished to travel overseas and the judges sent for the defendant and he did not come. Since there is a concern that the plaintiff will not be able to present his claims at a later date, the testimony is accepted even in the absence of the defendant.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讚驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讝讬诇谞讗

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The court accepts witnesses in the absence of a litigant. Mar Ukva said: This statement was explained to me personally by Shmuel himself, and he said that it applies in a case where the court opened his case and sent for him, but he did not appear. But if it did not yet open the case for him, he may say to the plaintiff: I am going to the High Court to resolve this case and will not appear in the local court.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讟 讚讬住拽讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the court already opened the case for him, he should also be able to say to them: I am going to the High Court to resolve this case. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: The defendant may not defer an opened case to the High Court if, for example, the local court obtained a license from the High Court authorizing it to adjudicate the case.

讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讛讜 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬讘讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讬注诪讜讚 注诇 砖讜专讜

搂 Having discussed testimony in the absence of a litigant, the Gemara addresses a similar matter. Rav says: The court ratifies a document in the absence of a litigant. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The court does not ratify a document in the absence of a litigant. Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Yosei bar Abbahu: I will explain Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reasoning to you. The verse states with regard to an ox that gored: 鈥淎nd warning has been given to its owner and he has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The Torah means to say: Let the owner of the ox come and stand by his ox when the testimony about the ox is provided. Similarly, a document may be ratified only in the presence of the individual it implicates.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞 讜讗讬 讗诪专 谞拽讬讟讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讜诪专注谞讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转讗 讗转讗 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬

Rava said: The halakha is that the court ratifies a document in the absence of a litigant, and this is the case even if the other litigant stands and screams in protest that the document is a forgery. And if he said: Give me time until I bring witnesses and disqualify the document, we give him time before forcing him to pay. If he has come with witnesses within the time allotted to him, he has come, and the court reviews the case accordingly. If he does not come within the time allotted to him, we give him an additional three days on which to bring witnesses, when the court is in session: Monday, Thursday, and Monday.

讗讬 诇讗 讗转讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 驻转讬讞讗 注诇讜讬讛 转砖注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 转诇转讬谉 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讝讜讝讬 讜谞讬讝讜祝 诪爪讬注讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞 诇诪讬讝祝 讜拽讗 讟专讞 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讘转专讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讞 讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讝讜讝讬

If he still has not come, we write a document of ostracism against him for ninety days. During the first thirty days we do not descend to his property to collect his debt, as the court says: Perhaps he is occupied with borrowing money to pay his debt. During the middle period of thirty days as well, we do not descend to his property, as the court says: Perhaps he did not find someone to borrow from and he is now occupied with selling his property in order to pay his debt. During the final thirty days as well, we do not descend to his property, as the court says: Perhaps the debtor has found a purchaser and the purchaser himself is occupied with obtaining the money so that he can pay the debtor for the sale, and the debtor will then pay his debt.

诇讗 讗转讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 讗谞讬讻住讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗转讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讗诇转专 讻转讘讬谞谉

If the debtor still did not come to pay his debt after ninety days, we write a document of authorization [adrakhta] allowing the creditor to collect his due from any property belonging to the debtor. And this statement applies only in a case where the debtor said: I am coming to pay and then he does not actually make an appearance. But if he said: I am not coming, we immediately write a document of authorization without waiting for ninety days to pass.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诇讗诇转专 讻转讘讬谞谉

Furthermore, this matter of a ninety-day waiting period applies only with regard to a loan, as the debtor requires time in order to obtain the money to pay it back. But with regard to a deposit that the owner demands back from a bailee, we write a document of authorization immediately. Since a bailee should have immediate access to the deposit, there is no reason to grant him an extension.

讜讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诪拽专拽注讬 讗讘诇 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诪诇讜讛 诇诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讻讬 讗转讬 诇讜讛 讜诪讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜诪专注 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讬讙讘讛

The Gemara adds: When we write a document of authorization, the document applies only to the borrower鈥檚 land, but with regard to movable property, the court does not draft such a document. The reason for this is that perhaps the creditor will seize and consume the borrower鈥檚 movable property, and when the borrower later comes and brings witnesses and thereby invalidates the creditor鈥檚 document, he will not find anything to collect in order to retrieve his money.

讜讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专拽注讬 诇诪诇讜讛 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讚专讻转讗 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专拽注讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝

And if the creditor owns land, we write a document authorizing the creditor to collect from any property that belongs to the borrower, including movable property. Since the creditor owns land, there is no concern that if the borrower manages to overturn the ruling he will have nothing from which to collect. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. The court does not draft a document of authorization with regard to movable property even if the creditor has land. This is because we are concerned lest the creditor鈥檚 land depreciate in value and the borrower will be unable to retrieve his money.

讜讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诪讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 诪讬专讞拽 诇讗

The Gemara teaches another halakha with regard to this matter: When we write the document of authorization, we inform the party that is liable to pay, as a final warning before authorizing a creditor to locate and take possession of his property in repayment of the debt. And this matter applies only when he is nearby, but if he is distant, the court does not notify him before authorizing the creditor.

讜讗讬 诪讬专讞拽 讜讗讬讻讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讛转诐 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 注讚 讚讗讝诇讗 讜讗转讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 砖讛讗 诇诪专 讗讞讗 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 注讚 讚讗讝诇讗 讜讗转讬讬讗 砖讬讬专转讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬

And if he is distant but there are relatives of his nearby, or if there are caravans that go to the borrower鈥檚 current location and return, we delay issuing his document of authorization for the twelve months of the year, until the caravan goes and returns, so that if he wishes to make a claim, he can do so. This is like that incident where Ravina delayed for the twelve months of the year before issuing a document of authorization for Mar A岣, until a caravan went to and returned from Bei 岣zai.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讜讛 讗讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讟讬讗 讗讚专讻转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 注讚 讚讗讝讬诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讘转诇转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗转讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讞诪砖讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽讗讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: And that is not so. There, Ravina delayed issuing the document because the creditor was a violent man, and if a document of authorization would come into his possession, it would not be possible to take it from him if the borrower would prove that the original document was invalid. But here, i.e., in general, we wait for the defendant to be informed only if he is close enough to be informed within a day. Consequently, if the court decided the issue on Monday, a messenger would go inform the defendant on Tuesday, and he could come from his location to the court on Wednesday and stand trial on Thursday. If a debtor is more than a day鈥檚 travel away, however, the court does not trouble itself to notify him.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 砖诇讜讞讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇砖诪转讗 讗讘诇 诇驻转讬讞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 拽讗 诪讞住专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇住驻专讗 诇讗

搂 Apropos the Gemara鈥檚 discussion of summoning an individual to court by means of a messenger, the Gemara discusses this issue in a more general manner. Ravina said: We deem the agent of the Rabbis, who was sent to summon an individual to court, as credible as two witnesses if he says that the defendant refuses to come to court. And this matter applies only with regard to excommunication, but with regard to issuing a document of ostracism, since it causes the defendant loss of money, as he must give money to the scribe for drafting the document, no, the agent is not deemed credible.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讝讬诪谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讬转转讗 讜讗驻讜诪讗 讚砖讬讘讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗

Additionally, Ravina said: We may give a defendant a particular time to appear in court by informing him of the trial by word of mouth from a woman or from his neighbors, as these people are trusted to notify the defendant of the court鈥檚 summons. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the defendant is not in the city.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 Kamma 112

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 112

诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖

it is referring to a case where it is before the owners have despaired of retrieving their property. Consequently, the heirs have not acquired the stolen property, and it must be returned.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讛讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 诪注讜转 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讛谉 砖诇 专讘讬转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬

Rav Adda bar Ahava teaches that statement of Rami bar 岣ma cited above with regard to this baraita: If their father left them money that he obtained by taking interest, which is prohibited, even if they are aware that the money is from interest, they are not obligated to return the money to the debtor who paid it. Rami bar 岣ma said: That is to say that the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser, and because the money has changed domains, the heirs have acquired it.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专砖讜转 讬讜专砖 诇讗讜 讻专砖讜转 诇讜拽讞 讚诪讬 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞讞讬 讘讛讚讱 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讝讛专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava said: Actually, I will say to you that the domain of an heir is not comparable to the domain of a purchaser. And the reason they do not have to return the money is because it is different here, as the verse states: 鈥淭ake no interest of him or increase, but fear your God, that your brother may live with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:36), which teaches that you must return the interest to him so that he may live with you. Since the interest is returned for this reason and not because it is considered stolen goods, it is apparent that the Merciful One is cautioning him, the lender, to return it, but the Merciful One is not cautioning his son to return it.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讘专讬讬转讗 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讻专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛

The Gemara points out: The one who teaches Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement with regard to the baraita, i.e., Rav Adda bar Ahava, all the more so would apply it to the mishna, since there is no other explanation for why the heirs are exempt from payment. Conversely, according to the one who teaches Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 statement with regard to the mishna, it is limited to that case. But with regard to the baraita, he holds that Rami bar 岣ma teaches it as explained by Rava, that the heirs are not exempt from payment because the domain of an heir is comparable to the domain of a purchaser, but rather because heirs are never required to return interest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讞砖讘 讗讘讬谞讜 注诪讱 驻讟讜专讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:21): With regard to one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying the owner. In a case where he left the stolen items to them as an inheritance, if the heirs are adults they are obligated to pay, and if they are minors they are exempt from paying. If the adult heirs said: We do not know what calculations our father made with you and whether he paid you for the stolen goods, they are exempt.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讗谞讜 讬讜讚注讬谉 驻讟讜专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讙讚讜诇讬诐 砖讗诪专讜 讬讜讚注讬诐 讗谞讜 讞砖讘讜谞讜转 砖讞砖讘 讗讘讬谞讜 注诪讱 讜诇讗 驻砖 诇讱 讙讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 驻讟讜专讬谉

The Gemara expresses surprise: Because they say: We do not know, they are exempt? Since it is clear that they are in possession of stolen property, how can they be exempt due to the uncertain claim that perhaps their father repaid the owner after the theft? Rava said that the heirs are certain about their claim and that the baraita should be formulated differently, and this is what the baraita is saying: In the case of adult heirs who said to the claimant: We know the calculations our father made with you and there is nothing of yours left with him, as he paid his debt to you, they are exempt.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜讗讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讚讗讝讬拽 讗讝讜拽讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讜注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讻诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying. If he left stolen items to them as an inheritance and they consumed them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to pay the owner. The Gemara asks: Are minors obligated to pay? Let it be only like a case where one caused damage, and a minor who causes damage is exempt. Rav Pappa said that the baraita should be formulated differently, and this is what the baraita is saying: If he left the stolen items to them as an inheritance and they did not yet consume them, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to return the stolen items, since the items are still extant.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诪砖转诪砖讬谉 讘讛 讻诇 讬诪讬 砖讗诇转讛 诪转讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住讬讛 讻住讘讜专讬诐 砖诇 讗讘讬讛诐 讛讬讗 讜讟讘讞讜讛 讜讗讻诇讜讛 诪砖诇诪讬谉 讚诪讬 讘砖专 讘讝讜诇 讛谞讬讞 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

Rava says: In the case of children whose father died and left them a cow that he had borrowed, they may use it for the entire duration of its loan. Nevertheless, if it died, they are not liable to pay if its death was caused by an unavoidable accident, despite the fact that a borrower is liable for damage caused by an unavoidable accident. This is because liability for accidental damage pertains only to the actual borrower, i.e., the deceased father. If the children thought that it actually belonged to their father and they slaughtered it and ate it, they are liable to pay the owner the value of inexpensive meat. Rava adds: If their father left them guaranteed property, i.e., land, they are liable to pay.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗

The Gemara comments: Some teach this final statement of Rava with regard to the first clause, which states that the heirs are exempt from payment for accidental damage. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they are obligated to pay for the cow if it dies due to unavoidable accident. And some teach it with regard to the latter clause, which states that heirs who slaughter and consume a cow must pay the owner the value of inexpensive meat. According to this interpretation, if the father left them land, they must pay for the full value of the cow.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗住讬驻讗 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗专讬砖讗 诇讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘 驻驻讗

The one who teaches it with regard to the first clause holds it to be true all the more so with regard to the latter clause, where the heirs actually consumed the meat themselves. And, accordingly, this understanding differs with the forthcoming opinion of Rav Pappa. By contrast, the one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause holds it to be true in that clause exclusively, but with regard to the first clause, it is not true. And this is consistent with the forthcoming opinion of Rav Pappa.

讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 讙谞讜讘讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讘专 讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讛讬转讛 驻专讛 砖讗讜诇讛 诇讜 讜讟讘讞讛 讘砖讘转 驻讟讜专 砖讗讬住讜专 砖讘转 讜讗讬住讜专 讙谞讬讘讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

As Rav Pappa says: If he had a stolen cow in his possession, and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is liable to pay because he was already rendered liable for the theft before he came to transgress the Shabbat prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. But if he had a borrowed cow in his possession and he slaughtered it on Shabbat, he is exempt from payment, as the transgression of the Shabbat prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat and the prohibition against theft occur as one, as the act of slaughter is tantamount to the theft of the animal. This indicates that according to Rav Pappa, a borrower鈥檚 liability to pay for accidental damage is initiated only when the damage is inflicted. Accordingly, in the case discussed by Rava, since the damage was not inflicted during the father鈥檚 lifetime, the deceased鈥檚 property was never liened to the cow鈥檚 owner, and consequently the heirs are not obligated to pay for any accidental damage.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝讬诇讛 讗砖专 讙讝诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讙讝诇 讬讞讝讬专 讻注讬谉 砖讙讝诇

After having cited two baraitot that express different opinions with regard to the obligation of heirs to pay for property stolen by their deceased father, the Gemara cites a third baraita that presents both opinions. The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen it shall be, if he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore the item that he robbed鈥 (Leviticus 5:23); what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渢hat he robbed鈥? It means that the robber must return the same item that he robbed.

诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讛讙讜讝诇 讜诪讗讻讬诇 讗转 讘谞讬讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇砖诇诐 讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讬谉

From here, based on this exposition, the Sages stated: In a case of one who robs another of food and feeds it to his children, the children are exempt from paying the owner. If he left stolen goods to them as an inheritance, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to return the stolen goods. They said in the name of Sumakhos: If the heirs are adults they are obligated, but if they are minors they are exempt.

讘专 讞诪讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讟专拽 讙诇讬 讘讗驻讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉

The Gemara recounts a related incident: The son of Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 father-in-law, i.e., his wife鈥檚 brother, who was a minor, shut the doors of his father鈥檚 house before Rabbi Yirmeya in order to prevent Rabbi Yirmeya from establishing legal possession of the house or a chamber that he claimed belonged to him. Rabbi Yirmeya came before Rabbi Avin to file a legal claim against his brother-in-law.

讗诪专 砖诇讜 讛讜讗 转讜讘注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讚讗讞讝拽讬 讘讬讛 讘讞讬讬 讚讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐

Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Your brother-in-law is claiming ownership of that which is his, since he retains the presumptive ownership of his father鈥檚 house upon his father鈥檚 death. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: But I can bring witnesses who can testify that I took possession of it during his father鈥檚 lifetime. Rabbi Avin said to him: But does the court accept witnesses

砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 住讜诪讻讜住 讘爪讬讚讱 讗诪专 讗讬讻驻诇 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讜拽讗讬 讻住讜诪讻讜住 诇讗驻拽讜注谉 诇讚讬讚讬

who testify in the absence of a litigant? Since the defendant is a minor his presence is not legally recognized, and the court does not accept testimony against him. Rabbi Yirmeya questioned this assertion: And is it so that the court does not accept such testimony? But isn鈥檛 it taught that if a robber leaves stolen goods to his children, whether they are adults or minors, they are obligated to pay the owner? If the court obligates minors to pay, it must accept testimony about them. Rabbi Avin said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Sumakhos鈥檚 dispute is at your side, i.e., Sumakhos disagrees with this ruling and holds that the minors are exempt from paying. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Did the whole world go to the effort to hold in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos in order to seize what is mine?

讗讚讛讻讬 讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讗转讗 讜诪讟讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讻讜 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转讬谞讜拽 砖转拽祝 讘注讘讚讬讜 讜讬专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞诪转讬谉 注讚 砖讬讙讚讬诇 讗诇讗 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜 诪讬讚 讜诇讻砖讬讙讚讬诇 讬讘讬讗 注讚讬诐 讜谞专讗讛

In the meantime, the matter circulated and eventually came before Rabbi Abbahu, who said: Did you not hear that which Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Oshaya says? As Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a child who took his slaves and descended into the field of another and said: It is mine, the court does not say: Let us wait until he matures before we assess his claims. Rather, the court removes it from his possession immediately, and when he matures he may bring witnesses to attest to his claim and we will see how to judge the case. Similarly, Rabbi Yirmeya should be awarded the disputed property until his minor brother-in-law may litigate in court.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗讘讜讛 诇讗

The Gemara rejects Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 assertion: Is the case that Rav Yosef bar 岣ma discusses comparable to the case of Rabbi Yirmeya? It is there, in Rav Yosef bar 岣ma鈥檚 case, that we seize the property from him, because there is no presumption of ownership from his father; but where he does have a presumption of ownership from his father, no, we do not seize his property. Since Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 brother-in-law has a presumption of ownership due to the fact that the property belonged to his father, he retains control of the property.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖讘转讗讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 转讛讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉

搂 Having mentioned the issue of testimony in the absence of a litigant, the Gemara discusses this matter in greater detail. Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Shabbtai says: The court accepts witnesses even in the absence of a litigant. Rabbi Yo岣nan wondered at this statement of Rav Ashi, and said: Does the court in fact accept witnesses in the absence of a litigant?

拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讞讜诇讛 讗讜 注讚讬讜 讞讜诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注讚讬讜 诪讘拽砖讬谉 诇讬诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讗

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina received the following guideline from Rabbi Yo岣nan: The court accepts testimony in the absence of the defendant only in a case where the plaintiff was ill, or his witnesses were ill, or his witnesses wished to travel overseas and the judges sent for the defendant and he did not come. Since there is a concern that the plaintiff will not be able to present his claims at a later date, the testimony is accepted even in the absence of the defendant.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讬诐 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻讙讜谉 讚驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讬讛 讜砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讗 讗讘诇 诇讗 驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讝讬诇谞讗

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The court accepts witnesses in the absence of a litigant. Mar Ukva said: This statement was explained to me personally by Shmuel himself, and he said that it applies in a case where the court opened his case and sent for him, but he did not appear. But if it did not yet open the case for him, he may say to the plaintiff: I am going to the High Court to resolve this case and will not appear in the local court.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 驻转讞讜 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讗讝讬诇谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讻讙讜谉 讚谞拽讟 讚讬住拽讗 诪讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: If so, then even when the court already opened the case for him, he should also be able to say to them: I am going to the High Court to resolve this case. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: The defendant may not defer an opened case to the High Court if, for example, the local court obtained a license from the High Court authorizing it to adjudicate the case.

讗诪专 专讘 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讛讜 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讜注讚 讘讘注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 讬砖诪专谞讜 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬讘讗 讘注诇 讛砖讜专 讜讬注诪讜讚 注诇 砖讜专讜

搂 Having discussed testimony in the absence of a litigant, the Gemara addresses a similar matter. Rav says: The court ratifies a document in the absence of a litigant. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The court does not ratify a document in the absence of a litigant. Rav Sheshet said to Rabbi Yosei bar Abbahu: I will explain Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reasoning to you. The verse states with regard to an ox that gored: 鈥淎nd warning has been given to its owner and he has not secured it鈥 (Exodus 21:29). The Torah means to say: Let the owner of the ox come and stand by his ox when the testimony about the ox is provided. Similarly, a document may be ratified only in the presence of the individual it implicates.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞 讜讗讬 讗诪专 谞拽讬讟讜 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬谞讗 住讛讚讬 讜诪专注谞讗 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗转讗 讗转讗 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 讜讞诪讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬

Rava said: The halakha is that the court ratifies a document in the absence of a litigant, and this is the case even if the other litigant stands and screams in protest that the document is a forgery. And if he said: Give me time until I bring witnesses and disqualify the document, we give him time before forcing him to pay. If he has come with witnesses within the time allotted to him, he has come, and the court reviews the case accordingly. If he does not come within the time allotted to him, we give him an additional three days on which to bring witnesses, when the court is in session: Monday, Thursday, and Monday.

讗讬 诇讗 讗转讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 驻转讬讞讗 注诇讜讬讛 转砖注讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 转诇转讬谉 拽诪讗讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讝讜讝讬 讜谞讬讝讜祝 诪爪讬注讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞 诇诪讬讝祝 讜拽讗 讟专讞 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讘转专讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞讞转讬谞谉 诇谞讻住讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讜拽讞 讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 讟专讞 讘讝讜讝讬

If he still has not come, we write a document of ostracism against him for ninety days. During the first thirty days we do not descend to his property to collect his debt, as the court says: Perhaps he is occupied with borrowing money to pay his debt. During the middle period of thirty days as well, we do not descend to his property, as the court says: Perhaps he did not find someone to borrow from and he is now occupied with selling his property in order to pay his debt. During the final thirty days as well, we do not descend to his property, as the court says: Perhaps the debtor has found a purchaser and the purchaser himself is occupied with obtaining the money so that he can pay the debtor for the sale, and the debtor will then pay his debt.

诇讗 讗转讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 讗谞讬讻住讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 讗转讬谞讗 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诇讗诇转专 讻转讘讬谞谉

If the debtor still did not come to pay his debt after ninety days, we write a document of authorization [adrakhta] allowing the creditor to collect his due from any property belonging to the debtor. And this statement applies only in a case where the debtor said: I am coming to pay and then he does not actually make an appearance. But if he said: I am not coming, we immediately write a document of authorization without waiting for ninety days to pass.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪诇讜讛 讗讘诇 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诇讗诇转专 讻转讘讬谞谉

Furthermore, this matter of a ninety-day waiting period applies only with regard to a loan, as the debtor requires time in order to obtain the money to pay it back. But with regard to a deposit that the owner demands back from a bailee, we write a document of authorization immediately. Since a bailee should have immediate access to the deposit, there is no reason to grant him an extension.

讜讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗诪拽专拽注讬 讗讘诇 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜 诪诇讜讛 诇诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讻讬 讗转讬 诇讜讛 讜诪讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讜诪专注 诇讬讛 诇砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪砖讻讞 诪讬讚讬 诇诪讬讙讘讛

The Gemara adds: When we write a document of authorization, the document applies only to the borrower鈥檚 land, but with regard to movable property, the court does not draft such a document. The reason for this is that perhaps the creditor will seize and consume the borrower鈥檚 movable property, and when the borrower later comes and brings witnesses and thereby invalidates the creditor鈥檚 document, he will not find anything to collect in order to retrieve his money.

讜讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专拽注讬 诇诪诇讜讛 讻转讘讬谞谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讚专讻转讗 讗诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪拽专拽注讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 转讻住讬祝

And if the creditor owns land, we write a document authorizing the creditor to collect from any property that belongs to the borrower, including movable property. Since the creditor owns land, there is no concern that if the borrower manages to overturn the ruling he will have nothing from which to collect. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. The court does not draft a document of authorization with regard to movable property even if the creditor has land. This is because we are concerned lest the creditor鈥檚 land depreciate in value and the borrower will be unable to retrieve his money.

讜讻讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讚专讻转讗 诪讜讚注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诪讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 诪讬专讞拽 诇讗

The Gemara teaches another halakha with regard to this matter: When we write the document of authorization, we inform the party that is liable to pay, as a final warning before authorizing a creditor to locate and take possession of his property in repayment of the debt. And this matter applies only when he is nearby, but if he is distant, the court does not notify him before authorizing the creditor.

讜讗讬 诪讬专讞拽 讜讗讬讻讗 拽专讜讘讬诐 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讜讗转讜 讛转诐 诪砖讛讬谞谉 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 注讚 讚讗讝诇讗 讜讗转讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 砖讛讗 诇诪专 讗讞讗 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 注讚 讚讗讝诇讗 讜讗转讬讬讗 砖讬讬专转讗 诪讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬

And if he is distant but there are relatives of his nearby, or if there are caravans that go to the borrower鈥檚 current location and return, we delay issuing his document of authorization for the twelve months of the year, until the caravan goes and returns, so that if he wishes to make a claim, he can do so. This is like that incident where Ravina delayed for the twelve months of the year before issuing a document of authorization for Mar A岣, until a caravan went to and returned from Bei 岣zai.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诇讬诪讗 讛讜讛 讗讬 讛讜讬讗 诪讟讬讗 讗讚专讻转讗 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 注讚 讚讗讝讬诇 砖诇讬讞讗 讘转诇转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗转讗 讘讗专讘注讛 讘砖讘转讗 讜诇讞诪砖讗 讘砖讘转讗 拽讗讬 讘讚讬谞讬讛

The Gemara comments: And that is not so. There, Ravina delayed issuing the document because the creditor was a violent man, and if a document of authorization would come into his possession, it would not be possible to take it from him if the borrower would prove that the original document was invalid. But here, i.e., in general, we wait for the defendant to be informed only if he is close enough to be informed within a day. Consequently, if the court decided the issue on Monday, a messenger would go inform the defendant on Tuesday, and he could come from his location to the court on Wednesday and stand trial on Thursday. If a debtor is more than a day鈥檚 travel away, however, the court does not trouble itself to notify him.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 砖诇讜讞讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讛讬诪谞讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讘讬 转专讬 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇砖诪转讗 讗讘诇 诇驻转讬讞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪诪讜谞讗 拽讗 诪讞住专 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转讘 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 诇住驻专讗 诇讗

搂 Apropos the Gemara鈥檚 discussion of summoning an individual to court by means of a messenger, the Gemara discusses this issue in a more general manner. Ravina said: We deem the agent of the Rabbis, who was sent to summon an individual to court, as credible as two witnesses if he says that the defendant refuses to come to court. And this matter applies only with regard to excommunication, but with regard to issuing a document of ostracism, since it causes the defendant loss of money, as he must give money to the scribe for drafting the document, no, the agent is not deemed credible.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 讝讬诪谞讗 讗驻讜诪讗 讚讗讬转转讗 讜讗驻讜诪讗 讚砖讬讘讘讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘诪转讗

Additionally, Ravina said: We may give a defendant a particular time to appear in court by informing him of the trial by word of mouth from a woman or from his neighbors, as these people are trusted to notify the defendant of the court鈥檚 summons. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the defendant is not in the city.

Scroll To Top