אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרבינא הלכתא מאי אמר ליה בכולהו הלכתא כרב חמא לבר מתברא דסהדי בשקרי לא מחזקינן
against the other; and take good heed of these rulings, because they are firmly established. Raba, however, said that each has these rights against the other. There was a bond [inherited] by orphans [from their father] against which a receipt was produced [by the borrower]. R. Hama said: We neither enforce payment on the strength of the bond, nor do we tear it up. 'We neither enforce payment', because a receipt is produced against it, 'nor do we tear it up', because it is possible that when the orphans grow up they will bring evidence invalidating the receipt. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to Rabina: What is the accepted ruling in such a case? — He replied: In all [the above-mentioned cases] the law follows R. Hama, save only in the matter of the receipt, the reason being that we do not presume the witnesses [who have signed the receipt] to have been guilty of a falsehood. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari, however, said that in this also the law follows R. Hama, since if the receipt were genuine the defendant ought to have produced it in the lifetime of the father, and since he did not do so, the inference is that it was forged.
Tosafot on Bava Batra
They collect according to the wealth of each individual: Since there is no life-threatening danger, we do not assess according to wealth. And this is also true in the last chapter of Bava Kamma (116b): A caravan traveling in the desert, and a troop of bandits stood over it, we assess according to wealth, for there is not danger to life since in the troop is attacking only for money. And even though it says in Sanhedrin (72a) that a tunneling thief is judged according to his end. And Rava explains that this is because there is an assumption that a person would not stand by idly while his money is threatened [and therefore, the fact that the homeowner would defend himself will lead the thief to respond with violence...thus a thief coming to steal money is prepared to act violently] even so, we assess [the caravan attacked by bandits] according to wealth, sinc the bandits only want to seize money, and if the caravan does not defend itself, they bandits will not physically harm them. Therefore, this is not considered a situation of danger. But in the case of bandits, if the caravan comes to terms with them, the amount is assessed by wealth. But when people get lost in the wilderness, it says there that the assessment is per capita, since when people get lost, there is danger to life.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
