Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 306:7

וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה וכו':

it is regarded as a private domain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the public abstain from using it on account of its growing crops. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> in both respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to here and to here'; as regards the Sabbath (v. supra p. 665, n. 15), and as regards 'doubtful Levitical uncleanness' which in a private domain is regarded as unclean. Consequently. if a person entered the valley and is not certain whether he entered it in summer or in winter he should, according to R. Nathan, be regarded as clean if his case was dealt with by the court in the summer, and as unclean if dealt with in the winter. According to R. Jacob, who does not take into consideration the time the decision is given, the person would always be regarded as clean whatever the season in which his case is dealt with (since a person is presumed to be usually clean), unless witnesses testified that they saw him enter the valley in winter. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> Raba said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a walled valley in the summer season is subject to the laws of a public domain in respect of Levitical uncleanness. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> has reference only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they did not teach but', ');"><sup>23</sup></span> [to the case] where a winter has not passed over it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the time when a wall was put round it. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> but [where] a winter has passed over it, [it is regarded as] a private domain in all respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the summer season. Once it has acquired the status of a private domain it retains that status permanently. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF.

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B engaged A as tutor to his son. B said to A that since he, B, was unlearned and did not know whether or not A had sufficient knowledge to tutor his son, A must go to his (B's) relative C to be examined before entering upon his duties. A came to B's house and began to tutor B's son. Subsequently B discovered that A had never been examined by C. He, therefore, summoned A to court. A now declares himself ready to be examined, but B argues that A's present knowledge is no proof of his previous fitness for his position. Moreover, one witness testifies that at the time A undertook to teach B's son, he was not qualified to do so because of insufficient knowledge.
A. If A has now sufficient knowledge to teach B's son, the burden of proof lies on B that A did not have such knowledge at the time he was engaged. However, since B has one witness to support his claim, A must take an oath to the effect that he had sufficient knowledge at the time of the agreement. If A takes such oath, he will be entitled to collect his full wages from B.
SOURCES: Cr. 3; Pr. 488; Mord. B. B. 621. Cf. Agudah B. M. 172.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull Chapter