Bava Batra 307:1

ראיה במאי רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר

In what [manner is] proof [produced]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This question may apply to the statements of both R. Meir and the Sages. ');">¹</span> — R, Huna said: Proof [is produced] by witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who testify as to the state of the health of the donor at the time the gift was made. ');">²</span> R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said: Proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Required by the Sages. (For the proof required by R. Meir, v, infra.) ');">³</span> [is produced] by the attestation of the deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The signatures of the witnesses on the deed must be verified before a court, and only when the validity of the deed had been established, independently of the donor's admission, have the donees established their right to the ownership of the gift. ');">⁴</span>

רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים קא מיפלגי בפלוגתא דר' יעקב ורבי נתן

R. Huna said, 'Proof [is produced] by witnesses' [for he holds that] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and the Sages in our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span> differ on [the same] principles<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in dispute'. ');">⁶</span> [as those] of R. Jacob and R. Nathan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 153b. V. p. 665, n. 14. ');">⁷</span> (Mnemonic: <i>MeNIaH</i>)<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an aid to memory in pairing the Tannaitic authorities. M = Meir, N = Nathan, I (Y) = Jacob, H = Hakamim, the Sages, the Rabbis. ');">⁸</span>

(סימן מניח) רבי מאיר כרבי נתן ורבנן כרבי יעקב

R. Meir [is of the same opinion] as R. Nathan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the condition of the person at the time the lawsuit is before the court is the determining factor. And since the donor is then in good health it is assumed that he was in a similar condition when the gift was made. Hence it is for him to bring witnesses who could testify that at that time he was lying sick. ');">⁹</span> and the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages of our Mishnah. ');">¹⁰</span> [are of the same opinion] as R. Jacob.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the gift cannot be taken out of the confirmed possession of its original owner (the donor), unless witnesses can be brought by the donee to testify that at the time the gift was made he was in good health. ');">¹¹</span> R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, said, 'Proof [is produced] by the attestation of the deed,' [because] they differ [on the question whether, in the case] where a person admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before a court. ');">¹²</span>

רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר קא מיפלגי במודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו דר"מ סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ורבנן סברי מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו

is required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the validity of the deed shall not in any way be dependent on the donor's own word. ');">¹³</span> for R. Meir is of the opinion [that] where one admitted that he wrote a deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he only disputes its present force, by pleading, for instance, in the case of a deed of a gift, that he was lying sick when he made the gift, or, in the case of a note indebtedness, that he repaid the debt. ');">¹⁴</span> no [independent] attestation is required<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, the deed spoken, of in our Mishnah is valid, and the donor must bring witnesses as proof that he was a sick man at the time the gift was made. ');">¹⁵</span> and the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3, supra ');">¹⁶</span>

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא דתניא אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין

are of the opinion [that], where one admitted that he wrote a deed, [independent] attestation [also] is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is incumbent upon the donee to procure the necessary attestation. ');">¹⁷</span> But [did] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and the Sages. ');">¹⁸</span> [not], however, once dispute on this [question]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether a deed acknowledged by its writer as genuine, also requires attestation before a court. ');">¹⁹</span> For it was taught [in a Baraitha]: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Witnesses who identified their signatures on a deed. ');">²⁰</span>

צריכא דאי איתמר ההיא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דאלימי עדים ומרעי שטרא אבל הכא הוא דלאו כל כמיניה אימא לא

are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By asserting that they signed under compulsion or when they were minors. ');">²¹</span> these are the words of R. Meir.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who requires no attestation of a document on the part of the witnesses in a case where the debtor himself admitted that he wrote it. The validity of the deed, which has been acknowledged by the debtor, cannot, therefore, be impaired by the statements of the witnesses. ');">²²</span> But the Sages say: They are believed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A document, though admitted by the debtor to be genuine, requires the attestation of the witnesses before a court; and since the witnesses are, accordingly, the sole authorities for its validity, they are also to be believed when they declare it to be disqualified. Now, since the dispute between R. Meir and the Sages in the Baraitha depends on the same principles as those underlying their dispute in our Mishnah, why should a repetition be necessary? ');">²³</span> — [Both are] required. Because if [their] dispute] had been stated [in connection with] that [alone],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha. ');">²⁴</span>

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ר' מאיר אבל בהך אימא מודה להו לרבנן צריכא

[it might have been assumed that] in that [case only] did the Rabbis say [that attestation of the witnesses was necessary] because the witnesses are all-powerful and they themselves impair [the validity of] the document,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the debtor's admission is disregarded. ');">²⁵</span> but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">²⁶</span> where all [the force of the document] does not depend on him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The donor. ');">²⁷</span> it might have been assumed [that he is] not [believed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, after admitting that he wrote the deed, he states that he was a sick man when he made the gift. ');">²⁸</span>

וכן אמר רבה ראיה בעדים א"ל אביי מאי טעמא אי נימא מדכולהו כתיב בהו כד הוה מהלך על רגלוהי בשוקא ובהא לא כתיב בה שמע מינה שכיב מרע הוי אדרבה מדכולהו כתיב בהו כד קציר ורמי בערסיה והא לא כתיב בה שמע מינה בריא הוי

And if [their dispute] had been stated in [connection with] this [alone], [it might have been assumed that] in this [case only] did R. Meir say [that the donor is not believed], but in that [case] it might have been assumed [that] he agrees with the Rabbis. [Hence both were] required. Rabbah likewise stated [that the] proof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in our Mishnah. ');">²⁹</span> is by witnesses. Abaye said unto him: What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why do the Sages require the donee, and not the donor, to produce the proof? ');">³⁰</span> If it be said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we shall say'. ');">³¹</span>

איכא למימר הכי ואיכא למימר הכי אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה

'Because in all [deeds]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given by a man in good health. ');">³²</span> it is entered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in all of them it is written'. ');">³³</span> "As he was [able] to walk about<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'walking on his feet'. ');">³⁴</span> in the street", and in this [deed] no such entry is made,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not written in it', ');">³⁵</span>

ובפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן אמר ראיה בעדים ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר ראיה בקיום השטר

[therefore] it is to be concluded [that when the gift was made] he was a dying man', [it may be retorted], 'On the contrary! Since in all [deeds]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That are given by dying men. ');">³⁶</span> it is entered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in all of them it is written'. ');">³³</span> "As he was lying sick in his bed,", and [in] this [deed] no such entry is made,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is not written in it', ');">³⁵</span> [therefore] it is to be concluded [that when he made the gift] he was in good health!' — As one inference is just as reasonable as the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it may be said thus and it may be said thus'. ');">³⁷</span>

איתיביה רבי יוחנן לרבי שמעון בן לקיש מעשה בבני ברק באחד שמכר בנכסי אביו ומת ובאו בני משפחה וערערו לומר קטן היה בשעת מיתה ובאו ושאלו את רבי עקיבא מהו לבודקו אמר להם אי אתם רשאים לנוולו ועוד סימנין עשויין להשתנות לאחר מיתה

[replied Rabbah,] the money<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or property. ');">³⁸</span> is to remain in the possession of its [original] owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the gift cannot be taken away from the donor unless reliable proof is produced by the donee. ');">³⁹</span> And [the following are] in the [same] dispute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they differ on the same points as R. Huna on the one hand, and R. Hisda and Rabbah, son of R. Huna, on the other, supra. ');">⁴⁰</span> For R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses; and R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Proof [consists] in the attestation of the deed. R. Johanan pointed out [the following] objection against R. Simeon b. Lakish: It once happened at Bene-Berak that a person sold his father's estate, and died. The members of the family, thereupon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and stood up' Cf Rashb. ');">⁴¹</span> protested [that] he was a minor at the time of [his] death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A minor, under twenty years of age, is not eligible to sell any of his father's estate. Hence, the property he sold should belong to the surviving members of the family. [The words 'of his death' do not occur in some MSS.; v.D.S]. ');">⁴²</span> They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., 'the buyers'. This is the present assumption of R. Johanan. V. answer of R. Lakish, infra. ');">⁴³</span> came [to] R. Akiba and asked whether the body might be examined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is he to examine him'; to exhume him, so as to ascertain his age by a post-mortem. ');">⁴⁴</span> He replied to them: You are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, [the] signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Semahoth IV, 12; infra 155a. Hence the examination could not produce any reliable evidence of his age. ');">⁴⁵</span>