Bava Batra 308

בשלמא לדידי דאמינא ראיה בעדים כיון דאמר ללקוחות אייתו עדים ולא אשכחו היינו דקא אתו ואמרו ליה מהו לבודקו אלא לדידך דאמרת ראיה בקיום השטר למה להו לבודקו לקיימו שטרייהו ולוקמו בנכסי

[Now]. according to my interpretation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to me, that I said'. ');">¹</span> [of our Mishnah that] evidence [is produced] by [the testimony of] witnesses, one can well understand why, when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Var. lec., 'they', i.e., the members of the family.] ');">²</span> asked the buyers [to] bring witnesses and they [could] not obtain [them]. they came to ask him whether the body might [not] be examined. But according to your interpretation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to you, that you said'. ');">³</span> that evidence [consists] in the attestation of the deed, why should they [wish] to examine [the body]? Let them procure the attestation of their deeds and [thus] gain possession of the property!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Witnesses would not sign a deed of sale unless they were satisfied that the seller has attained the legal age. Their attested signatures would, consequently, supply sufficient evidence that the sale was legally valid. ');">⁴</span>

מי סברת נכסי בחזקת בני משפחה קיימי וקא אתו לקוחות ומערערי נכסי בחזקת לקוחות קיימי וקא אתו בני משפחה וקא מערערי

— Do you think, [replied R. Lakish], that the property was in the possession of the members of the family and that the buyers came to protest? [This was not the case.] The property was in the possession of the buyers, and the members of the family came and protested.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the members of the family did not, of course, possess the deed, the question of their procuring attestation of the deed cannot possibly arise, ');">⁵</span> Logical reasoning also [supports] this [view]. Since when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba. ');">⁶</span> said to them, 'You are not permitted to dishonour him', they remained silent. If it is granted [that] the members of the family protested, one can well understand why they remained silent;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They had consideration for the honour of their relative. ');">⁷</span> if, however, it be assumed [that] the buyers protested, why [it may be asked] did they remain silent? They should have replied to him, 'We paid him money; let him be dishonoured!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'let him be&nbsp;…' (bis). Would strangers consent to lose their purchase money out of consideration for the corpse of the men who appropriated their money? ');">⁸</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקאמר להו אי אתם רשאים לנוולו ואישתיקו אי אמרת בשלמא בני משפחה קא מערערי משום הכי אישתיקו אלא אי אמרת לקוחות קא מערערי אמאי שתקי לימרו ליה אנן זוזי יהבינן ליה לינוול ולינוול

— If [only] because of this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If this argument had been the only proof that it was the relatives who protested. ');">⁹</span> [there would be] no argument. [for R. Akiba may] have said to them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyers. ');">¹⁰</span> thus: In the first place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');">¹¹</span> [a post mortem must not be held] because you are not permitted to dishonour him; and, furthermore, in case you might say. 'He took [our] money. let him be dishonoured', the signs [of maturity] usually undergo a change after death.

אי משום הא לא איריא הכי קאמר להו חדא דאי אתם רשאים לנוולו ועוד וכי תימרו זוזי שקל לינוול ולינוול סימנים עשויין להשתנות לאחר מיתה

R. Simeon b. Lakish enquired of R. Johanan: With reference<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this'. ');">¹²</span> to what has been taught in the Mishnah of Bar Kappara<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Bar Kappara was known as the author of a Mishnah which has not been preserved. On its character, see Weiss, Dor ii, 219.Cf. however Halevy, Doroth ii, 123-125.] ');">¹³</span> [that], 'If a person was enjoying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eating'. ');">¹⁴</span> [the usufruct of] a field on the strength<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he came'. ');">¹⁵</span>

(ת"ש) שאל רבי שמעון בן לקיש את רבי יוחנן זו ששנויה במשנת בר קפרא הרי שהיה אוכל שדה ובא בחזקת שהיא שלו וקרא עליו אחד ערער לומר שלי היא והוציא זה את אונו לומר שמכרתה לי או שנתתה לי במתנה אם אמר איני מכיר בשטר זה מעולם יתקיים השטר בחותמיו

of the current belief that it [was] his, and someone lodged<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'called'. ');">¹⁶</span> a protest against him claiming.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to say'. ');">¹⁷</span> "It is mine"; and the first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this (one)'. ');">¹⁸</span> produced his deed, stating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to say'. ');">¹⁷</span>

אם אמר שטר פסים הוא זה או שטר אמנה שמכרתי לך ולא נתת לי דמים אם יש עדים הלך אחר עדים ואם לאו הלך אחר השטר

"You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me as a gift", if [the latter] said, "I never saw this deed",<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is a forged document. ');">¹⁹</span> the deed is to be attested by those who signed it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The witnesses. ');">²⁰</span> if, [however], he said, "It was a deed of trust<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb., [H] (cf., pistis, [H] [G], trust), a deed of a feigned sale that the other had arranged with him for the purpose of making people believe that he is a landowner or a wealthier man than he actually is. ');">²¹</span> or a deed [given on] trust<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He entrusted the buyer with the deed before he received payment. ');">²²</span>

לימא ר' מאיר היא דאמר מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו ולא רבנן

[for something] which I sold you but [for which] you did not pay me the price", then if witnesses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that his statement, which invalidates the deed, is in accordance with the facts, ');">²³</span> are available, one must be guided by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go after'. ');">²⁴</span> witnesses, but if [they are] not [available] one is to be guided by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To testify that his statement, which invalidates the deed, is in accordance with the facts, ');">²³</span> the deed.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since the seller once admitted that the deed was written by him, his attempt to disqualify it is disregarded. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר ליה לא שאני אומר דברי הכל מודה בשטר שכתבו אינו צריך לקיימו והא מיפלג פליגי דתנן אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין

Are we to assume [asked Resh Lakish, that] this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement that one is to be guided by the deed (v. previous note). ');">²⁶</span> is [in accordance with the opinion of] R. Meir, who stated that where one admits that he wrote the deed, attestation is not required, but not [in accordance with the view of] the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely that Bar Kappara's Mishnah represents the view of an individual only? ');">²⁷</span> — He [R. Johanan] replied to him: No; because I maintain [that] all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Sages. (This statement is modified infra.) ');">²⁸</span> agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words of all'. ');">²⁹</span>

אמר ליה אי עדים אלימי ומרעי שטרא איהו כל כמיניה אמר ליה והלא משמך אמרו יפה ערערו בני משפחה אמר ליה זו אלעזר אמרה אני לא אמרתי דבר זה מעולם

[that where] one admitted that he wrote a deed no attestation is required. But, surely, [Resh Lakish rejoined,] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and the Sages. ');">³⁰</span> are actually in dispute [on this question]; as it was taught, 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are believed'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 18b. Cf. supra 154a, q.v. for notes. ');">³¹</span> — He replied to him: [Should] he, because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if'. ');">³²</span> witnesses are all-powerful and [may] impair [the validity of] a deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Witnesses, according to the Sages. are justly entitled to invalidate a deed, despite the debtor's admission that he wrote it. ');">³³</span>

אמר רבי זירא אם יכפור רבי יוחנן ברבי אלעזר תלמידו יכפור ברבי ינאי רבו דאמר רבי ינאי אמר רבי מודה בשטר שכתבו (אינו) צריך לקיימו ואמר ליה רבי יוחנן רבי לא משנתנו היא זו וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אין ראיה אלא בקיום השטר

[have the same power as if] all depended on him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once he himself admitted that he wrote the deed, it is assumed that no witnesses would have signed it if it represented a purely fictitious transaction, and, consequently, even the Sages agree that he has no further power subsequently to invalidate it. Hence, no attestation is needed. ');">³⁴</span> But, Resh Lakish asked him again, in your [own] name it was reported that, 'the members of the family have justly protested'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although they admitted the authenticity of the deed, (i.e.. that the seller had written it), and only disputed its validity (by asserting that he was a minor). How, then, could R. Johanan say that once a person admitted the authenticity of a deed, (i.e., that he wrote it) he cannot any more dispute its validity? ');">³⁵</span> — He replied to him, 'This [was] said [by] Eleazar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A disciple of R. Johanan. ');">³⁶</span> I have never said such a thing.'

ברם נראין דברי רבינו יוסף דאמר רבינו יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל זו דברי חכמים אבל רבי מאיר אומר מודה בשטר שכתבו שצריך לקיימו ומאי דברי הכל דרבנן לגבי רבי מאיר דברי הכל היא

R. Zeira said: If R. Johanan could contradict his disciple R. Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who reported in his name. ');">³⁷</span> would he contradict his master R. Jannai? For R. Jannai said in the name of Rabbi: [Though] one admits that he wrote a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required. And R. Johanan said to him: 'Is not this, Master, [the law enunciated in] our Mishnah [where it is stated] AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF, [and] proof [can be produced] only through the attestation of the deed?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which clearly proves that, according to R. Johanan, the Sages require attestation even when the authenticity of a deed had been admitted. ');">³⁸</span> Acceptable, however, are the words of our master Joseph. For our Master Joseph, in the name of Rab Judah in the name of Samuel, said: 'This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no attestation is needed when the giver of the deed had admitted writing it, ');">³⁹</span> is the view of the Sages. but R. Meir said: [Though] one admits the writing of a deed, attestation is [nevertheless] required;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it is the Sages, and not R. Meir, who require no attestation, when the writing of a deed had been admitted. ');">⁴⁰</span>

והא איפכא תנן וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה איפוך והא תניא אין נאמנין לפוסלו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים נאמנין איפוך

and [as to the expression] 'all agree',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what (is meant by) " the="" words="" of="" all"?="" surely,="" according="" to="" what="" has="" been="" said,="" r.="" meir="" disagrees'.="" ');"="">⁴¹</span> [the words] of the Rabbis in relation to [those of] R. Meir [may be described as] the words of all. But, surely, we learnt the reverse: AND THE SAGES SAY: HE WHO CLAIMS FROM THE OTHER HAS TO PRODUCE THE PROOF?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the donee; which shows that, according to the Sages. the admission by the donor that he wrote the deed does not remove from the donee the need of attestation, while according to R. Meir it does ');">⁴²</span> — Reverse [the order].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view in the last clause of our Mishnah, which is attributed to the Sages. is really the view of R. Meir, while the view attributed to R. Meir is in reality that of the Sages. ');">⁴³</span> But, surely. it was taught. 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. And the Sages say: They are believed'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, quoted from Keth, 18b. V. 154a for notes. ');">⁴⁴</span>

והא רבי יוחנן ראיה בעדים קאמר איפוך לימא ליפוך נמי תיובתא לא

— Reverse [the order]. But, surely, R. Johanan said: Proof [must be produced] by witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 154a. How, then, could he say here, 'proof (can be produced) only through attestation of the deed'? ');">⁴⁵</span> — Reverse [the order].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The view attributed, supra, to R. Johanan is really that of R. Lakish, and vice versa, ');">⁴⁶</span> Is it [then] to be assumed [that] the objection also is to be reversed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is the objection which R. Johanan raised against R. Lakish (supra 154a) to be reversed and read as if R. Lakish had raised it against R. Johanan? ');">⁴⁷</span> — No;