Bava Batra 330

מתניתין

in our Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should it be necessary to teach that a deed is invalid if it bears the signature of one witness only? Cf. supra note 3. ');">¹</span> [remains]! — It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah. ');">²</span> teaches us this: That two [witnesses] on a folded [deed are] like one witness on a plain [one]; as in the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. ');">³</span>

הא קא משמע לן דשנים במקושר כעד אחד בפשוט מה התם פסולא דאורייתא אף הכא נמי פסולא דאורייתא

the defect is Biblical,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XIX, 15. ');">⁴</span> so also in the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'. ');">⁵</span> the defect is Biblical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis, that is to say, have imposed Biblical restrictions on the folded deed. Consequently, it is invalid if it contains the signatures of two witnesses only. Should such a document be a bond, the creditor would not be entitled to collect his debt from sold or mortgaged lands. Should it be a bill of divorce, the divorce would be illegal. ');">⁶</span>

תדע דשלחו מתם חברייא לר' ירמיה

[This]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the written, and oral evidence respectively of two witnesses is combined. ');">⁷</span> can be proved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thou shalt know'. ');">⁸</span> for the members of the College<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'friends', 'colleagues'. ');">⁹</span>

עד אחד בכתב ועד אחד על פה מהו שיצטרפו

sent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cut. edd. add. [H], 'from there', i.e., Palestine. This is to be deleted with some MSS. as the entire incident occurred in Babylon. Cf. Weiss, Dot, III, 108. ');">¹⁰</span> [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he had been excluded from the College. V. supra 23b. ');">¹¹</span> [In the case of witnesses] one of whom had signed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.. 'one witness in writing'. ');">¹²</span>

אליבא דתנא קמא דרבי יהושע בן קרחה לא תיבעי לך דאפילו שנים בכתב ושנים על פה לא מצטרפי אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' יהושע בן קרחה שנים בכתב ושנים על פה הוא דמצטרפי אבל עד אחד בכתב ואחד על פה לא מצרפינן או דלמא לא שנא

[the deed] and the other [confirmed the contents] orally,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and one witness by (word of) mouth'. ');">¹³</span> are they combined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To form complete legal evidence as if they had both signed the deed. ');">¹⁴</span> According to the first Tanna of R. Joshua b. Korha,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his opponent. v. supra 32a. ');">¹⁵</span>

שלח להו אני איני כדיי ששלחתם לי אלא כך דעת תלמידכם נוטה שיצטרפו

the question does not arise because, [according to him, independent evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As defined ibid. ');">¹⁶</span> of two can] not be combined even [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in writing'. ');">¹⁷</span> or the two [gave] oral [evidence]. The question, however, arises according to R. Joshua b. Korha.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in opposition to the view of the first Tanna, regards such evidence as valid. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ליה אנן הכי מתנינן לה דשלחו ליה חברייא לרבי ירמיה שנים שהעידו אחד בבית דין זה ואחד בבית דין זה מהו שיבואו בית דין אצל בית דין ויצטרפו

Is the [independent evidence] combined only [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in writing'. ');">¹⁷</span> or where the two [gave] oral [evidence], but [in the case where] one witness signed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in writing'. ');">¹⁷</span> and one [testified] orally, [their evidence] is not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [the following reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus the opinion of your disciple inclines'. ');">¹⁹</span>

אליבא דתנא קמא דר' נתן לא תיבעי לך דאפילו בחד בית דינא נמי לא מצטרפי אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' נתן בחד בי דינא הוא דמצטרפי אבל בתרי בי דינא לא מצטרפי או דלמא לא שנא

that [the witnesses] may be [regarded as] combined. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ashi. ');">²⁰</span> said unto him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amemar. ');">²¹</span>

ושלח להו אני איני כדיי שאתם שלחתם לי אלא כך דעת תלמידכם נוטה שיצטרפו

We learned it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The version of the enquiry sent to R. Jeremiah. ');">²²</span> thus:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, consequently. no objection from It. Jeremiah's reply could be raised against Abaye's view that the written and oral evidence of two witnesses cannot be combined. ');">²³</span> for the members of the College sent [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah: [In the case of] two [witnesses] who gave evidence, one at one court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., this'. ');">²⁴</span>

מר בר חייא אמר הכי שלחו ליה שנים שהעידו בב"ד זה וחזרו והעידו בב"ד זה מהו שיבוא אחד מכל ב"ד ויצטרפו

and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');">²⁵</span> at another court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., this'. ');">²⁴</span> may [one] court come to the other and [thus cause the evidence to be] combined? According to the first Tanna of R. Nathan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his opponent. V. supra 32a, Sanh. 30a. ');">²⁶</span>

אליבא דר' נתן לא תיבעי לך השתא עדים מצרפינן דייני מיבעיא אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דת"ק דר' נתן עדים הוא דלא מצרפינן אבל דייני מצרפינן או דלמא ל"ש

the question does not arise, since, [according to him, such evidence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Given by each of the two witnesses at a different time. ');">²⁷</span> can] not be combined even where [it was given before] one court. The question, however, arises according to R. Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who allows the evidence even if each of the witnesses appeared before the court on a different day. ');">²⁸</span> Is [the evidence] combined only [where it was given] at one court, but [if] at two courts [it is] not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? And he sent to them [his reply]; I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me, but your disciple is inclined to the opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra, p. 720. n. 11. ');">²⁹</span>

שלח להו אני איני כדיי שאתם שלחתם לי אלא כך דעת תלמידכם נוטה שיצטרפו

that [the witnesses may] be [regarded as] combined. Mar b. Hiyya said: This was [the enquiry] addressed to him: [In the case where] two gave evidence at one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who allows the evidence even if each of the witnesses appeared before the court on a different day. ');">²⁸</span> court, and then they gave evidence at another<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 720. n. 16. ');">³⁰</span>

רבינא אמר הכי שלחו ליה שלשה שישבו לקיים את השטר ומת אחד מהן צריכי למכתב במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי או לא

court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MSS. 'And again they gave evidence at another court', v. R. Gersh.] ');">³¹</span> may one [member] of either court come [to the other court] and combine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To form a court where, owing to death or some other cause, neither of the two or three courts could obtain a quorum. ');">³²</span> According to [the view] of R. Nathan,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 1. ');">³³</span>

שלח להו אני איני כדיי שאתם שלחתם לי אלא כך דעת תלמידכם נוטה שצריכין למכתב במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי

the question does not arise, [for] since witnesses may be combined, is there [any] need [to say that] judges [may be combined]? The question, however, arises according to the first Tanna of R. Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf., p. 720. n. 18. ');">³⁴</span> [Is it] witnesses only that are not combined but judges are, or is there, perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf., loc. cit. n. 11. ');">³⁵</span> that they may be combined.

ועל דא עיילוהו לרבי ירמיה בבי מדרשא:

Rabina said; Such was [the enquiry] sent to him: [Where] three [judges] sat down to confirm a deed, and one of them died,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the witnesses had attested their signatures. A court before whom signatures arc attested must consist of three judges. ');">³⁶</span> [is it] necessary to write; 'We were in a session<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sitting'. ');">³⁷</span> of three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges. ');">³⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כתוב בו זוזין מאה דאינון סלעין עשרין אין לו אלא עשרין זוזין מאה דאינון תלתין סלעין אין לו אלא מנה

and one is [now] no more,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that the signatures of two judges only shall not appear as a contradiction of the first sentence of the attestation, we were&nbsp;… three'. ');">³⁹</span> or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, consequently, 'and one is now no more' may be omitted. ');">⁴⁰</span> He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra. 720, n. 11. ');">⁴¹</span>

כסף זוזין דאינון ונמחק אין פחות משתים כסף סלעין דאינון ונמחק אין פחות משתים דרכונות דאינון ונמחק אין פחות משתים

that it is necessary to write, 'We were in a session of three<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judges. ');">³⁸</span> and one is [now] no more'. And on account of this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His modesty, and clear thinking and decision. ');">⁴²</span> R. Jeremiah was re-admitted to the College.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. loc. cit. n. 3. ');">⁴³</span>

כתוב בו מלמעלה מנה ומלמטה מאתים מלמעלה מאתים ומלמטה מנה הכל הולך אחר התחתון א"כ למה כותבין את העליון שאם תמחק אות אחת מן התחתון ילמד מן העליון:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. [WHEN] IN [A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS] IT IS WRITTEN. 'A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> WHICH ARE TWENTY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sela' containing four zuz, the amount of the sela's should have been not twenty but five and twenty. ');">⁴⁴</span> <i>SELA'</i> [THE CREDITOR] RECEIVES ONLY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has not but'. ');">⁴⁵</span> TWENTY [<i>SELA'</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., eighty zuz. The holder of the deed being the claimant and the other being in the possession of the sum claimed, the former cannot obtain payment unless he produces satisfactory proof that the higher figure in the bond is the correct one. If he cannot do so, it is assumed that the zuzim borrowed were of an inferior quality five of which (instead of the usual four) amount to a sela. ');">⁴⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן אמר כסף אין פחות מדינר כסף כסף דינרין ודינרין כסף אין פחות משני דינרין כסף כסף בדינרין אין פחות מבשני דינרין דהב כסף

[IF THE ENTRY WAS]. 'A HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] WHICH ARE THIRTY [<i>SELA'</i>]' HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">⁴⁷</span> RECEIVES ONLY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has not but'. ');">⁴⁵</span> A <i>MANEH</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A hundred zuz. Though, usually, thirty sela are a hundred and twenty zuz, it is assumed (cf. n. 3), that the sela's were of an inferior quality, each of which was worth only three and a third zuz. ');">⁴⁸</span>

אמר מר כסף אין פחות מדינר כסף ואימא נסכא אמר רבי אלעזר דכתוב ביה מטבע ואימא פריטי אמר רב פפא באתרא דלא סגי פריטי דכספא

[IF THE ENTRY READS], SILVER <i>ZUZ</i> IN WHICH ARE&nbsp;… AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF THE ENTRY READS]. 'SILVER SELA'S WHICH ARE…', AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF], 'DARICS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf.[G], a Persian gold, or silver coin. ');">⁴⁹</span> WHICH ARE … AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT IS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF] ABOVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the upper section of the bond. ');">⁵⁰</span> A <i>MANEH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hundred zuz. ');">⁵¹</span>

תנו רבנן דהב אין פחות מדינר דהב דהב דינרין ודינרין דהב אין פחות משני דינרין דהב דהב בדינרין אין פחות מבשני דינרין כסף דהב

IS WRITTEN AND BELOW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Near the conclusion of the bond where the principal items are briefly repeated. ');">⁵²</span> TWO HUNDRED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zuz. ');">⁵³</span> [OR IF] TWO HUNDRED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zuz. ');">⁵³</span>

אמר מר דהב אין פחות מדינר דהב אימא נסכא אמר רבי אלעזר דכתב מטבע

[ARE WRITTEN] ABOVE AND A <i>MANEH</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hundred zuz. ');">⁵¹</span> BELOW, ONE IS ALWAYS TO BE GUIDED BY THE LOWER ENTRY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all goes after the lowest'. ');">⁵⁴</span> IF SO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the entry in the lower section is always regarded as more reliable. ');">⁵⁵</span> WHY SHOULD THE UPPER [PORTION AT ALL] BE WRITTEN? — IN CASE A LETTER IN THE LOWER [SECTION] BE RUBBED OFF IT MAY BE INFERRED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'learned'. ');">⁵⁶</span> FROM THE UPPER [PORTION]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. 'he said', is to be deleted. V. BaH, a.l. ');">⁵⁷</span> 'Silver'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a bond contains an entry that 'silver' was lent and no amount is specified. ');">⁵⁸</span> [signifies]no less than a silver <i>denar</i>. 'Silver denarii' or 'denarii silver' [signifies] no less than two silver <i>denarii</i>. 'Silver for denarii', [signifies] silver for no less than two gold <i>denarii</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Silver for denarii', implies that the loan consisted of silver which was worth two gold denarii. V. Gemara, infra. ');">⁵⁹</span> The Master said: '"Silver" [signifies] no less than a silver <i>denar</i>.' Might it not signify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'. ');">⁶⁰</span> a bar [of silver]? — R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where coin was mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'written'. ');">⁶¹</span> Might it not signify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'. ');">⁶⁰</span> small change? — R. Papa replied: In [the case of] a place where small silver coins are not current.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'men do not make'. ');">⁶²</span> Our Rabbis taught: 'Gold'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf., p. 722. n. 25. ');">⁶³</span> [signifies] no less than a golden <i>denar</i>. 'Gold denarii' or 'denarii gold' [signifies] no less than two gold <i>denarii</i>. 'Gold for denarii' [signifies] gold of the value of no less than two silver <i>denarii</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra. note 1. ');">⁶⁴</span> The Master said: "gold" [signifies] no less than a gold denar'. Might it not mean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'. ');">⁶⁰</span> a bar [of gold]? — R. Eleazar replied: [In the case] where coin was mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'do not pass'. ');">⁶⁵</span>