Bava Batra 85

Chapter 85

א אמאי נוגעין בעדותן הן

1 How so? Are they not interested parties?1

ב הכא במאי עסקינן דכתב ליה דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו וכי כתב לו מאי הוי והתניא האומר לחבירו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו ואין לי עסק בה וידי מסולקות הימנה לא אמר כלום

2 — We are assuming here that the one [who gives evidence] makes a written declaration stating: I have2

ג הכא במאי עסקינן כשקנו מידו וכי קנו מידו מאי הוי הרי מעמידה בפני בעל חובו

3 no claim on this field. And suppose he does make such a declaration, what does it matter, seeing that it has been taught: If a man says to another,3

ד דאמר רבין בר שמואל משמיה דשמואל המוכר שדה לחבירו שלא באחריות אין מעיד לו עליה מפני שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו

4 I have no claim on this field, I have no concern in it, I entirely dissociate myself from it,4

ה הכא במאי עסקינן דקביל עליה אחריות אחריות דמאן אי נימא אחריות דעלמא כל שכן דניחא ליה אלא אחריות דאתיא ליה מחמתיה

5 his words are of no effect?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all these expressions refer properly to something which has yet to accrue to a man, but he cannot divest himself of his ownership of something which he already possesses until he says expressly to the donee, 'I make the field over to you,' or words to that effect. ');">5

ו וכי מסלק נפשיה מיניה מי מסתלק והתניא בני עיר שנגנב ספר תורה שלהן אין דנין בדייני אותה העיר ואין מביאין ראיה מאנשי אותה העיר ואם איתא ליסלקו בי תרי מינייהו ולידיינו

6 — We are assuming here that the other partner obtained from him a formal transfer.6

ז שאני ס"ת דלשמיעה קאי

7 And suppose he does obtain from him a formal transfer, what does it matter? The other can still keep it safe for his own creditor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A has borrowed money from C on the security of his share in a field and then makes over his share to his partner B, it is to his interest that the field should be recognised as belonging to B rather than to any other person, so that C may seize the mortgaged part of the field in consideration of the debt and A will thus be saved from becoming a defaulter. Hence if B's title to the field is contested, A is an interested party and cannot give evidence in B's favour, although he has himself formally renounced all share in the field. ');">7

ח תא שמע האומר תנו מנה לבני עירי אין דנין בדייני אותה העיר ואין מביאין ראיה מאנשי אותה העיר אמאי ליסלקו בי תרי נפשייהו ולידיינו

8 as we learn from the statement of Rabin b. Samuel, who said in the name of Samuel: If a man sells a field to another [even] without accepting responsibility,8

ט הכא נמי בספר תורה

9 he cannot give evidence as to the latter's title, because he may [want to] keep it safe for his own creditor?9

י ת"ש האומר תנו מנה לעניי עירי אין דנין בדייני אותה העיר ואין מביאין ראיה מאנשי אותה העיר ותסברא עניים שקלי דייני מיפסלי אלא אימא אין דנין בדייני עניי אותה העיר ואין מביאין ראיה מעניי אותה העיר ואמאי לסתלקו בי תרי נפשייהו ולידיינו

10 — We are assuming that he has accepted responsibility [towards his partner]. Responsibility in respect of whom? If we say, responsibility in general,10

יא הכא נמי בספר תורה ואמאי קרי להו עניים דהכל אצל ספר תורה עניים הן

11 then all the more would he prefer it [to be in the hands of the partner, and he is therefore an interested party]! — We must therefore say, responsibility in respect of his own debt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained above in note 3. In this case, if he does not wish to become a defaulter, he must either pay his creditor or compensate his partner. Hence it makes no difference to him whether the land remains in the hands of his partner or not, and therefore his evidence is admissible. ');">11

יב ואיבעית אימא לעולם כדקתני עניים ממש ובעניי דראמו עלייהו והיכי דמי אי דקיץ להו ליתבו בי תרי מינייהו מאי דקיץ להו ולידיינו

12 And suppose the partner does renounce his interest in the property, does he do so sincerely?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'does he renounce it'. Even if he transfers the property to the partner in such a way as to make his renunciation apparently complete (as explained above), is there not still the possibility of collusion between him and the partner, so that his evidence would still be inadmissible. ');">12

יג הכא במאי עסקינן דלא קיץ להו ואיבעית אימא לעולם דקיץ להו וניחא להו דכיון דרווח רווח:

13 Has it not been taught: If a scroll of the Law belonging to the inhabitants of a town has been stolen, the judges of that town must not try [the alleged culprit] nor can the inhabitants of the town give evidence [against him]?13

יד ונעשין שומרי שכר זה לזה

14 Now if a partner can renounce his interest, why cannot two of the townspeople renounce their interest in, the scroll and try [him]?14 — A scroll of the Law is different, because it is for public reading.15 Come and hear: If a man says: Distribute a maneh to the inhabitants of my town [and it is stolen], the judges of that town must not try [the alleged culprit] nor may the inhabitants give evidence against him. Why [should this be]? Cannot two of them renounce their share in the gift and try him? — Here too [we are dealing with] a scroll of the Law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the gift was made for purchasing a scroll, and therefore none of the townspeople can entirely divest himself of his interest in it, unless he leaves the town. ');">16 Come and hear: If a man says: Distribute a maneh to the poor of my town [and it is stolen, the alleged culprit] is not to be tried by the judges of that town and the inhabitants of that town cannot give evidence in the case. What! Do you imagine then that, because the poor receive, the judges are to be disqualified?17 What therefore you mean to say is this: the case must not be tried by the poor judges of that town, nor may the poor of the town give evidence. Why now should this be? Cannot two of them renounce their share and try the case? — Here too we [are dealing with] a scroll of the Law, and the reason why the donor designated the recipients as 'poor' is because all are poor in respect of a scroll of the Law. Or if you like again I can indeed say that the poor literally are meant, and the particular poor referred to are those whose support devolves on the judges.18 How are we to understand this? If there is a fixed levy,19 let two of them give their contribution and then try the case.20 We assume therefore that there is no fixed levy.21 Or if you like I can say that there is indeed a fixed levy, yet still the rich are pleased [that the maneh should be given to the poor], because after all there is a surplus.22 [Samuel said above that partners] may stand to one another in the relation of paid keepers of their common property.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter