Bava Kamma 224

שלא בפני בעל דין ולא והא קתני בין גדולים בין קטנים חייבין א"ל הרי מחלוקת סומכוס בצידך אמר איכפל כולי עלמא וקאי כסומכוס לאפקוען לדידי

where the other party is not present?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a minor is considered in law as absent to all intents and purposes. For a different description of the case cf. J. Sanh. III, 9. ');">¹</span> And why not? Was it not stated: 'Whether adults or minors they would be liable'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To restore misappropriated articles inherited by them to the legitimate proprietor. ');">²</span>

אדהכי איגלגל מילתא אתא ומטא לקמיה דרבי אבהו אמר לא שמיע לכו הא דרב יוסף בר חמא א"ר אושעיא דאמר רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רבי אושעיא תינוק שתקף בעבדיו וירד לתוך שדה של חבירו ואמר שלי הוא אין אומרים נמתין עד שיגדיל אלא מוציאין מידו מיד ולכשיגדיל יביא עדים ונראה

— The other rejoined: 'Is not the divergent view of Symmachus<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who releases the minor heirs. ');">³</span> under your nose?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at your side'. ');">⁴</span>

מי דמי התם הוא דמפקינן מיניה דלא קיימא ליה אחזקה דאבוה אבל היכא דאית ליה חזקה דאבוה לא

He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Jeremiah. ');">⁵</span> retorted: 'Has the whole world made up its mind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'doubled itself'. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב אשי א"ר שבתאי מקבלין עדים שלא בפני בעל דין תהי בה ר' יוחנן וכי מקבלין עדים שלא בפני בעל דין

to adopt the view of Symmachus just in order to deprive me of my property? Meanwhile the matter was referred from one to another till it came to the notice of R. Abbahu<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the special master of R. Jeremiah, cf. B.B. 140a and Shebu. 37b; v. also B.M. 16b where R. Abbahu called him 'Jeremiah, my son.' ');">⁷</span> who said to them: Have you not heard of what R. Joseph b. Hama reported in the name of Oshaia? For R. Joseph b. Mama said that R. Oshaia stated: If a minor collected his slaves and took possession of another person's field claiming that it was his, we do not say, Let us wait till he come of age, but we wrest it from him forthwith and when he comes of age he can bring forward witnesses [to support his allegation] and then we will consider the matter? — But what comparison is there? In that case we are entitled to take it away from him because he had no presumptive title to it from his father, but in a case where he has such a presumptive title from his father, this should surely not be so.

קיבלה מיניה ר' יוסי בר חנינא כגון שהיה הוא חולה או עדיו חולים או שהיו עדיו מבקשין לילך למדינת הים ושלחו לו ולא בא

R. Ashi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Isaiah Berlin, this must have been an earlier R. Ashi since R. Johanan refers to this statement, but, as becomes evident from J. Sanh., III. 9, the authority here mentioned was either R. Jose or more correctly R. Assi. A similar confusion is found in Ta'an. 14a. Bek. 25a a.e. ');">⁸</span> said that R. Shabbathai stated: [Evidence of] witnesses may be accepted even though the other party to the case is not present. Thereupon R. Johanan remarked in surprise:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 76b. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מקבלין עדים שלא בפני בעל דין אמר מר עוקבא לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דשמואל כגון דפתחו ליה בדיניה ושלחו ליה ולא אתא אבל לא פתחו ליה בדינא מצי א"ל אנא לב"ד הגדול אזילנא

Is it possible to accept evidence of witnesses if the other party is not present? R. Jose b. Hanina accepted from him the ruling [to apply] in the case where e.g., [either] he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the plaintiff; cf. H.M. 28. 16. ');">¹⁰</span> was [dangerously] ill, or the witnesses were [dangerously] ill, or where the witnesses were intending to go abroad, and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether 'and' or 'or' should be read here, cf. Tosaf. a.l. and on B.K. 39a; the text in J. Sanh. III. 9, however, confirms the former reading. ');">¹¹</span>

אי הכי כי פתחו ליה נמי מצי א"ל לב"ד הגדול אזילנא אמר רבינא כגון דנקט דיסקא מבית דין הגדול

the party in question was sent for but did not appear. Rab Judah said that Samuel stated that [evidence of] witnesses may be accepted even if the other party is not present. Mar Ukba, however, said: It was explained to me in so many words from Samuel that this is so only where e.g., the case has already been opened [in the Court] and the party in question was sent for but did not appear, whereas if the case has not yet been opened [in the Court] he might plead: 'I prefer to go to the High Court of Law'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Land of Israel; cf. supra p. 67 and Sanh. 31b. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב מקיימין את השטר שלא בפני בעל דין ור' יוחנן אמר אין מקיימין את השטר שלא בפני בעל דין א"ל רב ששת לרבי יוסי בר אבהו אסברה לך טעמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר קרא (שמות כא, כט) והועד בבעליו ולא ישמרנו אמרה תורה יבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו

But if so even after the case had already been opened why should he similarly not plead: 'l prefer to go to the High Court of Law'? — Said Rabina: [This plea could not be put forward where] e.g., the local Court is holding a writ [of mandamus] issued by the High Court of Law. Rab said: A document can be authenticated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either by taking oral evidence or by collating the signatures; cf. Keth. II. 3-4. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא הלכתא מקיימין את השטר שלא בפני בעל דין ואפי' עומד וצווח ואי אמר נקיטו לי זימנא עד דמייתינא סהדי ומרענא ליה לשטרא נקטינן ליה אי אתא אתא אי לא אתא נטרינן ליה בה"ב

even not in the presence of the other party [to the suit], whereas R. Johanan said that a document cannot be authenticated in the absence of the other party to the suit. R. Shesheth said to R. Joseph b. Abbahu: I will explain to you the reason of R. Johanan. Scripture says: And it hath been testified to its owner and he hath not kept him in;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 29. ');">¹⁴</span> the Torah thus lays down that the owner of the ox has to appear and stand by his ox [when testimony has to be borne against it]. But Raba said: The law is that a document may be authenticated even not in the presence of the other party; and even if he protests aloud before us [that the document is a forgery]. If, however, he says, 'Give me time till I can bring witnesses, and I will invalidate the document', we have to give him time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a rule for thirty days; cf. B.M. 118a. ');">¹⁵</span>

אי לא אתא כתבינן פתיחא עלויה תשעין יומין תלתין קמאי לא נחתינן לנכסיה דאמר קא טרח בזוזי וניזוף מציעאי נמי לא נחתינן ליה לנכסיה דאמר דלמא לא אשכח למיזף וקא טרח ומזבין בתראי נמי לא נחתינן לנכסיה דאמר לוקח גופיה קא טרח בזוזי

If he appears [with witnesses] well and good, but if he does not appear we wait again over the following Monday and Thursday and Monday.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., three sittings of the Court; cf. supra p. 466. ');">¹⁶</span> If he still does not appear we write a Pethiha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a warrant, containing also a writ of anathema. It was, besides, the opening of preliminary legal proceedings. ');">¹⁷</span>

לא אתא כתבינן אדרכתא אניכסיה והני מילי דאמר אתינא אבל אמר לא אתינא לאלתר כתבינן

out against him to take effect after ninety days. For the first thirty days we do not take possession of his property as we say that he is busy trying to borrow money; during the next thirty we similarly do not take possession of his property as we say perhaps he was unable to raise a loan and is trying to sell his property; during the last thirty days we similarly cannot take possession of his property as we still say that the purchaser<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might perhaps have bought some of his property. ');">¹⁸</span> himself is busy trying to raise the money. It is only if after all this he still does not appear that we write an <i>adrakta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'tracing and authorisation', i.e., a legal order to trace the debtor's property for the purpose of having it seized and assessed to the creditor for his debt; v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 95. n. 8. ');">¹⁹</span>

והני מילי במלוה אבל בפקדון לאלתר כתבינן

on his property. All this, however, is only if he has pleaded: 'I will come [and defend]', whereas if he said: 'I will not appear at all' we have to write the <i>adrakta</i> forthwith; again these rulings apply only in the case of a loan, whereas in the case of a deposit we have to write the <i>adrakta</i> forthwith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the bailee has no right to detain the deposit for any period of time whatsoever. ');">²⁰</span> An <i>adrakta</i> can be attached only to immovables but not to movables, lest the creditor should meanwhile carry off the movables and consume them so that should the debtor subsequently appear and bring evidence which invalidates the document, he would find nothing from which to recover payment. But if the creditor is in possession of immovables we may write an <i>adrakta</i> even upon movables.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the immovable possessions of the creditor safeguard the repayment to the debtor, should occasion arise. ');">²¹</span>

וכי כתבינן אמקרקעי אבל אמטלטלי לא דלמא שמיט ואכיל להו מלוה למטלטלי וכי אתי לוה ומייתי סהדי ומרע ליה לשטרא לא משכח מידי למיגבה

This, however, is not correct; we do not write an <i>adrakta</i> upon movables even though the creditor possesses immovables, since there is a possibility that his property may meanwhile become depreciated in value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And would not suffice to meet the repayment. ');">²²</span> Whenever we write an <i>adrakta</i> we notify this to the debtor, provided he resides nearby,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within ten parasangs i.e. forty mil, the walking distance of one day, as in M.K. 21b; see Tur, H.M. 98, 9; cf. however Maim. Yad, Malweh we-Loweh, XXII, 4. ');">²³</span>

ואי אית ליה מקרקעי למלוה כתבינן ולא היא אדרכתא אמטלטלי לא כתבינן אף על גב דאית ליה מקרקעי חיישינן שמא תכסיף

but if he resides at a distance this is not done. Again, even where he resides far away if he has relatives nearby or if there are caravans which take that route, we should have to wait another twelve months until the caravan is able to go there and come back, as Rabina waited in the case of Mar Aha twelve months until a caravan was able to go to Be-Huzae<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The modern Khuzistan, S.W. persia. Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 200 points out that the distance between Matha Mehasia (Sura) the seat of Rabina's court, and Khuzistan could be easily covered by a caravan within a three weeks' journey, and that the twelve months allowed by Rabina was probably due to some serious obstruction that impeded progress along the caravan route.] ');">²⁴</span> and come back. This, however, is no proof for in that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with by Rabina. ');">²⁵</span>

וכי כתבינן אדרכתא מודעינן ליה והני מילי דמיקרב אבל מירחק לא

the creditor was a violent man, so that should the <i>adrakta</i> have come into his hand it would never have been possible to get anything back from him, whereas in ordinary cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here'. ');">²⁶</span> we need only wait for the usher [of the Court] to go on the third day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Tur. loc. cit., but Maim. loc. cit. reads 'the second day'. ');">²⁷</span>

ואי מירחק ואיכא קרובים אי נמי איכא שיירתא דאזלי ואתו התם משהינן ליה תריסר ירחי שתא עד דאזלא ואתי שיירתא כי הא דרבינא שהא למר אחא תריסר ירחי שתא עד דאזלא ואתייא שיירתא מבי חוזאי

of the week and come back on the fourth day of the week so that on the fifth day of the week he himself can appear in the Court of Law. Rabina said: The usher of the Court of Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of our Rabbis'. ');">²⁸</span> is as credible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When stating that the party refuses to appear before the Court. ');">²⁹</span>

ולא היא התם איניש אלימא הוה אי הויא מטיא אדרכתא לידיה לא הוה אפשר לאפוקי מיניה אבל הכא לא נטרינן ליה אלא עד דאזיל שליחא בתלתא בשבתא ואתא בארבעה בשבתא ולחמשא בשבתא קאי בדיניה

as two witnesses; this however applies only to the imposition of Shamta,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., oral ban. ');">³⁰</span> but in the case of Pethiha,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 659, n. 2. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רבינא האי שלוחא דרבנן מהימנינן ליה כבי תרי וה"מ לשמתא אבל לפתיחא כיון דממונא קא מחסר ליה דקא בעי ליה למיתב ליה זוזי לספרא לא

seeing that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The recalcitrant litigant, when he wishes to have the ban lifted.] ');">³²</span> may be involved in expense through having to pay for the scribe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For drafting the writ of anathema.] ');">³³</span>

אמר רבינא יהבינן זימנא אפומא דאיתתא ואפומא דשיבבי ולא אמרן אלא דליתיה במתא

this would not be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the usher would then have to corroborate his statements by some further evidence. ');">³⁴</span> Rabina again said: We may convey a legal summons<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'give a fixed date'. ');">³⁵</span> through the mouth of a woman or through the mouth of neighbours; this rule, however, holds good only where the party was at that time not in town,