Talmud su Bava Batra 10:13

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear¹²Following the principle that the defendant in a suit for money can by biblical law only be forced to swear if he admits that part of the claim is justified; based on Ex. 22:8, where the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה “if he agrees that this is so.” In Baba Meṣi‘a(1:1, 7d 1. 24; Babli 3a) the reason of the older R. Ḥiyya is “that what he admits himself should not have greater force than the testimony of witnesses.”. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there¹³Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:1. If two people come to court, each grabs half of a toga and asserts ownership of the entire piece because he found it, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it (so the court should not force obvious perjury) and takes half of the piece since “it is money in dispute”.: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴The student of the older R. Ḥiyya’s son Ḥizqiah. that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me!¹⁵Baba Meṣ‘ia 1:1, 7d 1. 33; Babli 3a; both in the name of R. Joḥanan. Rabbinic institutions do not imply anything for biblical law. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle¹⁶The older R. Ḥiyya, half-brother to both of Rav’s parents. agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following¹⁷Mishnah Baba Batra 10:2. If the amount of indebtedness is illegible, the use of the plural proves that the amount was at least two.: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed¹⁸In Baba Batra 10:2 (by the editorial team of Neziqin, different from the editors of the rest of the Yerushalmi) and the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a4b, the “Sages” are identified as R. Aqiba. In the Babli, Ben Azzai is replaced by R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2 generations younger than Ben Azzai and R. Aqiba. In both sources, the reason of R. Aqiba is given that the borrower, in agreeing to pay more than he could be forced to by the existing document, is like a person returning what the other had lost, not directly answering the lender’s claim.. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim¹⁹In our Mishnah, why should the divorcing husband not be forced to swear that he does not have to pay 200 zuz even if there are no witnesses, since he agrees that he owes 100? {The heirs, not being able to swear, would have to pay.}? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina²⁰Since this amount is not in dispute, the husband cannot be considered as agreeing to part of the claim; no oath is due.. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant²¹This is the standard formulation, Babli Baba Qama 46b..

There, we have stated⁵⁸Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:1. The argument refers to the part of the Mishnah which is not quoted: “The public sale of orphans’ property goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property goes on for 30 days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings. If somebody dedicates his property while the lien if favor of a wife’s ketubah was in effect, Rebbi Eliezer says, if he would divorce her, he has to make her vow not to have any usufruct from him; Rebbi Joshua says, it is not necessary. Similarly, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says regarding a guarantor of a woman’s ketubah whose husband divorces her, that he shall make him execute a vow of usufruct lest he could plot against his property and take his wife back.”: “The public sale of orphans’ property⁵⁹The administrator of an estate whose beneficiaries are underage can sell real estate to satisfy claims against the estate only under supervision by the court. There has to be a 30 day public notice of the land being up for sale; at the end of the period the parcel is sold to the highest bidder. goes on for 30 days, the public sale of Temple property⁶⁰Sale of real estate donated to the Temple. goes on for 30 days, and they are publicly announed mornings and evenings.” Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Eliezer is afraid of trickery⁶¹If the wife has to vow not to have any future usufruct from her past husband in order to collect her ketubah from the Temple, she cannot remarry him. R. Eliezer suspects that a husband who donates his property to the Temple might want to get it back by divorcing his wife, waiting until she has collected her ketubah, then remarrying her and receiving the ketubah money as dowry., Rebbi Joshua is not afraid of trickery. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai and Rebbi Joshua the House of Hillel⁶²He disagrees with R. Mana and holds that their differences are systemic. This is the only opinion quoted in the Babli, ‘Arakhin 23a.. Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow usufruct?⁶³This text seems to be corrupt. Since in our Mishnah, the House of Shammai hold that dedication in error is valid, it is clear that they must hold that a vow of dedication cannot be abrogated by an Elder (cf. Nedarim, Introduction p. 422, Chapter 9). Therefore, the text must read: דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים. אֵיו אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. וּדְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. דְּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים. אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ. וְהוּא דַהֲוָה אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִיר הֲנָייָה. “Rebbi Eliezer follows the House of Shammai, since the House of Shammai say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he does not have to vow ususfruct? Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct?” The “vow of usufruct” is a vow never to have any usufruct from the person designated in the vow. Rebbi Joshua follows the House of Hillel, since the House of Hillel say, a person may not ask about his dedication; could he say that he has to vow usufruct⁶⁴Since he could ask an Elder about his vow, he does not need any tricks.? In any case, could not a man ask about his vow of usufruct?⁶⁵R. Eliezer should agree that a man who cannot have his dedication annulled may try to have his vow of usufruct annulled. Rebbi Joshua agrees that a guarantor must execute a vow of usufruct⁶⁶R. Joshua will agree that the husband of a woman whose ketubah is collected from a third party has to promise never to take her back. It is not that the guarantor has to vow; he has to ask the divorcing couple for their vows.. What does Rebbi Joshua say about a gift? Since he gives voluntarily, he does not have to vow usufruct, or since [the recipient’s] power is small and [the donor] may change his mind, does he have to vow usufruct? Let us hear from the following: The husband of a relative of Rebbi Ḥaggai owed on a document⁶⁷Greek χάρτης, Latin charta, “papyrus, roll of papyrus”.. The creditor came and foreclosed. The case⁶⁸After the foreclosure, the husband divorced his wife and she went to court to foreclose on the foreclosed parcel since the lien of her ketubah preceded the creditor’s loan document. came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said, he⁶⁹The husband owes a vow of usufruct which will forbid him to remarry his wife in order to permit the wife to collect her ketubah. owes a vow of usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to vow usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Aḥa [and] Rebbi Yose: Does Rebbi Aḥa say it correctly? Since if he takes her back, does not the creditor come and foreclose⁷⁰If the husband should remarry his divorcee, would not her property become the husband’s property as dowry, and could not the creditor then foreclose it for his claim? It seems that the creditor loses nothing if there is no vow.? Rebbi Yose said to them, she turns it into jewelry or keeps it as additions to her dowry⁷¹Cf. Ketubot 5:10, Note 218. Before the marriage, they sign a stipulation that the husband shall have no rights to the property. Then the creditor would be left without recourse.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! Rebbi Yose says it correctly. It was executed following Rebbi Aḥa⁷²In this and similar cases, the husband has to deliver a vow which forbids him any future usufruct from his divorcee..

Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar⁷³Both in Mishnah 3:2 and in 9:4 the name is R. Eleazar, but in Mishnah 9:4 in the Babli (editio princeps and Munich ms.) as well as in the Cambridge ms. of the Mishnah the reading is Eliezer. In Tosephta 2:10, two sources read Eliezer, one Eleazar. Since “Eleazar” is the reading of all Medieval commentators of the Babli, it is accepted here. in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Eleazar⁷⁴Since he agrees with R. Jehudah about bills of divorce.? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Eleazar for bills of divorce and Rebbi Jehudah in commercial documents. Could we not say, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah? But because Rav and Samuel both say that practice follows Rebbi Eleazar⁷⁵That the witnesses to the delivery of the bill effectuate the divorce. The Babli agrees, 86b.; in order not to let you think that here it is the same, it was necessary to state that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah for bills of divorce and Rebbi Eleazar in commercial documents⁷⁶The reason for the rejection of divorce documents based on prepared forms is that of R. Jehudah, i. e., that both writing and signing are part of the biblical requirement of “writing for her”. The statement of R. Abba is rejected..

There, we have stated³⁹Mishnah Baba Batra 10:4. The statements of rabbis Abba and La (Ilai) are also quoted there in Halakhah 10:4.: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man even if his wife is not with him, and a receipt⁴⁰A receipt for the amount of the ketubah due her at her divorce. for a woman even if her husband is not with her, and the husband pays the fee⁴¹The scribe’s fee..” Rebbi Abba said, he⁴²The scribe. has to know both of them. Rebbi La⁴³He is R. Ilai. In the Babli, Baba Batra 167b, his statement is attributed to Rav. said, he has to know the husband for the bill of divorce and the wife for her receipt. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi [ ⁴⁴Clearly, a name is missing. R. Abun bar Ḥiyya is known to have asked questions of R. Ilai (Yoma 3:5). ]: Think of it, if he brought another woman and divorced by means of her⁴⁵Can the agent of an absent husband not fraudulently give the bill of divorce to another woman, not the wife, and have that woman foreclose the ketubah from the husband’s local property?. He said to him, let the witnesses come and testify. But did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say⁴⁶Cf. Ketubot 2:3, Note 56, Ševi‘it 10:5, Note 96 (Baba Batra 10:16, 14d 1.26); Babli 3a, Ketubot 18b. Signatories of documents cannot claim that they never signed unless they claim that the signatures are forgeries. that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court? There, if they said, we did not sign at all. But here if they say, we signed this but not that⁴⁷The witnesses can identify the persons for whom they signed; this is not a second testimony.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.” If he knows them, why would he change their names⁴⁸If the scribe knew all persons involved, he could not be tricked into writing a misleading document.? There are people who know others by sight but do not know their names. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Ilai: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names⁴⁹The Mishnah treats husband and wife on an equal footing but R. Ilai does not., because of the public good.” The Mishnah about one who is forced to divorce⁵⁰One of those cases in which the wife can force a divorce (cf. Ketubot 7:10) when the husband’s cooperation cannot be taken for granted., Rebbi Ila speaks about one who divorces on his initiative; some want to say if he divorces at another place⁵¹Where he has to prove his and his wife’s identities to the scribe..

MISHNAH: A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid. Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. If one person borrows from five, one writes a prozbol for each single [creditor]. If five persons borrow from one, he writes only one prozbol for all of them.
One writes prozbol only on the basis of real estate. If he¹⁰⁴It was shown in Note 92 that one of his debtors must have real estate for a creditor’s prozbol. has none, [the other party] gives him the right to a minute area of their field. If he had a field mortgaged¹⁰⁵Even if the loan is paid back in instalments, that for a fixed number of terms the creditor works the field and takes all its yield, it remains the property of the debtor. in town, one writes a prozbol on it. Rebbi Ḥuẓpit says, one writes for a man on his wife’s properties¹⁰⁶Even if this is separate property, not dowry which becomes the husband’s property for the duration of the marriage. and for orphans on those of the guardians¹⁰⁷Greek ἐπίτροπος “guardian, attorney”. In the opinion of the Babli (Giṭṭin 37a), documented claims of minor orphans are always under the supervision of the court, have the status of court documents, and do not need prozbol. The Babli is therefore obliged to interpret the Mishnah as speaking of debts incurred by the guardians for the living expenses of the orphans. This does not seem to be the position of the Yerushalmi..
A bee hive. Rebbi Eliezer says, it is like real estate: one may write a prozbol on it, it is not subject to impurity in its place¹¹⁴No real estate and nothing permanently connected to the ground can become impure., and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is guilty¹¹⁵Removing food from the ground is the definition of harvesting.. But the Sages say, it is not like real estate, one may not write a prozbol on it, it is subject to impurity in its place, and somebody who takes honey from it on the Sabbath is not sanctionable¹¹⁶While it is not permitted outright, there is no punishment for the action since no biblical Sabbath prohibition has been violated. The first part of the Mishnah is also in Uqeẓin 3:10.. If somebody returns a debt in the Sabbatical, he [the lender] says to him: “I am remitting.” If he [the borrower] says “anyway”, he [the lender] should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of remission¹¹⁷Once the word “remission” has been uttered, duty has been fulfilled.”.
Similarly, a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them: I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept it, for it is said (Deut. 19:4): “This is the word of a homicide.”

HALAKHAH: “Admon promulgated seven [rules],” etc. ⁵³Most of this Halakhah is found in Baba batra 9:1, in a somewhat different formulation. How large is a large estate? Rebbi Ze‘ura, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of sustenance for all of them⁵⁴Sons and daughters together.. Samuel heard this and said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi⁵⁵Gamliel III., but the Sages say, until they⁵⁶The daughters, who have to be supported until either they marry or reach adulthood. reach adulthood or are married. They asked before Rebbi Yose⁵⁷This probably should read “R. Yasa” since R. Yose lived three generations after R. Joḥanan. In Baba batra, the person who was asked is R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, R. Joḥanan’s successor as head of the Academy., what did you hear from Rebbi Joḥanan? He said to them, let us explain the words of the Sages by their words! Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs⁵⁸The sons. He follows the majority opinion in the Mishnah that only the daughters are supported by a small estate, but he follows Rabban Gamliel III in the definition of a large estate. Practice almost always follows R. Joḥanan. started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone.

HALAKHAH: “Anybody can supplement a bald document,” etc. ¹⁰⁷A closely related text, but from another editorial tradition, is in Baba batra 10:1. From where that a document can be knotted¹⁰⁸The basic use for “knotted” documents was for real estate transactions, probably to hide the financial data from public knowledge. Such a document was certainly impossible in Egypt, where all real estate transactions had to be filed with the State registrar. Its validity in rabbinic tradition is given a biblical basis. It seems from the discussion in Babli Baba batra 10 that the use of “knotted” documents was a Palestinian peculiarity (such documents have been found in the Judean desert.)? Rebbi Immi said, it is written: “I took the document,¹⁰⁹Jer. 32:11: “I took the document of acquisition, the sealed one, the orders and rules, and the public one.” The verse clearly states that a sealed document is the main object, accompanied by a public document.” etc. “And [the sealed]”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted¹¹⁰The text of the document, whose formulation is identical whether sealed or public.. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two {witnesses], the other with three¹¹¹A public document needs two witnesses, a sealed (knotted) one at least three.; one in it, the other on its back¹¹²A public document is signed by the witnesses on the recto of the sheet, starting exactly one line after the end of the text. A sealed document is signed on the verso, between the folds. {According to Rashbam (Commentary to Baba batra 10:1), the document was written with wide spaces between the lines, was signed by witnesses between the lines, and then was folded and sewn so that the document text was hidden but the signatures appeared on the outside. It seems impossible to accept this explanation for the Yerushalmi text. (Cf. H. Albeck’s commentary to Baba batra 10:1).}. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, on a simple document, the witnesses sign parallel¹¹³They simply sign on the lines after the body of the document, parallel to the lines used by the scribe., on a knotted one the witnesses sign lengthwise¹¹⁴In this opinion, the witnesses sign in the back at a right angle to the scribe’s text, starting in the back of the last line of the document. Only the text covered by witnesses’ signatures in the back is certified.. Rebbi Idi said, the witnesses sign between any two knots, but it must be on top¹¹⁵He disagrees with the preceding description and requires that the witnesses sign in the back parallel to the text written by the scribe, as described in Note 94.. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies¹¹⁶How can the witnesses be sure that the writer of the document will not falsify the document after they affixed their signatures? For a public document there is no problem since anything following the signatures has to be disregarded. For a sealed document with signatures at a right angle there is no problem since any text not covered by the signatures at the back has to be disregarded. But if the signatures are affixed while the document is being written, where are the guarantees?? Rav Naḥman¹¹⁷In Baba batra: Rav Ḥuna. This seems to be the correct attribution, confirmed in the sequel. wanted to argue that witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that two times “I accept” makes it invalid¹¹⁸A sealed document containing two different clauses of acceptation is considered fraudulent and not enforceable in court.. But should one not be afraid that he erased and changed to falsify? Does Rav Huna not consider that he might write another text, erase and change to falsify? Rav Huna is of the opinion that an erasure makes invalid even if the correction is certified¹¹⁹An erasure in a sealed document is unacceptable even if confirmed as such by signatures. In the Babli, Baba batra 161b, R. Joḥanan accepts an erasure in a sealed document if it carries a note: “This is a correction”..