Talmud do Bawa batra 10:2

גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו בִּשְׁנָיִם. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד, וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. כָּתַב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִין. זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן תְּלָתִין סִלְעִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. כְסַף זוּזִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנָיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם, מִלְמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן:

Zwykły dowód jest podpisany przez dwóch świadków, a złożony przez trzech. Jeśli zwykły get został podpisany przez jednego lub złożony przez dwóch, oba są pasul. [To jest intencja: Tak jak zwykły podpis jednego świadka jest zgodny z prawem Tory, tak jest składany podpis podpisany przez dwóch świadków.] Gdyby było napisane (w getcie): „sto zuzinów, czyli dwadzieścia sela'in, "dostaje tylko dwadzieścia. [Nawet jeśli sto zuzinów to dwadzieścia pięć sela'in, posiadacz weksla (długu) ma słabszą rękę, co jest interpretowane: sto gorszych zuzinów, które są tylko dwudziestu sela'in.] (Gdyby tak było napisane :) "sto zuzinów, które są trzydzieści sela'in", otrzymuje tylko sto (zuzin) [tj. dwadzieścia pięć sela'in, rachunek jest interpretowany: sto zuzinów, które są trzydzieści światła, sela gorsze 'w, które są warte dwadzieścia pięć dobrych.] (Gdyby było napisane :) "srebrne zuziny, które są…", a jeśli [następująca po niej kwota] zostały skasowane, otrzymuje nie mniej niż dwa. „srebrne sela'in, które są…” i zostały usunięte, otrzymuje nie mniej niż dwa. „darconoth, które są…” i zostały usunięte, otrzymuje nie mniej niż dwa. Gdyby było napisane powyżej, „sto” i poniżej, „dwieście” lub powyżej, „dwieście” i poniżej, „sto”, wszystko idzie zgodnie z niższym [o ile nie jest napisane na ostatnia linijka.] Jeśli tak, [tzn. jeżeli na końcu rachunku powtarza się: „I wziąłem na siebie dług za tę i tę kwotę”], to dlaczego jest napisana górna? Tak więc, gdyby usunięto literę z dolnej, można by ją wyprowadzić z górnej.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

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..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset