Bava Batra 128a — the Talmud in English

He said to him:

“You sold him to me,” ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

“You gave him to me as a gift. It is your choice: swear and take.”

And he swore; he can no longer retract

and say, “I was merely fooling you,” for I was exempt, since a person does not swear and take, for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the proof , and one does not swear concerning slaves either.

Rather, since he swore on his word, he is obligated to give him the slave. For he trusted him through this oath .

And the Gemara asks:

What does this teach us?

For

we have already learned: “If he said, ‘My father is trusted for me,’ ‘Your father is trusted for me,’ ‘Three cattle-herders are trusted for me,’

who are not expert in law,

Rabbi Meir says: He can retract.”

Since these are merely words, without an act of acquisition.

And the Sages say: He cannot retract.

And the Gemara answers:

This teaches us that [the dispute applies] in the case of “I will give you.”

That is, they disagree even when he said, “If my father says [so], I will give you this object,” where the claimant is not holding it.

And the halakha is according to the words of the Sages.

But if the claimant said, “This person is trusted by me, so that if he says according to your words, I will release you from my claim,” even Rabbi Meir concedes that he can no longer retract. For he is already in possession, and he does not need an act of acquisition for this relinquishment.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: The halakha is that they collect from slaves.

That is, if a creditor died, the lender collects his debt from the orphans’ slaves.

And even though “the movable property of orphans is not subject to a lien for a creditor,” nevertheless slaves are like land, for they were equated with land, as it is written, “And you shall give them as an inheritance to your sons, to inherit as a possession,” and they collect from them.

And Rav Nahman said: They do not collect.

Since a creditor does not rely upon them, for the borrower can hide them or cause them to be lost . And the halakha is according to Rav Nahman, as is explained below.

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: The halakha is that a third-degree relative

who comes to testify

to a second-degree relative

[for example, Reuben’s grandson who comes to testify concerning Simeon’s son],

is fit

for testimony, and is not disqualified because of kinship.

But a second-degree relative to a second-degree relative is disqualified for testimony. For it is written, “Fathers shall not be put to death on account of sons,” and we expound: just as the fathers are disqualified for testimony, one concerning his brother, so too their sons are disqualified from testifying, one concerning his fellow, his cousin.

Rava said,

a third-degree relative is fit to testify

even concerning a first-degree relative.

And so is the halakha.

Mar bar Rav Ashi declared a grandfather fit [to testify concerning his grandson].

That is, the grandson may testify concerning his grandfather .

And the halakha is not according to Mar bar Rav Ashi.

For grandchildren are like sons, and even through a thousand generations they may not testify concerning their ancestors, since a son is the thigh of his father .

Further,

Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Hama: If he knew testimony concerning land

[the extent of his land and from where they reached its boundary],

before he became blind

[became blind],

and he became blind, he is disqualified.

Since now he cannot estimate and determine how far so-and-so’s boundary extends. And we do not heed his testimony .

And Samuel said: He is fit. It is possible that he can identify its boundary markers. But

concerning

a cloak, no.

Since many cloaks have equal measurements, and he cannot determine his testimony.

And Rav Sheshet said: Even concerning a cloak it is possible that he can determine the measure of its length and the measure of its width. But concerning a bar

[a piece of silver or gold]

no.

And Rav Pappa said: Even concerning a bar, it is possible that he can determine the measure of its weights.

And the Gemara objects:

We have an objection: If he knew testimony concerning him before he became his son-in-law, and he became his son-in-law

and thus became disqualified for this testimony because of kinship,

or if he was

sighted, and became deaf ,

sighted, and became blind, mentally sound, and became insane, he is disqualified.

But if he knew testimony concerning him before he became his son-in-law, and he became his son-in-law, and his daughter died,

or

if he was sighted and became deaf and then became sighted again, sighted and became blind and then became sighted again, mentally sound and became insane and then became sane again, he is fit.

This is the general rule: Anyone whose beginning or end is in disqualification is disqualified. If his beginning and end are in fitness, he is fit .

.

And it is explained that this is not in accordance with the words of the amoraim above who declared a blind person fit to testify concerning land, but in accordance with the words of Rav Abba, who disqualified him.