Bava Batra 153b (קנג:) — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: Behold, he is dead, and behold, his grave proves it.

Since he is now dead, we establish him on the basis of the present presumption that this state of illness, which caused his death, had existed throughout, with no change in between. Therefore, the gift is valid, and his heirs are not believed to claim that he recovered from his illness in the interim, thereby annulling the gift.

Abaye said to him:

Abaye disagrees and proves that in our case there is no present presumption:

And as for a ship,

one who sailed on a ship, and the ship sank at sea, and it is not known whether he survived,

, most of whom are destined to perish,

since most of the passengers on a ship that sank are lost at sea,

and

nevertheless, because of the uncertainty,

we impose upon them the stringencies applicable to the living and the stringencies applicable to the dead,

we treat them as though they are alive. Therefore, if he is an Israelite and his wife is the daughter of a kohen, his wife is forbidden to eat teruma, as is the law concerning the daughter of a kohen married to an Israelite, and she does not return to her father’s household to eat teruma. And likewise in the other case, if the husband is a kohen and she is an Israelite woman, she may no longer eat teruma as the wife of a kohen, because perhaps he is dead.

And it is thereby demonstrated that, despite the majority who perish, they are nevertheless, because of the uncertainty, maintained in the presumption of being alive.

If so,

in the case of the ill, most of whom recover and live, is it not all the more so!?

Certainly, one must assume that he recovered from his initial illness before he died, since every person is maintained in the presumption of being alive. Therefore, the gift is nullified, because it is reasonable to assume that he recovered from his initial illness and retracted the gift.

The Gemara brings support for Rabba’s ruling, that one follows the present presumption:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In accordance with whom does this statement of Rabba accord,

with whom does Rabba agree?

With Rabbi Natan.

As it was taught in a beraita,

we learned in a beraita:

Who extracts from whom

in the case of the Mishna, where the wording of the document contains neither the language of a gift given by a healthy person nor the language of a gift given by one who is mortally ill, and there is now uncertainty whether he was mortally ill or healthy at the time of the transfer: who is considered the one seeking to extract property and must bring proof for his claim?

He,

the donor,

extracts from them

the recipients

without proof

that he was mortally ill, since he has possession of the property.

And they,

the recipients who possess the document,

cannot extract from him

the donor

except with proof,

that he was healthy at the time of the transfer,

the statement of Rabbi Yaakov.

But

Rabbi Natan says:

he disagrees and holds that one follows the present presumption. Therefore,

if he is healthy

now, one must assume that he had been healthy throughout, including at the time of the transfer, and therefore

he must bring proof that he was mortally ill.

But

if

now

he is mortally ill,

the present presumption indicates that he should be treated as though he had been in this same state throughout. Therefore,

they must bring proof that he was healthy.

And as long as they have not brought proof, he may retract the transfer.

It follows that Rabba agrees with Rabbi Natan, that one follows the present presumption. Therefore, he rules that if the man is now dead, it is reasonable to assume that he had been in the state of one who is mortally ill throughout.

Rabbi Elazar said: And with regard to ritual impurity—

it is subject to the same dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan in our sugya; the dispute between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan also applies with regard to ritual impurity.

As we learned in the Mishna,

we learned in a Mishna:

A valley,

a field surrounded by a partition—

during the summer,

when there are no crops in the fields, it is

a private domain with regard to Shabbat,

because of the partitions surrounding it, and it is forbidden to carry into it from a public domain.

And a public domain with regard to ritual impurity.

With regard to uncertain ritual impurity, it is considered a public domain, since people pass through it. Therefore, if a person is uncertain whether he became impure in the valley, he is pure, as this is a case of uncertain impurity in a public domain, in which case the person is pure.

But

during the rainy season,

when people do not pass through the valley so as not to damage the crops, it is therefore

a private domain in both respects,

both with regard to Shabbat and with regard to ritual impurity, since it is now not a place intended for public passage.

All this applies when he knows when he entered the valley. But if he is uncertain whether he entered it during the summer or during the rainy season, according to Rabbi Yaakov he is pure, since the person had an initial presumption of purity, and he is left in that presumptive status. But according to Rabbi Natan, one follows the present presumption. Therefore, if he is uncertain when he entered during the summer, he is pure, because he is left in his present status, and we say that at that time as well, when he entered the valley, it was during the summer. But if he is uncertain with regard to the rainy season, he is impure, because we assume that at that time as well, when he entered the valley, it was during the rainy season.

Rava said:

Rava adds,

They taught

that a valley during the summer is a public domain with regard to ritual impurity

only when the rainy season had not passed over it,

this valley, after it had been enclosed.

But

if

the rainy season had passed over it

after they enclosed the valley, it is

a private domain in both respects,

since it had already acquired the status of a private domain, and that status does not lapse afterward.

We learned in the Mishna: And the Sages say: The one who seeks to extract from another bears the burden of proof: