Bava Batra 153b — the Talmud in English

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

Since he is now dead, we establish him by the presumption that this state of illness, which caused him to die, existed throughout, and there were no changes in between. Therefore, the gift is valid, and his heirs are not believed to claim that he recovered from his illness in the interim, and that the gift was nullified .

Abaye said to him:

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

And as for a ship,

one who set sail in a ship, and the ship sank in the sea, and it is not known whether he was saved

, whose majority are destined to be lost,

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

and

nevertheless, because of the doubt,

we impose upon them the stringencies of the living and the stringencies of the dead,

we treat them as though they are alive. Therefore, if he is an Israelite and his wife is the daughter of a kohein—a member of the priestly family who has the sanctified status of serving in the Temple—his wife is forbidden to eat teruma, as is the case with the daughter of a kohein married to an Israelite, and she may not return to her father’s household to eat teruma. Conversely, if the husband is a kohein and she is an Israelite woman, she may no longer eat teruma as the wife of a kohein, because perhaps he is dead.

And it is proven that despite the majority who are lost, nevertheless, because of the doubt, we establish them as alive.

If so,

with regard to the ill, of whom the majority recover, 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 established as alive. Therefore, the gift is nullified, for it is reasonable that he recovered from his initial illness and retracted the gift .

And 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 teaching of Rabba proceed,

in accordance with whom does Rabba hold

? In accordance with Rabbi Natan.

For 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 from a healthy person nor the language of a gift from a shekhiv mera, and there is now a doubt whether at the time of the giving he was a shekhiv mera or healthy—who is considered the extractor, who must bring proof for his claim?

He,

the giver,

extracts from their possession

of the recipients

without proof

that he was a shekhiv mera, since he has presumptive possession of the property.

And they,

the recipients who have a document,

do not extract from his possession

of the giver

except with proof,

that he was healthy at the time of the giving,

the words of Rabbi Yaakov.

But

Rabbi Natan says,

he disagrees and holds that one follows the present presumption, and therefore

if he is healthy

now, one must assume that he was healthy throughout, including at the time of the giving, and therefore

he must bring proof that he was a shekhiv mera.

But

if

now

he is a shekhiv mera,

then the present presumption says that he is to be treated as though he was in that 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 giving.

It follows that Rabba holds in accordance with Rabbi Natan, that one follows the present presumption; therefore, he rules that if he is now dead, it is reasonable that he was in the state of a shekhiv mera throughout.

Rabbi Elazar said: And with regard to impurity —

it is like the dispute

between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan in our discussion; the dispute between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan is also relevant to the matter of impurity.

For we learned in the Mishna,

we learned in the Mishna:

a valley,

a field surrounded by a partition

— during the summer days,

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 transfer there from a public domain.

And a public domain with regard to impurity.

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

But

during the rainy days,

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

a private domain in both respects,

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

All this applies when he knows when he entered the valley. But if he is uncertain whether he entered it during the summer days or during the rainy days, then according to Rabbi Yaakov he is pure, since the person had a presumption of purity, and we leave him with his presumption. But according to Rabbi Natan, one follows the present presumption. Therefore, if he is uncertain during the summer days as to when he entered, he is pure, because we leave him in his present state and say that at that time also, when he entered the valley, it was during the summer days. But if he is uncertain during the rainy days, he is impure, because we assume that at that time also, when he entered the valley, it was during the rainy days .

Rava said:

Rava adds,

they taught

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

only when the rainy days had not passed over it,

over this valley after they enclosed it.

But

if

the rainy days passed over it

after they enclosed the valley, then it is

a private domain in both respects,

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

We learned in the Mishna: And the Sages say: The one who extracts from his fellow bears the proof: