Bava Batra 154a (קנד.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks according to the Sages:

With regard to what is proof?

What proof must be brought according to the Sages?

Rav Huna said: Proof by witnesses.

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Proof by validation of the document.

The Gemara explains their statements:

Rav Huna said: Proof by witnesses,

because he holds that Rabbi Meir and the Sages

are disputing the dispute between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan,

that they disagree about the dispute between the tannaim cited in a beraita.

Rabbi Meir is in accordance with Rabbi Natan,

who follows the present presumptive status, and the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he is now healthy. Therefore, the donor must bring proof through witnesses that he had been a shekhiv mera—a dangerously ill person.

And the Rabbis are in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov.

The Sages hold in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov, that one does not follow the present presumptive status. Thus, although he is now healthy, it is possible that at that time he was a shekhiv mera. Since the donor has possession of the property, the one who seeks to take it from his fellow—the recipient—must bring proof through witnesses that the donor was healthy at the time of the gift. And this is the meaning of Rav Huna’s statement: “Proof by witnesses

”. But

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Proof by validation of the document.

They explain the dispute differently. Everyone holds that one follows the present presumptive status, and if he is healthy now, one should assume that he was also healthy at the time of the gift. And they

are disputing

and disagree

with regard to one who admits the document that he wrote,

whether he

must validate it.

That is to say, when one person demands that another repay a debt documented in a loan document, and the borrower admits that the document is not forged, but claims that he has already repaid his debt, they disagree about whether he is deemed credible.

For one could say that since the document is validated only on the basis of his admission, and if he had not admitted it, it would be possible that the document was forged, the same “mouth that prohibited”—that said that the document was valid—is the “mouth that permitted,” and he is deemed credible when he says that he repaid the debt. In order that he not be deemed credible, the lender must validate the document through witnesses. In that case, the borrower no longer has a mego—the ability to claim that it was forged—for it has been validated independently of him.

But Rabbi Meir holds that as long as the borrower has not claimed that the document is forged, we have no reason to be concerned that the document is invalid. Therefore, although the borrower is the one who admits the validity of the document, he does not have the “mouth that prohibited” [mego]], since he did not prohibit it. Therefore, he is not deemed credible when he says, “I repaid it,” and the lender need not validate the document from another source.

For Rabbi Meir holds:

if the borrower

admits

the document

that he wrote, he need not

have the lender

validate it.

Therefore, the donor cannot be deemed credible when he says that he had been a shekhiv mera, since one follows the present presumptive status, according to which he is healthy.

And the Rabbis hold: One who admits the document that he wrote must validate it.

Therefore, in our case, the donor must validate the signatures on the document, so that the donor will not have the credibility of “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted,” since he could have refused to admit that the document was valid.

And this is the meaning of Rav Ḥisda’s statement: According to the Rabbis, the recipient must validate the document, so that the donor will not be deemed credible when he says, “I was a shekhiv mera.”

And the Gemara asks according to this interpretation, that they are disputing the case of one who admits the document that he wrote:

But they already disputed this once,

as Rabbi Meir and the Sages already disagreed about this elsewhere!

As it was taught:

It was taught in a beraita:

They are not deemed credible to disqualify it,

witnesses who admit that the document is valid are not deemed credible to disqualify it—for example, by claiming that they were minors or otherwise disqualified—since they have no mego,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They are deemed credible,

by virtue of the principle of the “mouth that prohibited,” as explained above .

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary,

to state both disputes.

For if only that dispute had been stated,

if they had disagreed only with regard to witnesses, we would have said:

It is with regard to that case that the Rabbis say

that they are deemed credible to disqualify it,

because witnesses are powerful and can undermine a document,

as witnesses have the power to invalidate the document.

But here, since it is not within his power,

he is not deemed credible to claim that he had been a shekhiv mera,

say no,

we might think that according to the Rabbis he is not deemed credible. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that there is no difference.

And if only this case had been stated,

if they had disagreed only in our Mishna, it would have been possible to say that only

in this case Rabbi Meir says

that he is not deemed credible,

but with regard to that case,

with regard to the witnesses,

say that he agrees with the Rabbis

that the document must be validated, since witnesses are powerful. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach that he also disagrees with them with regard to witnesses.

And Rabba likewise said: Proof by witnesses.

Rabba likewise holds that according to the Sages the donor has possession, and the recipient must bring proof.

Abaye said to him: What is the reason?

What is the reason for the Sages’ ruling?

If you say

that it is

because in all of them it is written,

in all the documents of healthy people it is written:

“When he was walking on his feet in the marketplace,”

indicating that he was healthy and walking through the marketplace on his feet,

whereas in this one it is not written,

this wording was not written in this document,

learn from it

that

he was a shekhiv mera,

that he had been dangerously ill—and this is the reason for the Sages’ ruling that he is deemed credible when he says that he had been a shekhiv mera.

This is not correct, for

on the contrary,

we can prove the opposite:

“Because in all of them it is written: ‘When he was ill and lying in his bed,’”

indicating that in every gift of a shekhiv mera it is written that he was ill and lying in bed,

whereas this one, it is not written,

this wording is not written in this document;

learn from it: He was healthy.

It is evident from this that he had been healthy.

Rabba replies to Abaye:

It is possible to say this,

that he was healthy,

and it is possible to say this,

that he was a shekhiv mera. Therefore,

place the money in the possession of its owner.

We leave the money in the presumptive possession of its owner, who is the donor, and do not follow the present presumptive status.

The Gemara adds:

And with regard to the dispute,

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish also disagreed in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda:

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Proof by witnesses; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Proof by validation of the document.

As explained above.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: There was an incident in Benei Brak involving one who sold property belonging to his father, and he died,

and in the meantime the property was in the presumptive possession of the heirs, while the purchasers sought to take the property from them because a sale had taken place.

And members of the family came,

the heirs,

and protested

against the sale,

saying: He was a minor at the time of death,

and the sale is therefore not valid.

And

the purchasers

came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the ruling with regard to examining him

the deceased, so that if pubic hairs were found, it would be proven that he had been an adult?

He said to them: You are not permitted to disgrace him

for the purpose of examining him after death.

And furthermore,

even if you find pubic hairs, this is not proof that he had been an adult, because

signs can change after death,

and it is possible that during his lifetime this was merely a mole, whereas now it appears to be a sign of maturity.