Bava Batra 154a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks according to the Sages:

With regard to what is the proof?

What proof must be brought according to the Sages?

Rav Huna said: The proof is by witnesses.

Rav Hisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: The proof is by validation of the document.

The Gemara explains their words:

Rav Huna said: The proof is by witnesses,

since he holds that Rabbi Meir and the Sages

are disputing the dispute of Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Natan,

they are disputing the dispute of the tannaim brought in a beraita.

Rabbi Meir is like Rabbi Natan,

who follow the present presumption, and the Mishna is speaking of a case in which now he is healthy; therefore, the donor must bring proof by witnesses that he was a dangerously ill person.

And the Rabbis are like Rabbi Yaakov.

The Sages hold like Rabbi Yaakov, that they do not follow the present presumption; and even though now he is healthy, it is possible that at that time he was a dangerously ill person, since the donor is in possession of the property. Therefore, the one who seeks to take from his fellow, the recipient, must bring proof by witnesses that he was healthy at the time of the gift. And this is the meaning of Rav Huna’s statement, “The proof is by witnesses.”

Whereas

Rav Hisda and Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: The proof is by validation of the document.

They explain the dispute differently. And all hold that one follows the present presumption: if now he is healthy, one must assume that he was also healthy at the time of the gift, and they

are disputing

and disputed

a person who admits the document that he wrote,

whether

it requires validation.

That is, one who claims from his fellow that he should pay his debt to him, which he has against him in a loan document, and the borrower admits that indeed the document is not forged, but says that he already paid his debt—the dispute concerns whether he is trusted.

For one can say: Since the document is established only on the basis of his admission, and if he had not admitted it, it would be possible that the document was forged, the “mouth that prohibited,” which said that the document was valid, is the “mouth that permitted,” and he is trusted to say that he paid. And in order that he not be trusted, the lender must validate it through witnesses; then the borrower has no migo that he could have said that it was forged, since it is validated independently of him.

But Rabbi Meir holds that as long as there is no claim of forgery on the part of the borrower, we have no reason to be concerned that the document is invalid. Therefore, although it is the borrower who admits the validity of the document, he does not have the “mouth that prohibited” since he did not prohibit it, and therefore he is not trusted to say, “I paid,” and the lender does not need to validate the document elsewhere.

For Rabbi Meir held:

if the borrower

admits

the borrower

the document that he wrote, he does not require

the lender

to validate it.

Therefore, the donor is not believed to say that he was a dangerously ill person, since one follows the present presumption that he is healthy.

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

Therefore, in our case, the donor must validate the signatures of 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 refrained from admitting that the document was valid.

And this is the meaning of Rav Hisda: according to the Rabbis, the recipient must validate the document, so that the donor will not be trusted to say, “I was a dangerously ill person.”

And the Gemara asks according to this interpretation, that they disputed the case of a person who admits the document that he wrote:

But they already disputed this once,

for Rabbi Meir and the Sages already disputed this elsewhere!

For it was taught:

we learned in a beraita:

They are not trusted to invalidate it,

witnesses who admit that the document is valid are not trusted to invalidate it—for example, by claiming that they were minors or disqualified—since they have no migo,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: They are trusted,

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

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary,

both disputes are necessary.

For if that one had been stated,

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

In that case the Rabbis say

that they are trusted to invalidate it,

because witnesses are powerful and impair the document,

the witnesses have the power to invalidate the document.

But here, he does not have the ability,

he does not have the credibility to claim that he was a dangerously ill person,

I would say no,

we might think that according to the Rabbis he is not trusted; therefore it is necessary to teach that there is no difference.

And if this one had been stated,

and if they had disputed only in our Mishna, it could have been said that only

in this case Rabbi Meir says

that he is not trusted,

but in that case,

with witnesses,

I would say that he agrees with them, the Rabbis,

that it must be validated, since witnesses are powerful; therefore

it is necessary

to make known that he also disputes in the case of witnesses.

And Rabbah likewise said: The proof is by witnesses.

Rabbah also holds that according to the Sages the donor is in possession, and the recipient must bring proof.

Abaye said to him: What is the reason?

What is the reason of the Sages?

If you say

if it is said

since in all of them it is written,

in all the documents of healthy people it is written as follows:

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

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

and in this one it is not written in it,

in this document this wording was not written,

infer from it,

it is evident from this that

he was a dangerously ill person,

that he was a dangerously ill person, and this is the reason of the Sages, that he is trusted to say that he was a dangerously ill person.

This is not correct, for

on the contrary,

we can prove the opposite:

since in all of them it is written, “When he was sick and lying in his bed,”

from the fact that in every gift of a dangerously ill person it is written that he was ill upon his bed,

but in this one it is not written in it,

and in this document this was not written,

infer from it: he was healthy.

It is evident from this that he was healthy.

Rabbah answers Abaye:

It can be said this way,

it is possible to say that he was healthy,

and it can be said this way,

and it is possible to say that he was a dangerously ill person; therefore

place the property in the possession of its owner.

We leave the property in the possession of its owner, who is the donor, and we do not follow the present presumption.

The Gemara adds:

And in the dispute,

in the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Hisda, Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish also disputed:

For Rabbi Yohanan said: The proof is by witnesses; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The proof is by validation of the document.

As was explained above.

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

and meanwhile the property was in the possession of the heirs, while the purchasers wanted to take the property from them since there had been a sale.

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 not valid.

And

the purchasers

came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the law regarding examining him

the deceased, so that if hairs are found, it will be evident that he was an adult?

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

for the purpose of examination after death.

And furthermore,

even if you find hairs, this is not proof that he was an adult, for

signs are liable to change after death,

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