Bava Batra 154b — the Talmud in English

And now Rabbi Yohanan explains his question:

Granted, according to my position,

this is good according to my method,

for I say: proof by witnesses,

that according to the Rabbis the seller is in possession of the money, and the recipient must bring witnesses, and therefore in our case,

since he said to the purchasers, “Bring witnesses,” and they did not find any,

since the purchasers did not find witnesses,

that is why they came,

therefore they came

and said to him,

they asked Rabbi Akiva,

“What is the ruling regarding examining him?”

They wanted to examine whether he had brought forth two hairs.

But according to you,

Reish Lakish,

who say: proof through validation of the document,

the document must be validated so that the heirs will not be believed to claim that he was a minor,

why did they need to examine him?

Why did they ask to examine him, when

they could validate their document and establish themselves in the property,

they should validate the document and receive the property. And it is necessary to add that in our case too there is a present presumptive status, since there is an assessment that witnesses do not sign a document unless it was executed by an adult; it is therefore reasonable that he indeed was an adult. And this is like a present presumptive status, except that they need to validate it so that he will not have the power of a miggo—“the mouth that prohibited”—and from the fact that they searched for proofs it is established according to Rabbi Yohanan that proof by witnesses is required.

Reish Lakish answers:

Do you think,

do you hold that

the property stands in the possession of the members of the family,

that the heirs are the ones in possession,

and the purchasers come and challenge,

and the purchasers come to challenge?

It is not so; rather,

the property stood in the possession of the purchasers,

the purchasers are in possession, since they had held it before the challenge,

and the members of the family come and challenge,

the heirs challenge the sale, claiming that he was a minor. Therefore, proof through validation of the document is not relevant, since the heirs certainly need to bring witnesses that he was a minor.

This too is indeed reasonable,

it is very reasonable that the purchasers are in possession of the property.

From the fact that he said to them,

Rabbi Akiva said to them, “

You are not permitted to disfigure him,”

for it is forbidden to disfigure the dead,

and they were silent,

and they accepted his words.

Granted, if you say

this is understandable if we say that

the members of the family are challenging,

the heirs are the challengers,

that is why they were silent,

therefore they accepted his words, since he was their relative and it was forbidden for them to slight his honor. And furthermore, they were not losing money.

But if you say,

but if we say that the purchasers

are challenging,

are challenging the sale,

why were they silent?

Why did they agree not to examine him?

Let them say to him,

let them say to Rabbi Akiva:

“We gave him money,

we paid money,

let him be disfigured, let him be disfigured!”

It is permitted for us to disfigure him and slight the dead so that we should not lose money.

Rather, it is established from here that the purchasers are in possession.

The Gemara rejects this:

If it is because of this, it is not conclusive.

This is not an absolute proof, since

this is what he said to them:

this is what Rabbi Akiva said to them:

“First, you are not permitted to disfigure him. And furthermore,

if the first reason is not sufficient,

should you say: ‘He took money; let him be disfigured, let him be disfigured!’”

Since he took money, it is permitted for us to disfigure him—this is not an argument, for it is impossible to examine him, since

signs are liable to change after death.”

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: “This that is taught,

is what we learned below

in the teaching of Bar Kappara,

in the beraita of Bar Kappara, according to Rabbi Meir and not according to the Rabbis?” And now the Gemara brings his teaching.

“If one was eating a field,

one who was in possession of a field and ate its produce, but for less than three years,

and came with the presumption that it was his,

and held the field as though it were his,

and one person raised a challenge against him, saying, ‘It is mine!’”

And another came and claimed that the field belonged to him,

and this one brought out

the possessor

his deed

—his document—,

saying, ‘You sold it to me,’

it is written in the document that the challenger sold him the field,

or that you gave it to me as a gift,

or that this is a deed of gift.

Now,

if he said,

the challenger,

“I have never recognized this document at all,”

that the document is forged and he does not recognize it,

the document shall be validated by its signatories,

the purchaser must validate the signatures to prove that it is not forged.

And

if he said, “This is a shtar passim,”

if he claims that the document was given to him so that he would be considered a man of property, but there was no sale,

or it is a shtar amanah,

it is this,

“I sold it to you, but you did not give me the money,”

that he gave him the document, but the purchaser had still not given him the sale money, and they stipulated that if he did not pay, the sale would be void.

“If there are witnesses, follow the witnesses,

if the witnesses testify in favor of the challenger, they shall act according to their words,

and if not, follow the document.”

The purchaser is believed that he purchased it as is demonstrated by the document.

Let us say that it is Rabbi Meir, who says: ‘One who admits the document that he wrote need not validate it,’ and not the Rabbis,

since he need not validate it, as the claimant is not believed by a miggo—that he could have chosen not to validate it.

This is what Reish Lakish asked, for it follows that the teaching of Bar Kappara is not according to the Rabbis.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan answered him:

“No,

it is according both to Rabbi Meir and to the Rabbis. According to

what I say,

for

according to everyone, one who admits the document that he wrote need not validate it,

since there is no dispute about this.”

The Gemara asks:

But they do dispute this!?

After all, they disputed this,

as we learned:

we learned in the Mishna:

“The

witnesses who signed the document

are not believed to disqualify it,

to say that the witnesses were minors or coerced at the time they signed it,

the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: They are believed

to disqualify it, and therefore it must be validated, so that there should not be “the mouth that prohibited,” for this is not established through their testimony.

Rabbi Yohanan answered and

said to him: “If witnesses have the power and weaken the document, does he have any power?”

Witnesses specifically are believed to disqualify the document, since they possess the power of witnesses, but he is not believed, and everyone agrees that it need not be validated.

He said to him,

Reish Lakish continued to ask:

“But they said in your name: ‘The members of the family have rightly challenged it,’

the sale, since the document was not validated. And it implies that you hold that it must be validated.”

He said to him: “This was said by Elazar, my son.

But

I never said this at all.”

And the Gemara continues to ask:

Rabbi Zeira said:

also,

“Even if Rabbi Yohanan were to deny Rabbi Elazar, his student,”

Rabbi Yohanan could deny it and say that his student said this and not he, but

“could he deny Rabbi Yannai, his master,”

could he deny that he conceded to the words of his master?

For Rabbi Yannai said in the name of Rabbi: “One who admits the document that he wrote must validate it.”

And he said to him

Rabbi Yohanan said to Rabbi Yannai,

“Rabbi!

But

is this not our Mishna,

which says:

‘And the Sages say: The one who takes property from his fellow—upon him is the proof.’”

And

there is no proof except through validation of the document.”

And it is established that Rabbi Yohanan agreed with the words of his master, that it must be validated.

And Rabbi Zeira reconciles Rabbi Yohanan:

“However,

but

the words of our teacher Joseph appear

to be that according to his words this is resolved.

For Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: ‘This is the view of the Sages,

who hold that one who admits the document that he wrote need not validate it.

But Rabbi Meir says: One who admits the document that he wrote must validate it.’

And according to this, indeed Rabbi Yohanan holds that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disputed this.

And what of,

what he said above,

“the words of everyone,”

that all hold that it need not be validated? Because

with regard to the Rabbis in relation to Rabbi Meir, it is the words of everyone!

His intention is to say that since the Rabbis hold that it need not be validated, this is considered as though everyone holds this way.

The Gemara asks:

But we learned the opposite,

for we learned in the Mishna the opposite:

“And the Sages say: The one who takes property from his fellow—upon him is the proof,”

that he must bring proof through validation of the document, which must be validated.

The Gemara answers:

Reverse it.

It must be reversed and said that Rabbi Meir holds, “The one who takes property from his fellow—upon him is the proof,” while the Rabbis hold that it need not be validated.

The Gemara asks:

But it was taught in a beraita,

we learned in a beraita:

“They are not believed to disqualify it, the words of Rabbi Meir.”

Since it need not be validated.

“And the Sages say: They are believed,”

since it must be validated.

The Gemara answers:

Reverse it;

here too it must be reversed and said: the Sages say that they are not believed to disqualify it, since it need not be validated.

The Gemara continues to ask:

“But Rabbi Yohanan said: ‘Proof by witnesses.’”

Rabbi Yohanan established their dispute in the Mishna as whether one follows a present presumptive status, and not whether it must be validated; so why did he say to Rabbi Yannai, his master, that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis concerns whether it must be validated?

The Gemara answers:

Reverse it.

The above must be reversed and said that Rabbi Yohanan holds that the proof is through validation of the document, while Reish Lakish holds that the proof is by witnesses.

The Gemara continues to ask:

“Let us say that we should also reverse the teyuṿta,”

for above we proved from the incident of the people of Benei Brak that proof by witnesses is required, and there Rabbi Yohanan challenged Reish Lakish, implying that he holds proof by witnesses. Should we also reverse this and say that Reish Lakish challenged Rabbi Yohanan?

The Gemara answers:

“No,”

it need not be reversed.