Bava Batra 160b — the Talmud in English

Fields shall be purchased with money, and written in a book" - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

This

deed

simple

that is like a book. "

And sealed" -

This

is a

folded deed, since “sealed” means bundled, sealed, and folded. "

поскольку слово «подписывают» означает: его складывают, подписывают и соединяют. "

And the witness" -

implies

two

two witnesses. Since an ordinary “witness” in the Torah means two witnesses. "

witnesses" - implies

three

witnesses.

How so?

Two

witnesses -

for a simple deed! Three -

for a folded deed!

And the Gemara asks:

But let me reverse it!?

From where do we know to expound it this way and not the reverse—that a simple deed requires three witnesses, whereas two witnesses suffice for a folded deed!?

And the Gemara answers: It is logical to say that the folded deed requires more witnesses than the simple one, for

since it was increased in its folds,

as we see that the verse was stringent concerning it and required the effort of making folds,

it was increased

also

in its witnesses,

so that it requires more witnesses.

Rafram said: From here

we learn the laws of the various deeds, for it is written [there, verse 11], when Jeremiah purchased the field from Hanamel, his cousin: "

And I took the deed of purchase, the sealed one containing the commandment and the statutes, and the open one."

And we expound: "

And I took the deed of purchase" -

this

is a

simple deed. "

The sealed one" -

this

is a

folded deed. "

And the open one" -

This is the simple part of the folded deed.

The form in the deed, which was written in the ordinary manner, "

the commandment and the statutes,"

implies that there are distinctions in law between the two types of deeds,

these are matters that are between

a

simple deed and a folded one.

How so,

in what do they differ?

This

simple deed,

its witnesses are two.

And this

folded deed,

its witnesses are three.

This

simple deed,

its witnesses are inside it.

And this

folded deed,

its witnesses are on its back.

And the Gemara asks:

But let me reverse it!?

That the simple deed should have three witnesses, and the folded deed two witnesses?

And the Gemara answers:

Since it was increased in its folds, it was increased in its witnesses.

Rami bar Yehezkel said: From here

we learn: for it is written [Deuteronomy 19:15]: "

At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established."

If their testimony can be established by two,

if it is possible to adjudicate on the basis of only two witnesses,

why did it specify for you

the

“three”?

To tell you: two

for a

simple

deed

and three for a folded one.

And the Gemara asks:

But let me reverse it!?

And the Gemara answers:

Since it was increased in its folds, it was increased in its witnesses.

And the Gemara objects:

And these verses, is that what they came for!?

Do all these verses come in order that we should derive from them the laws of a simple and a folded deed? Surely

each one and each one came for its own matter,

each verse came to teach its own subject.

For the first verse is expounded

as it was taught: "

Fields shall be purchased with money, and written in a book and sealed."

It teaches a good counsel

of Jeremiah. He gave them good counsel: let each person write a deed concerning his field and preserve it, so that he would not need to find witnesses to establish his ownership when someone would arise to challenge it.

And as for the second verse, "

And I took the book

of purchase,"

it comes for no exposition, but to teach us that

this is how the event occurred,

that this is how it was: Jeremiah took the deed of purchase and gave it to Baruch son of Neriah so that he would preserve it for many days.

And the third verse, "

At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses,"

comes

to compare three to two, in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis

in tractate Makkot [5b]. For Rabbi Akiva and the other tannaim, each according to his own view, expound the verse there to teach that three witnesses are like two with regard to various laws—for example, if one of the three is found to be a relative or disqualified, all the testimony is invalidated, as with two witnesses.

And the Gemara answers:

Rather, a

deed

folded -

by rabbinic enactment.

It is an enactment of the Sages, and is not learned from the verse.

And the verses,

the verses from which we expounded above, are only

a mere support

for it.

And what is the reason that the Sages enacted the folded deed,

why indeed did the Sages enact a folded deed?

It was a place of priests.

In that place where they enacted the folded bill of divorce, there were many priests,

and they were very quick-tempered,

they would quickly become angry with their wives,

and divorce their wives,

divorcing them immediately out of anger, and afterward they could no longer take them back, since a priest is forbidden to a divorcee.

And the Sages made an enactment,

therefore the Sages enacted a folded bill of divorce, whose preparation takes a long time, so that

in the meantime

while this was happening,

their minds would settle.

They would calm down from their anger and would not divorce their wives.

And the Gemara asks:

This works for bills of divorce,

for this reason is applicable to them. But as for other

deeds, what is there to say,

why did the Sages enact a folded deed for them?

And the Gemara answers:

So that you should not distinguish between bills of divorce and deeds.

Therefore, they enacted a folded deed for all deeds as well.

And the Gemara asks:

Where

do the

witnesses sign

on a folded deed?

And the Gemara brings a dispute between amoraim concerning this:

Rav Huna said: Between one fold and another,

and this will be explained below.

And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said: On the back of the writing,

on the other side of the deed, on the folds,

and opposite the writing,

parallel to the writing on the inner side of the deed,

on the outside;

there the witnesses sign.

Rami bar Hama said to Rav Hisda: According to Rav Huna, who says, ‘between one fold and another,’ it entered our minds

that

between one fold and another

means

on the inside,

that the witnesses signed inside the deed, on the blank lines, and their signatures were found within the folds of the deed, and not outside them.

And this is difficult:

But there was that

deed

folded that came before Rabbi. And Rabbi said: There is no date in this one!

The date was missing from this deed.

Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi said to him,

Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi’s son, answered

Rabbi: Perhaps the date is embedded among its folds,

and that is why you do not see it.

He opened it,

Rabbi untied the folds,

and saw it,

and saw that the date had indeed been written there.

And if it is so,

that the witnesses also sign between the folds on the inside, then

“There is no date in this one, and there are no witnesses in this one,”

he should have said

Rabbi!? Rabbi should have asked also where the witnesses’ signatures were, and not only where the date was!

He said to him,

Rav Hisda:

Do you think that ‘between one fold and another’

means

on the inside?

No

that is not how it is! Rather,

between one fold and another on the outside,

on the other side of the deed.

And the Gemara asks:

Let us be concerned that perhaps he forged it and wrote whatever he wanted,

why should we not be concerned regarding a folded deed [in which blank space remained at its end for the authentication of the deed by the court, and the witnesses do not sign at its end but sign on the outside, at its beginning], that perhaps the lender will add at the end of the deed, after the witnesses have signed on the outside, that the borrower owes him additional money,

and the witnesses signed,

for in a folded deed the witnesses’ signatures are not at the end of the deed but on its back, between the folds, and how will we know up to where their testimony extends?

And the Gemara answers:

For it is written in it,

that they write at the end of the deed, before the witnesses’ signatures on the outside, "

fully confirmed and valid."

This is proof that the deed ends here.

And the Gemara objects:

Let us be concerned that perhaps he wrote

the lender

whatever he wanted,

after that “fully confirmed and valid,”

and then wrote "

fully confirmed and valid"

another one,

that after his addition he wrote “fully confirmed and valid” again?

And the Gemara answers: Only

one "

fully confirmed and valid"

do we write. Two "

fully confirmed and valid"

we do not write.

And this is proof that it was forged.

And the Gemara objects:

And let us be concerned that perhaps he erased the "

fully confirmed and valid,"

perhaps the lender will erase the “fully confirmed and valid,”

and wrote whatever he wanted,

adding to the deed whatever he wished,

and then wrote,

at the end he wrote again "

fully confirmed and valid"?

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan has said: An interlinear addition that has been authenticated is valid.

If the scribe made a mistake and omitted several words, he may add them between the lines, and at the end of the deed he authenticates them by writing that all those words inserted between the lines are “fully confirmed and valid.”