Bava Batra 164b (קסד:) — the Talmud in English

But does the date of this one not differ from the date of that one?

The date written in a plain document differs from the date written in a folded document:

For a document that is

plain: If he reigned one year,

in the first year of the king’s reign,

one year is counted for him;

the document is written: “The first year of the reign of So-and-so.”

Two,

and in the second year of his reign,

two years are counted for him;

the document is written: “The second year of the reign of So-and-so.”

Whereas in a document that is

folded: If he reigned one year, two years are counted for him.

In the first year, “the second year of his reign” is already written.

Two, three years are counted for him.

In the second year, “three years” is written, for the reason that will be explained below.

And if we validate a folded document whose witnesses’ signatures are inside it, this could lead to a mishap—

and sometimes he borrows money from him with a folded document,

at times he borrows from him with a folded promissory note whose witnesses’ signatures are inside it,

and money happens to come to him in the interim,

and funds become available to him during the coming year,

and he repays him

and pays the lender.

And he says to him,

the borrower says to the lender:

Give me my document,

return my document to me.

And he says to him,

the lender says:

I lost it,

I lost the document [but in fact he conceals the document in his possession].

And he writes him a receipt,

the lender writes him a receipt for payment of the debt according to the true date at that time, which is still before the date written in the folded document,

and when its date arrives,

when the actual date of the document arrives in the following year, the lender produces this folded document, and

makes it plain,

he turns it into a plain document, and presents it to the borrower,

and says to him: Now you borrowed from me!

After you repaid me the old debt recorded in the folded document, you borrowed from me again with this plain document, since its date is later than the date of the receipt in your possession; consequently, he collects from the borrower unlawfully.

And therefore, strictly speaking, we should have invalidated every folded document whose witnesses’ signatures are inside it!

The Gemara answers:

He holds

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:

One does not write a receipt.

Rather, as long as the lender does not return the document to the borrower, the borrower does not pay him. Therefore, there is no concern of a mishap if we validate a folded document whose witnesses’ signatures are inside it.

The Gemara asks:

But was Rabbi familiar with folded documents!?

Did Rabbi know at all the procedure for writing a folded document, such that he could say that the date of a folded document differs from that of a plain document!?

But there was that folded document that came before Rabbi,

they brought a folded document before Rabbi,

and Rabbi said: This is a postdated document!

because the year of the king written in it was one year more than the number of years he had reigned.

And Zunin said [

the name of a sage]

to Rabbi: This is the practice of this nation

among whom we live:

If he reigned one year, two years are counted for him;

if he reigned

two, three years are counted for him.

And the Sages instituted that this should also be written in folded documents, in order to distinguish as much as possible between them and plain documents, so that it would be difficult for the priests to write a folded bill of divorce, and in the meantime they might reconsider divorcing their wives.

Thus, Rabbi did not know at all that the date of a folded document differs from the date of a plain document! And the Gemara answers: Although Rabbi initially did not know,

after he heard it from Zunin,

after he heard this from Zunin,

he accepted it,

he accepted it, and on this basis raised his difficulty against Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel.

There was a certain document in which it was written

there was an incident involving a document in which it was written: “

In the year of So-and-so [

the king’s name was written here]

Arkan

Reuven borrowed one hundred dinars from Shimon.” The year of that king was not specified. And it was a plain document.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Let it be examined: When did Arkan assume his office?

In which year was that king appointed? The document was written in that year, for this is the meaning of the word “Arkan”: the first year of that king’s reign. From that time onward, the borrower’s property is liened to the lender, who can collect it from purchasers who bought it from him after that time.

The Gemara asks:

Perhaps

the meaning of “Arkan” is

that his reign was prolonged,

that he had reigned for a long time, meaning that he had already been king for several years. Since we do not know exactly how many years are intended, the lender could collect only from that point forward!?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Hoshaya said: This is the practice of this nation: In the first year they call him

the king

Arkan” [

from a term meaning established; that is, newly established for kingship ]. In the second year

they call him “

Digon” [

two in their language].

The Gemara objects:

Perhaps they deposed him and then reinstated him.

Perhaps they removed the king from his kingship and restored him after several years, and he was again called “Arkan” in the first year. Perhaps the document was written when he reigned for the second time, and the lender could collect only from then onward!?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: That “

Arkan Digon”

they called him.

That is, the first year of his second term. But “Arkan” without qualification refers to his first term.

The Gemara cites two baraitot dealing with numerical expressions in the language of the nations.

The Sages taught:

With regard to one who says, “

I am hereby a nazir”—

Sumakhos says: If he said, “I am a nazir

hina” [

which means “one” in Greek], he observes

one period of nazirite abstention,

one.

That is, thirty days only. “

I am a nazir

digon” [

two in Greek], he observes

two.

Two periods of nazirite abstention; that is, sixty days. “

I am a nazir

trigon” [

three], he observes

three

periods of nazirite abstention. “

Tetrigon”

he observes

four. “

Pentigon”

he observes

five.

The baraita comes to teach us that a person can accept nazirite abstention upon himself in any language.

The Sages taught:

A house that is

round,

without corners; or that is

digon [

having only two corners, while on the other side it is round]; or

trigon [

triangular]; or

pentigon [

pentagonal],

does not become impure through afflictions [

the afflictions of houses].

Only a house that is

tetrigon,

a quadrilateral with four corners,

becomes impure through afflictions.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters

that only a square house becomes impure through afflictions?

As the Sages taught: Above,

in the section dealing with afflictions,

it says, “

a wall, walls.”

That is, the verse could have written, “And behold, the affliction is on the wall of the house,” but it says, “on the walls of the house,” implying

two,

two walls. And

below,

in that same section,

it says “

a wall, walls.”

As it is stated: “And behold, the affliction has spread on the walls of the house,” implying an additional

two.

And together,

there are four

walls here. That is, specifically a square house, since in a house with a rounded wall, the entire structure is considered one wall.

That

document,

a folded document that came before Rabbi. And Rabbi said: Is there no date in this!?

For the date was missing from this document.

Rabbi Shimon, the son of Rabbi, said to him,

his son Rabbi Shimon answered him,

to Rabbi: Perhaps it is concealed between its folds,

and that is why you do not see it?

He opened it,

he untied the folds,

and saw it.

He saw that the date was written there.

Rabbi then looked at him angrily,

Rabbi looked at his son Rabbi Shimon with an angry expression, because Rabbi thought that he had written this document, and he was displeased that a folded document had been written in a manner that made it difficult to know how to read it.

He said to him,

Rabbi Shimon said:

It was not I who wrote it,

I did not write it; rather,

Rabbi Yehuda the tailor wrote it.

He said to him,

Rabbi said:

Refrain [

withdraw]

from this evil speech

now!

You should not have placed the blame on him; you should have said only, “It was not I who wrote it.”

On another occasion,

at another time,

he was sitting before him,

Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father,

and was reciting the order

and reading

from the Book of Psalms.

Rabbi said: How beautifully formed is this writing!

It was written with such precision, as was evident from your reading.

He said to him,

Rabbi Shimon said:

It was not I who wrote it,

but

Yehuda the tailor wrote it.

He said to him,

Rabbi said:

Refrain from this evil speech!

The Gemara asks:

Granted, there,

in the case of the folded document,

there is evil speech. But here, what evil speech is there!?

He spoke of Yehuda the tailor’s praise!

The Gemara explains:

It is because of Rav Dimi.

As Rav Dimi, the brother [

his brother]

of Rav Safra, taught: A person should never speak of the praise

[

the acclaim]

of his fellow, because through his praise he may come to his detriment. For when his praise is exaggerated, people examine his deeds closely, until they also mention his disgrace.

Rav Amram said that Rav said: There are three transgressions from which a person is not spared

every day:

a.

sinful thoughts.

b.

and scrutiny of prayer.

After he has prayed, he thinks in his heart that surely his prayer will be accepted, because he prayed with proper concentration. c.

and slander.

The Gemara wonders:

Slander, you might have thought!?

Can it be that every person stumbles with slander every day!?