Bava Batra 164b — the Talmud in English

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

the date written in an ordinary document does not resemble the date written in a folded document:

For a document that is

ordinary,

when the king has reigned for one year,

one year is counted for him,

in the first year of the king’s reign, they write in the document: “One year of the reign of so-and-so.”

Two,

and in the second year of his reign,

two are counted for him,

they write in the document: “Two years of the reign of so-and-so.”

But in a document that is

folded, when the king has reigned for one year, two are counted for him.

In the first year they already write: “Two years of his reign.”

Two, three are counted for him.

In the second year they write: “Three years,” for the reason that will be explained below.

And if we validate a folded document whose witnesses are inside it, a mishap may result from this—

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

sometimes he borrows from him with a folded promissory document whose witnesses are inside it,

and money happens to come to him in between,

and money happens to become available to him during the coming year,

and he pays him

and repays 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 to him:

“It was lost for me,”

the document was lost by me [and he hides the document with him].

And he writes a receipt for him,

the lender writes for him a receipt [acknowledgment] for payment of the debt according to the actual date now, 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 takes out this folded document, and

makes it ordinary,

makes it an ordinary document, and presents it before 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 once again with this ordinary document, for its date is later than the date of the receipt in your possession, and it follows that he collects from the borrower unlawfully.

Therefore, by law we should have invalidated every folded document whose witnesses are inside it!

And the Gemara answers:

he holds

Rabbi Hanina 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 for a mishap if we validate a folded document whose witnesses are inside it.

And the Gemara discusses:

But was Rabbi acquainted with folded documents!?

Did Rabbi know at all the order of writing a folded document, so that he says that the date of a folded document is not like the date of an ordinary one!?

But there was that folded document which 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 greater than the number of years that he had reigned.

And Zonin said

[the name of a Sage]

to Rabbi: “Such is the practice of this nation

among whom we live:

when the king has reigned for one year, two are counted for him,

when he has reigned

for two, three are counted for him.”

And the Sages instituted that they should write this way also in folded documents, in order to distinguish as much as possible between them and ordinary documents, so that it would be difficult for the priests to make a folded bill of divorce, and in the meantime he might reconsider divorcing his wife.

It follows that Rabbi did not know at all that the date of a folded document differs from the date of an ordinary document. And the Gemara answers: indeed, at first Rabbi did not know, but

after he heard it from Zonin,

after he heard this from Zonin,

he accepted it,

he accepted it, and on this basis he raised the difficulty against Rabbi Hanina 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

[and here the name of the king was written]

Arkan

Reuben borrowed one hundred dinars from Simeon.” And it was not written in which year of that king. And it was an ordinary document.

Rabbi Hanina said: “Let it be examined when Arkan assumed his office.”

In which year that king was appointed, for in that year this document was written, since this is the meaning of the word “Arkan”: the first year of that king’s reign. And from that time the borrower’s property is encumbered to the lender, so that he can seize it from purchasers who bought it from him after that time.

And the Gemara discusses:

But perhaps

the meaning of “Arkan” is

that his reign was prolonged,

that he had continued in his reign—that is, he had already been king for several years. And since we do not know exactly how many years are intended, the lender will be able to seize only from now onward!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Hoshaya said: “Such is the practice of this nation: in the first year they call him

the king

‘Arkan’

[from an expression meaning repaired; that is, newly repaired for kingship ]. In the second year

they call him

‘Digon’

[two in their language].

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps they removed him from office, and afterward reinstated him.

Perhaps they removed the king from his kingship and restored him after several years, and again he is called “Arkan” in the first year. And perhaps the document was written when he reigned for the second time, and the lender will be able to seize only from then onward!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: “That

‘Arkan Digon’

they called him.”

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

And the Gemara brings two beraitot dealing with matters of numbers in the language of the nations.

The Sages taught:

One who says: “

I am a nazirite”—

Sumakhos says:

If he said: “I am a nazirite

Hina”

[which means “one” in the Greek language], he observes nazirite status for

one.

That is, thirty days only. “

I am a nazirite

Digon”

[two in the Greek language], he observes

two.

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

I am a nazirite

Trigon”

[three], he observes

three

periods of nazirite status. “

Tetrigon”

he observes

four. “

Pentigon”

he observes

five.

And the beraita comes to teach us that a person can undertake nazirite status 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],

is not susceptible to impurity through afflictions

[afflictions of houses].

Only a house that is

Tetrigon,

a square having four corners,

is susceptible to impurity through afflictions.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that only a square house is susceptible to impurity through afflictions?

For the Sages taught: “Above,

in the passage concerning afflictions,

it says, ‘

wall, walls.’”

That is, Scripture could have written, “And behold, the affliction is in the wall of the house,” but it said, “in the walls of the house,” indicating

two,

two walls. And

below,

in that same passage,

it says ‘

wall, walls,’

as it is stated: “And behold, the affliction spread in the walls of the house,” indicating another

two.

And together,

here there are four

walls—that is, specifically a square house, since a house with a rounded wall is considered entirely one wall.

That

document

folded, which came before Rabbi. And Rabbi said: “There is no date in this!?”

for the date was missing from this document.

Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi, said to him,

his son Rabbi Shimon answered him,

to Rabbi: “Perhaps it is concealed between its folds,”

the date, and therefore you do not see it?

He opened it,

he undid the folds,

and saw it.

And 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 folded documents were written, since people do not know how to write them.

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon said:

“I did not write it,”

I did not write it; rather,

Rabbi Yehuda the tailor wrote it.

He said to him

Rabbi said:

“Withdraw

[remove yourself]

from this evil speech

!”

You should not have cast the blame upon him, but should merely have said: “I did not write it.”

On another occasion,

another time,

he was sitting before him,

Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father,

and he was reciting the order

and reading

from the Book of Psalms.

Rabbi said: “How well-formed this writing is!”

for it was written with such great precision, as could be heard from his reading.

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon said:

“I did not write it,”

but

Yehuda the tailor wrote it.

He said to him

Rabbi said:

“Withdraw from this evil speech!”

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, there

in the folded document,

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

Did he not speak in praise of Yehuda the tailor?

And the Gemara explains:

because of Rav Dimi.

For Rav Dimi, the brother

[of]

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

[the praise]

of his fellow, for from his praise he comes to his detriment.”

For by speaking excessively of his praise, people examine his deeds, until they also mention his disgrace.

Rav Amram said in the name of Rav: There are three transgressions from which

a person is not saved every day:

a.

thought of transgression.

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 concentration. c.

and evil speech.

And the Gemara wonders:

Evil speech—could it enter your mind!?

Does every person stumble in evil speech every day!?