Bava Batra 32b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

the claimant to the one sitting on the land: “

It is a forged document

it is a forged document, for I never signed this document, nor any other document of sale.”

The one sitting on the land bent down

and

whispered to Rabba: “

Indeed, it is a forged document; however, I had a valid document and it was lost, and I said: Let me hold this in my hand, whatever it may be.”

He bent down and brought the document toward Rabba, who was sitting in judgment, and whispered to him quietly, so that the claimant would not hear: Indeed, this document that I am holding in my hand is a forged document, and the owner of the land indeed did not sign this paper; however, I had a genuine document of sale and it was lost to me, and I brought this document because I said to myself: Let me not come empty-handed.

Rabba said:

He should be believed that he indeed purchased the land with another document, because

“What would he gain by lying?”

that is, he should be believed by the law of “migo”:

For

if he had wished, he could have said: “

It is a valid document,”

if he had wished, he could have refrained from admitting that this document was forged, and then the land would have remained in his possession.

Rav Yosef said

to Rabba:

“Why do you rely!?”

For

this document,

and

this document is nothing but a potsherd,

for what do you rely on this document, when this document is forged! The Gemara brings a similar case that occurred with a loan document, and Rabba and Rav Yosef also disagreed in it according to the disagreement they had above, and for the same reasons. It happened with

a certain

man

who said to his fellow: “

Give me one hundred zuz that I have outstanding against you, and here is the document,”

give me the one hundred zuz that you owe me, and here I have a loan document.

He said to him

the borrower to the lender: “

It is a forged document

it is a forged document!”

The lender bent down

and

whispered to Rabba

who was sitting in judgment: “

Indeed, it is a forged document; however, I had a valid document and it was lost, and I said: Let me hold this in my hand, whatever it may be,

indeed this document is forged, but I had another document and it was lost to me, and I said to myself: I will take with me, in any event, a forged document.”

Rabba said: “What would he gain by lying!?”

For

if he had wished, he could have said to him

the lender to the borrower: “

It is a valid document,”

and then the borrower would have become obligated to pay the loan!

Rav Yosef said to him

to Rabba: And

“Why do you rely!?”

On this document? This document is nothing but a potsherd!

Rav Idi bar Avin said:

Since it is uncertain to us whose reasoning is more convincing, therefore:

The halakha is according to Rabba

in the first case in which they disagreed,

with regard to land

that is, when the one sitting on the land claims ownership of the land on the basis of these claim and migo.

And the halakha is according to Rav Yosef

in the second case in which they disagreed,

with regard to money,

that is, when the lender comes to claim a debt from the borrower on the basis of these claim and migo.

And the reason is:

The halakha is like Rabba with regard to land,

because

“wherever the land stands, there it shall remain”,

wherever the land stands—that is, in the possession of the one sitting on it—there it shall remain, and as we have established in every monetary doubt: “The one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.”

And

the halakha is according to Rav Yosef with regard to money,

because

for

on the contrary,

“wherever the money stands, there let it remain

in the place where the money stands—that is, in the possession of the borrower—there it shall remain, and the lender shall not extract his money from the borrower.

It happened with

a certain guarantor

a guarantor for his fellow’s loan,

who said to the borrower

for whom he had stood surety: “

Give me one hundred zuz that I paid to the lender on your behalf, and here is the document

give me the one hundred zuz that I paid to the lender in your place, when he demanded that I pay by virtue of my guarantee, and here I have the loan document that the lender returned to me.”

He said to him

the borrower to the guarantor: “But

did I not pay you?”

He said to him

the guarantor to the borrower: “Indeed, you gave me money, but:

did you not subsequently take it back from me,

did you not return and take the money from me, as a loan?”

He sent—

this case to the court—

Rav Idi bar Avin before Abaye,

saying:

“What is the law in a case such as this?”

what is the law in this case!?

Abaye sent to him

to Rav Idi bar Avin:

What is there for you to be uncertain about

[what is there for you to be uncertain about]!?

For here too we must say: Why did you rely—that the loan was unpaid—on this document, when this document is nothing but a potsherd, since the guarantor admits that it was paid, and he comes to claim that it was a new loan for which the document was not written, and it is impossible to give it again for the new loan, because “a document whose lien has been forgiven cannot be borrowed with again”—

and

he himself

he himself, Rav Idi,

said: The halakha is according to Rabba with regard to land, and the halakha is according to Rav Yosef with regard to money,

for the lender is not believed through a migo of this kind, because it is uncertain whether it is effective, and we say:

“Wherever they have placed the money, there let it remain

wherever the money is found, there it shall remain—and in this case as well, since he comes to extract money from the borrower, the guarantor is not believed.

And these words—

that the guarantor is not believed in his claim that he returned the money to the borrower—apply only when, for example,

the guarantor said to him

the guarantor to the borrower: “

You subsequently borrowed it from me

according to the guarantor’s claim, he gave him the money as a loan!

But if the guarantor said to him

the guarantor to the borrower: “

I returned it

to you because they were worn and reddened,”

I returned your money to you because they were not money that could be circulated as currency, either because their form had been worn away or because their copper had reddened excessively, he is believed in this claim, because

the lien of the document still exists

the lien in the document still exists!

That is, when the guarantor claims that there was a new loan, the document does not support his claim, for the document had already been paid, and he comes to claim a loan orally, which he is not believed to claim [even through a migo]. However, if the guarantor claims that the document has still not been paid, whether because he did not pay him at all or because the borrower tried to deceive him by paying with money that was not money, he is believed, because all he claims is, “I have still not been paid”—the document supports him.

It happened with

Rava

bar Shershom,

who

had a rumor go out concerning him that he was consuming the land of orphans

a rumor went out about him that he was unlawfully consuming land belonging to orphans, for this is what appeared to be the case!

Abaye said to him: “

Tell me, please, how did the incident itself occur,

tell me, then, how the incident that was the background to this report occurred?”

He said to him

Rava bar Shershom to Abaye: This is how the incident occurred: “

I had taken land as a mortgage from the father of the orphans,

their father owed me money, and he gave me land as a mortgage, meaning that I would consume its produce for a number of years as established in the document between us, because during these years the value of the produce would equal the value of the loan—”