Bava Batra 5b — the Talmud in English

So that he would not trouble me,

so that he would not trouble me. If the repayment time arrives and I do not then have money for him.

And the Gemara proves it from our Mishna:

Tanan,

we learned in the Mishna: If one of the partners built up to four cubits, and his fellow claims that he has already paid his share, he is

presumed to have paid

and is believed,

until he brings

the claimant

proof that he did not pay.

What are the circumstances?

In what manner is this speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking in a case

where he said to him,

the defendant said to him:

“I paid you at its time,”

when you completed the height of four cubits.

It is obvious,

certainly, that he is

presumed to have paid!

And the Mishna need not teach this, for there is no one who holds that, at its time, he is not believed.

Rather, is it not

speaking not in such a manner, but

where he said to him,

the defendant said to him:

“I paid you within its time,”

before you completed four cubits.

Evidently,

it is proven that

a person is accustomed to pay it within its time,

a person is liable to pay within its time, and this is in accordance with the view of Abaye and Rava.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Here it is different,

the law here is different, because

each and every course,

each and every row that the claimant built in his wall, although he had not yet reached four cubits,

is its time,

it is its time for him to participate with his fellow in the expenses, and this is not called “within its time.” Therefore, he is believed!

And the Gemara attempts to prove it from the latter clause of the Mishna:

Ta shma:

If he raised the wall above four cubits and his fellow joined another wall to it, his fellow is

presumed not to have paid

his share for the raising,

until he brings proof that he paid.

What are the circumstances,

in what manner is this speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking in a case

where he said to me

the defendant

“I paid you at its time,”

after I finished building the wall, for only then did I join it and know how much I became liable to you, this is difficult:

why not,

why is he not believed? Is there anyone who holds that, at its time, he is not believed?!

Rather, is it not

speaking not in such a manner, but

“I paid you within its time!”

before I finished my wall.

Evidently,

it is proven from here that

a person is not accustomed,

a person is not liable,

to pay within his time,

to pay within his time, and this is in accordance with the view of Resh Lakish.

And the Gemara rejects this:

Here it is different,

the law here is different, for although it is possible to say that a person is accustomed to pay within his time, here we do not say this, because

he says,

he says in his heart:

“Who says that the Sages will obligate me”,

who says that the Sages will obligate me to pay the expenses of the first wall? Therefore, even if he says, “I paid you at its time,” he is not believed.

And the Gemara concludes:

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua acted in accordance with Abaye and Rava,

they acted [they ruled in practice] according to the view of Abaye and Rava, and believed one who claimed that he paid within his time.

Whereas

Mar bar Rav Ashi acted in accordance with Resh Lakish,

he acted according to the view of Resh Lakish, and did not believe one who claimed, “I paid you within my time.”

And the halakha,

and the halakha is

in accordance with Resh Lakish,

that one who claims, “I paid you within my time,” is not believed.

And even

if the borrower died within his time, before the repayment time arrived, and the lender comes to collect the debt

from orphans,

from the orphans, the law is that he collects without an oath, and there is no concern lest the borrower paid the debt within his time.

And even though the Master said: One who comes to collect

the father’s debt

from the property of orphans,

even though he has a document,

may collect only with an oath,

because there is concern that, had the father been alive, he would produce a receipt proving payment of the document. Nevertheless, since we have

a presumption

that

a person is not accustomed to pay within his time,

a person is not liable to pay within his time, therefore he collects without an oath.

It was raised before them,

the Sages in the bet midrash were uncertain:

He sued

the borrower sued the lender

after the time

of repayment.

And he said to him

the borrower:

“I paid you within my time,”

before the repayment time arrived,

what is

the law?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say,

whether even

in a place

where the borrower’s claim is against the

“presumption,”

that a person is not accustomed to pay within his time, nevertheless we say that he is believed by virtue of

“What would I gain by lying?”

for what would he gain by lying and claiming, “I paid you within my time,” when he could have claimed [if he wished to lie] a better claim, “I paid you at its time,” and he would have been believed—and this is the claim of migo. Therefore, even when he claims, “I paid you within my time,” he will be believed with an oath by virtue of the migo.