Ketubot 85a — the Talmud in English

Did not acquire it !

And if so, you have no power to seize the boat for Yemar.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna came and

they themselves seized it,

from the agent, as payment of a debt that they had against the debtor.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna took the boat from the agent’s possession.

Rav Pappa—

by anchoring it, [

he guided it by its anchor, within the river], and

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua—

by stretching it with a rope [

he pulled it by its ropes from the riverbank, which was in the public domain].

The master [

Rav Pappa]

said—

I acquired all of it!

Since guiding it by its anchor is superior to pulling it by a rope.

And the master [

Rav Huna]

said—

I acquired all of it!

Since pulling it by a rope is superior.

Rav Pinhas bar Ami encountered them,

and saw them seizing the boat,

he said to them—

How did you seize the boat, when

Rav and Shmuel both say, “And this is where they are gathered and lying in the public domain,”

whereas you seized it in the river, which is not the public domain?

(He said to them) [

they said to him]:

We too seized it from the sharp current of the river [

that is, from the center of the river, the place through which many boats pass and which is considered the public domain]

and acquired it.

And our seizure is effective .

They came before Rava,

they came to judgment before Rava,

he said

to them: “White geese stripping people of their garments,” [

geese] white ones (on account of their white beards), stripping people of their garments, that is, your seizure is not according to law. For

this is what Rav Nahman said—

“And this is where he seized it during the owner’s lifetime,”

whereas you seized it after the death.

Another case is brought in the Gemara: An incident involving

Avimi son of Rabbi Abbahu,

who

had money owed to the people of Huzai. [

The residents of the city of Huzai had lent him money.]

He sent it,

Avimi sent the money

by the hand of Hama son of Rabba bar Abbahu.

He went—

Hama went—and

paid it.

He said to them

Hama said to the people of Huzai—

Give me the document!

Return the promissory note to me!

They said to him—

They are side debts

indeed!

That is, we had another debt against Avimi, but it was an oral loan, and we seized this money for that debt.

Hama came,

Hama,

before Rabbi Abbahu

to sue them.

He said to him

Rabbi Abbahu—

“Do you have witnesses that I paid them?”

He said to him

Hama—

“No.”

He said to him

Rabbi Abbahu—

“Since they could say, ‘It never happened,’ they can also say, ‘They are side debts.’”

And they are trusted .

The Gemara discusses:

“With regard to the agent’s payment, what is the law?”

Must the agent pay the money to the sender, since he was negligent in his agency by not initially demanding the document from them?

Rav Ashi said: We see:

It appears—

if he said to him

the sender—

“Take the document, and

afterward

give the money,” he pays.

Since he did not properly fulfill his agency, for he gave them the money first and afterward demanded the document.

But if the sender said—

“Give the money, and take the document,” he does not pay.

Since the agent acted according to his words.

And the Gemara concludes—

“That is not so!”

Rather,

“In either case, he pays” .

Since

he said to him

the sender—

“I sent you to improve matters for me and not to damage them,”

and you had to be meticulous in carrying out my instruction.

An incident involving

a certain woman, with whom a bundle of documents had been deposited. [

They had deposited a bundle of documents in her possession.]

And the depositor died, and

the heirs came, demanding it from her.

She said to them—

“I seized them during his lifetime!”

For another debt that he owed me.

The woman came

the woman

before Rav Nahman, and he said to her:

Do

you have witnesses that he demanded them

from you during his lifetime,

and you did not give them to him ?

She said to him

the woman:

“No!”

Rav Nahman said to her:

“If so,

what you held as a deposit during his lifetime is not considered seizure, since you held it for the heirs” , and only after death, when they demanded it from you and you did not give it to them, is it considered seizure; but

it is seizure after death, and seizure after death is nothing .

An incident concerning

a certain woman who became liable to take an oath

in Rava’s court.

[She became liable to take an oath in Rava’s court].

Rav Ḥisda’s daughter said to him,

who was Rava’s wife, to Rava:

“I know her,

I recognize her

as being suspect concerning an oath” .

And on the basis of these words

Rava reversed the oath onto the one opposite her.

As is the law regarding one who is suspect concerning an oath: he does not himself take the oath, but the one opposite him takes it in his place .

At another time,

another time,

they were sitting before him,

before Rava,

Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar Mattana.

They brought a certain document before him,

they brought before them a monetary claim by means of a document.

Rav Pappa said to him

to Rava:

“I know concerning it that the document has been paid.”

And you must obligate the claimant to take an oath before he collects, as is the law regarding a document that contains a defect.

Rava said to him:

Is there

“another person together with the Master?”

And without an additional witness, you are not trustworthy to undermine the document .

He said to him,

Rav Pappa

“No.”

He said to him,

Rava:

“Even though the Master is present,

nevertheless,

a single witness is nothing,”

even to undermine the document.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said to him: “Is Rav Pappa not like Rav Ḥisda’s daughter?!”

And why is he not trusted at least as much as she, with regard to an oath? Rava said to him:

“With regard to Rav Ḥisda’s daughter, I am certain about her,

that she does not lie. But

with regard to the Master, I am not certain about him.”

Rav Pappa said: “Now that the Master has said

[Rava]

‘I am certain about him’ is a matter,

that is to say, it is possible to rule halakha on the basis of “I am certain about him” , if so,

in a case such as Abba Mar, my son,

[my son, Abba,]

about whom I am certain

that he does not lie,

I shall tear the document on his word.”

And we raise an objection:

“‘I shall tear it’—can it enter your mind?!

Surely the document may be torn only by means of two witnesses”?

Rather, “I shall undermine the document on his word.”

And I shall obligate the one opposite him to take an oath .

An incident concerning

a certain woman who became liable to take an oath in the court

of

Rav Bibi bar Abaye.

The opposing litigant said to them: “Let her come and take the oath in the city,”

“perhaps she will be ashamed and admit.”

Let her come to take the oath in my city, so that perhaps she will be ashamed and will not swear falsely.

She said to them: “Write me a document of my rights, so that when I take the oath they will give it to me.”

Write me a judgment document as though I had already taken the oath, and place it in the hands of a third party; afterward I will go and take the oath in the claimant’s city .

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said to them: “Write it for her” .

Rav Pappi said

to Rav Bibi: And is it because

“you come

from Mulai,”

[that is, from the house of Eli, whose days are short; “mulai” is an expression of a blemished person,]

“that you say defective words”

[that is, defective statements]?!

And

Rava said: “This validation of judges,”

the validation of a document,

“that is written before the witnesses’ signatures have been examined,

which is written before the court has validated the signatures, on the basis of what will happen in the future—

is invalid. It follows that it appears to be false,

and

here too it appears to be false,

so how did they write a judgment document for her as though she had taken the oath when she had not yet taken the oath?”

And we reject this:

“It is not so;

what we said, that one must be concerned about falsehood, is not correct.”

And there is proof

from

the words of

Rav Naḥman.

For Rav Naḥman said: “Rabbi Meir would say,

one who wishes to divorce his wife,

even if he found

the bill of divorce

in a refuse heap,

and his name and her name were properly written in it,

and he signed it and gave it to her, it is valid.”

And it does not require writing it for her sake.

And even the Rabbis,

who disagreed with Rabbi Meir and said that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake,

disagree with Rabbi Meir only concerning bills of divorce, where we require writing it for her sake. But concerning other documents, they agree with him

that writing it for the sake of the person concerned is not required, and we are not concerned about “it appears to be false.”

And the proof is—

for Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

“A document with which he borrowed and repaid, he may not borrow with it again.”

Even on that same day, since

“its lien has already been forgiven,”

for the second loan was oral, and it cannot be collected from encumbered property . And through the document, it turns out that he collects from such property unlawfully.