Ketubot 85a (פה.) — the Talmud in English

He did not acquire it !

And if so, you do not have the power to seize the boat on behalf of Yimar.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna came and

they themselves seized it,

from the agent, in 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—

anchoring it, [

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

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua—

pulling it with a rope [

pulling it by its ropes from the riverbank, which was a public domain].

One 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 other master [

Rav Huna]

said—

I acquired all of it!

Since pulling it by a rope is superior.

Rav Pinḥas bar Ami encountered them,

and saw them seizing the boat,

he said to them—

How did you seize the boat? Did not

Rav and Shmuel both say: “And this is when they are gathered and lying in a public domain,”

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

(He said to them) [

they said to him]

We too seized it from the main channel of the river [

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

and acquired it.

And our seizure is effective .

They came before Rava,

they came to judgment before Rava,

and he said

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

geese white geese (on account of their white beards), stripping people of their garments.] That is, your seizure was not in accordance with the law. For

this is what Rav Naḥman said—

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

whereas you seized it after his death.

The Gemara cites another incident: An incident involving

Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu,

who

had money owed to the people of Bei Ḥozai. [

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

He sent it,

Avimi sent the money

with Ḥama, son of Rabba bar Abbahu.

He went—

Ḥama went—and

paid it.

Ḥama said to them

to the people of Bei Ḥozai—

Give me the document!

Return the promissory note to me!

They said to him—

They are side debts

of ours!

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

Ḥama came

and

before Rabbi Abbahu

to bring a claim against them.

He said to him

Rabbi Abbahu—

“Do you have witnesses that they were paid?”

He said to him

Ḥama—

No.

He said to him

Rabbi Abbahu—

“Since they could say, ‘Nothing of the sort ever happened,’ they can also say, ‘They are side debts of ours.’”

And they are believed .

The Gemara discusses:

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

Must the agent pay the money to the sender, since he was negligent in carrying out his agency by failing to demand the document from them initially?

Rav Ashi said: We examine the matter,

we see:

If he said to him

the sender—

“Take the document, and

afterward

give the money,” he must pay.

Since he did not properly fulfill his agency: He gave them the money first and only afterward demanded the document.

But if the sender said—

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

Since the agent acted according to his instructions.

The Gemara concludes—

“That is not so!”

Rather,

“In either case, he must pay” .

Since

the sender said to him

the sender—

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

and you should have taken care to carry out my instructions properly.

An incident involving

a certain woman with whom a bundle of promissory notes had been deposited. [

They had deposited a bundle of promissory notes in her possession.]

The depositor died, and

the heirs came and demanded them from her.

She said to them—

“I seized them during his lifetime!”

On account of another debt that he owed me.

The woman came

and

before Rav Naḥman, 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 Naḥman 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 afterward, after his 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 of no consequence .

An incident involving

a certain woman who was obligated to take an oath

in Rava’s court. [

She had become obligated 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 know her well,

that she is suspect with regard to oaths .

On the basis of these words,

Rava reversed the oath onto the opposing party.

As is the law concerning one who is suspect with regard to an oath: He does not take the oath himself; rather, the opposing party takes it in his place .

At another time,

on another occasion,

they were sitting before

Rava,

Rav Pappa and Rav Adda bar Mattana.

They brought a certain document before him,

presenting a monetary claim before him by means of a document.

Rav Pappa said to him

to Rava:

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

And you must obligate the claimant to take an oath before collecting, as is the law with regard to a document that contains a flaw.

Rava said to him:

Is there

any other person with the Master?

Without an additional witness, you are not trusted 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 of no significance ,

even to undermine the document.

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

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

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

that she does not lie. But

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

Rav Pappa said: “Now that the Master has said

Rava

‘I am certain of him’ is a significant matter,

meaning, one may issue a halakhic ruling on the basis of “I am certain of him” , then

for example, my son Abba,

my son, Abba,

of whom I am certain

that he does not lie,

I would tear up a document on his word.”

And we object:

“Could it enter your mind that I would tear it up?!”

Surely, a document may be torn up only on the basis of two witnesses?

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

And I would obligate the opposing party to take an oath .

An incident involving

a certain woman who was obligated 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 my city,”

“Perhaps she will be embarrassed and admit.”

Let her come to take the oath in my city, so that perhaps she will be embarrassed and refrain from taking a false oath.

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

Write me a court ruling as though I had already taken the oath, and place it in the hands of a trustee; afterward I will go 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 the defective ones,

that is, from the house of Eli, whose members had short lives—“defective” being an expression indicating a physical defect—

that you utter defective statements

that is, flawed words?!

For

Rava said: “This ‘validation by the judges,’

the authentication of a document,

which is written before the witnesses’ signatures have been shown,

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

is invalid. Evidently, it appears to be false,

and

here too, it appears to be false,

so how could they write a court ruling for her as though she had taken the oath when she had not yet taken it?

And we reject this:

“It is not so;

what we said—that there is concern that it appears to be false—is not correct.

And there is proof

from the

words of

Rav Naḥman.

For Rav Naḥman said: Rabbi Meir would say:

If one wishes to divorce his wife,

even if he found

the get

in a garbage heap,

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

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

It is not necessary that it be written for her sake.

And even the Rabbis,

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

disagreed with Rabbi Meir only with regard to women’s bills of divorce, where writing for her sake is required. But with regard to other documents, they agree with him

that it is not necessary that they be written for the sake of the intended parties, and we are not concerned that they “appear to be false.”

And the proof is

that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

“A document with which one borrowed money and repaid it may not be used for borrowing again.”

Even on the same day, since

its lien has already been forgiven,

as the second loan was made orally and cannot be collected from encumbered property . By using the document, he would unlawfully collect from such property.