Start now

Bava Batra 154

11.26.2024 | כ״ה בחשון תשפ״ה

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Masechet Intro old

Masechet Intro

Zoom @ 07:15AM (IST)

Share this shiur:

11.25.2024 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ה

Calendar View

Bava Batra

Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.

Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:

Learn more

11.25.2024 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ה

Calendar View

0:00

Summary

Download for offline learning

When a gift document lacks language indicating either a deathbed or healthy status of the giver, and there is a dispute between the giver claiming it was written while dying and the recipients claiming otherwise, who bears the burden of proof? Rabbi Meir holds that we presume the person was healthy until proven otherwise. The rabbis, however, rule that the gift remains with the giver until proven otherwise.

There are two different approaches to understanding this debate. Some hold that the proof necessary according to each opinion is witnesses who will corroborate the facts, whether the giver was healthy or not when the gift was given. According to that understanding, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree along the same lines as Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov – do we rely on the present state of the giver or the earlier presumption of ownership over the item? Others hold that the rabbis hold that the gift remains with the given unless the recipients can prove that the document is valid. The debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is whether or not a document where the one who wrote it admits it is a document but raises a problem with its validity needs to be ratified.

A difficulty is raised against the second understanding, as Rabbi Meir and the rabbi debate this issue elsewhere regarding witnesses who bring a document but raise a doubt on its validity. However, this is resolved as one could have thought to distinguish between a case where witnesses question the validity and where the giver questions the validity.

Raba holds by the first explanation. When Abaye questioned his understanding, Raba explained the rabbi’s position: since the document should have included that the giver was either sick or healthy and included neither, it creates a doubt on each side and therefore the gift remains in the original owner’s property until proven otherwise.

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about whether the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy or whether the issue surrounds the ratification of the document. At first, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yochanan holds the debate is about who needs to prove whether the giver was sick or healthy. He then questions Reish Lakish from a braita about a similar case where they needed to prove the seller’s age, that he was not too young to have sold the property, rather than ratifying the document, thus proving that ratification alone would not have been effective. To resolve the difficulty, Reish Lakish explains the details of the case differently, in a way that ratification of the document was irrelevant.

Reish Lakish brings a Mishna of Bar Kapara to Rabbi Yochanan that implies that a document where the owner admits to having written the document but claims that it is invalid is valid even without ratification. Reish Lakish asks Rabbi Yochanan if this only follows Rabbi Meir’s position and not the rabbis, as discussed earlier. Rabbi Yochanan explains that it follows the rabbis’ position as well as they both agree on this topic. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Yochanan’s answer from sources quoted previously. One is resolved but the second is not. As a result, the entire sugya unravels as Rabbi Zeira explains Rabbi Yochanan’s answer in a different manner, that the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis is about ratification of the document and Bar Kapara matches the rabbi’s position. This explanation requires switching the positions of Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in both Mishna and the braita quoted previously about the witnesses and switching Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish’s explanations of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis in our Mishna.

Bava Batra

Masechet Bava Batra is sponsored by Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z”l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z”l.

Bava Batra 154

רְאָיָה – בְּמַאי? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר.

The Gemara asks: With regard to the proof that the recipients must bring, in what manner is it brought? Rav Huna says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed, i.e., the recipients are required only to ascertain that the signatures of the witnesses on the deed are authentic in order to prove that it is not forged.

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי נָתָן;

The Gemara explains: Rav Huna says that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses. He maintains that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Natan in the baraita (153b).

(סִימָן: מַנִּיחַ.) רַבִּי מֵאִיר – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן, וְרַבָּנַן – כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב.

The Gemara notes a mnemonic device that indicates which tannaitic opinions are correlated: Manniaḥ, which represents the letters mem, nun, yod, ḥet, stands for Meir, Natan, Ya’akov, and the Rabbis [ḥakhamim]. This indicates that Rabbi Meir, who says that the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who maintains that one presumes that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. And the Rabbis, who say that the recipients must bring proof that the giver was healthy, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.

רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר – קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּמוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ; דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ.

Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna maintain that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment. The same ruling would apply to a case where the person on his deathbed admits that he wrote the deed granting the gift. They explain that Rabbi Meir holds that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor need not ratify it in court in order to collect payment, and in this case the giver cannot invalidate the deed by claiming that he was on his deathbed. But the Rabbis hold that even when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment.

וְהָא אִיפְּלִיגוּ בַהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא! דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree with regard to this matter once? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that at the time they signed the document they were not fit to bear witness, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible.

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר הָהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאַלִּימֵי עֵדִים וּמַרְעִי שְׁטָרָא; אֲבָל הָכָא – הוּא דְּלָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ, אֵימָא לָא;

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state both cases, because if only that case with regard to witnesses who disqualified their testimony was stated, one might think that the Sages say that their testimony is accepted only in that case, due to the fact that the testimony of witnesses is powerful and they can impair the validity of the document, but here, with regard to him, the giver, who admitted that he wrote the deed but it is not in his power to impair the validity of the deed, I would say that his claim is not accepted.

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר; אֲבָל בְּהָךְ, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.

And if only this case, with regard to a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, was stated, one might think that Rabbi Meir says that the giver cannot invalidate the deed only with regard to this case, but with regard to that case, where the witnesses ratified their signatures, I would say that Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis that witnesses can invalidate the deed. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי נֵימָא מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד הֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלוֹהִי בְּשׁוּקָא״, וּבְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָוֵי; אַדְּרַבָּה! מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כַּד קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ״, וְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּרִיא הָוֵי!

And Rabba also says: With regard to the proof that the recipients must present, it is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this? If we say that due to the fact that in all deeds of gift the following formulation is written: When he was walking on his feet in the marketplace, which indicates that the gift was the gift of a healthy person, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was on his deathbed, that is not correct. On the contrary, one could say that due to the fact that in all deeds concerning the gifts of a person on his deathbed the following is written: When he was sick and lying in his bed, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was healthy.

אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ.

Rabba replied: Since one can say this and one can say that, nothing can be concluded from the formulation of the deed. Therefore, due to the uncertainty, establish the property in the possession of its last known owner.

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא; דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר.

And this dispute with regard to the statement of the Rabbis is also the subject of a dispute between other amora’im, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק בְּאֶחָד שֶׁמָּכַר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו, וּמֵת, וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְעִרְעֲרוּ לוֹמַר: קָטָן הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה, וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ. וְעוֹד, סִימָנִין עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold some of his father’s property that he had inherited, and he died, and the members of his family came and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death, and therefore the sale was not valid. And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to exhume the corpse in order to examine it and ascertain whether or not the heir was a minor at the time of his death? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is not permitted for you to disgrace him for the sake of a monetary claim. And furthermore, signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death, and therefore nothing can be proved by exhuming the body.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי – דְּאָמֵינָא רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים; כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לְלָקוֹחוֹת: ״אַיְיתוֹ עֵדִים״, וְלָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא אֲתוֹ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ. אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ: רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר, לְמָה לְהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ? לְקַיְּימוּ שְׁטָרַיְיהוּ, וְלוֹקְמוּ בְּנִכְסֵי!

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: Granted, according to my explanation of the mishna, that I say that the proof must be presented by bringing witnesses, I can explain the baraita. Since Rabbi Akiva said to the buyers: Bring witnesses, and they did not find witnesses, this is the reason that they came and said to him: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to examine him? But according to you, that you say that the proof is presented by ratification of the deed, why do they need to examine him? Let them ratify their deed and they shall be established as owners of the property.

מִי סָבְרַתְּ נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה קָיְימִי – וְקָא אָתוּ לָקוֹחוֹת וּמְעַרְעֲרִי? נִכְסֵי בְּחֶזְקַת לָקוֹחוֹת קָיְימִי – וְקָא אָתוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְקָא מְעַרְעֲרִי!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish replies: Do you maintain that the property stood in the possession of the members of his family and the buyers came and contested their possession of the property? Rather, the property stood in the possession of the buyers, and the members of his family came and contested the sale. Since they claimed that the deed was invalid, they could not prove their claim by ratifying the deed, but only by bringing witnesses or examining the body.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָאָמַר לְהוּ: אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ, וְאִישְׁתִּיקוּ. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה קָא מְעַרְעֲרִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִישְׁתִּיקוּ. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָקוֹחוֹת קָא מְעַרְעֲרִי, אַמַּאי שָׁתְקִי? לֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ: אֲנַן זוּזֵי יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ, לִינַּוַול וְלִינַּוַּול!

This, too, stands to reason, as Rabbi Akiva said to the claimants: You are not permitted to disgrace him, and they were silent. Granted, if you say that the members of his family were contesting the sale, due to that reason they were silent, as they accepted that they should not disgrace their relative. But if you say that the buyers were contesting the claim of the relatives, why were they silent? They should have said to Rabbi Akiva: We gave him money, and if our right to the property cannot be proven without disgracing him, let him be disgraced.

אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא – לָא אִירְיָא; הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ: חֲדָא, דְּאִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ. וְעוֹד, וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ זוּזֵי שְׁקַל – לִינַּוַול וְלִינַּוַּול; סִימָנִים עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If it is due to that reason, i.e., this claim they could have said, there is no conclusive argument. This is what Rabbi Akiva said to them: One reason to prohibit exhuming the body is that you are not permitted to disgrace him. And furthermore, if you should say: He took the money; let him be disgraced, in any event nothing can be proved by exhuming the body, as signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death.

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁאַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, זוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנוּיָה בְּמִשְׁנַת בַּר קַפָּרָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל שָׂדֶה וּבָא – בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהִיא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְקָרָא עָלָיו אֶחָד עַרְעָר לוֹמַר: ״שֶׁלִּי הִיא״, וְהוֹצִיא זֶה אֶת אוֹנוֹ לוֹמַר: ״שֶׁמְּכַרְתָּהּ לִי״ אוֹ ״שֶׁנְּתַתָּהּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה״, אִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי מַכִּיר בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מֵעוֹלָם״ – יִתְקַיֵּים הַשְּׁטָר בְּחוֹתְמָיו.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Yoḥanan about that which is taught in the Mishna of bar Kappara: There was one who was continually enjoying the profits from a field, and it was the presumption that it was his, and someone contested his claim, saying: It is mine. And that person, who was profiting from the field, produced a deed, in order to say: It is mine, as you sold this field to me, or: It is mine, as you gave me this field as a gift. If the one who protested his claim said: I do not recognize that deed as one that I have ever written, the deed must be ratified through its signatures.

אִם אָמַר: ״שְׁטַר פַּסִּים הוּא זֶה״ אוֹ ״שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה״; ״שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי לָךְ, וְלֹא נָתַתָּ לִי דָּמִים״ – אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר עֵדִים; וְאִם לָאו – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַשְּׁטָר.

If the one who protested his claim said: This is a document of appeasement [shtar passim], a document written only so that the holder should appear wealthy, or a document of trust, which means that I sold the field to you and provided you with the deed, trusting you to provide payment, and since you did not give me the money the sale is void, then if there are witnesses, follow the testimony of the witnesses, and if not, follow the deed.

לֵימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ; וְלָא רַבָּנַן?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish concludes: According to your explanation, the Rabbis maintain that even if the deed is ratified the claimant cannot take possession of the property without bringing witnesses. If so, shall we say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל – מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיגִי! דִּתְנַן: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: No, it is not so. As I say that everyone agrees that in the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked: But don’t they disagree, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that they were not fit to bear witness when they signed the deed, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי עֵדִים אַלִּימֵי וּמַרְעִי שְׁטָרָא, אִיהוּ כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, וַהֲלֹא מִשִּׁמְךָ אָמְרוּ: יָפֶה עִרְעֲרוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ – אֶלְעָזָר אֲמָרָהּ; אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי דָּבָר זֶה מֵעוֹלָם.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Even if the testimony of witnesses is powerful and they impair the validity of the deed, which they admit to have written, with regard to him, the giver, is it in his power to impair the validity of a deed that he admits to have written? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But wasn’t it stated in your name with regard to the aforementioned incident in Bnei Brak: The members of his family contested the claim correctly, even though they admitted that the deed was authentic? This means that the claimant is required to ratify the deed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: That statement was stated in my name by Rabbi Elazar, my disciple, but I never said that statement.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִם יִכְפּוֹר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר תַּלְמִידוֹ, יִכְפּוֹר בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי רַבּוֹ? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, לֹא מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אֵין רְאָיָה אֶלָּא בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר!

Rabbi Zeira says: If Rabbi Yoḥanan denies the statement of Rabbi Elazar, his disciple, will Rabbi Yoḥanan also deny that which he said to Rabbi Yannai, his teacher? This is as Rabbi Yannai says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the payment. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Yannai: My teacher, is this not the case discussed in our mishna, which states to the contrary: And the Rabbis say: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant? Rabbi Yoḥanan concludes: The proof mentioned in this mishna is nothing other than ratification of the deed. This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that according to the opinion of the Rabbis, the recipient is required to ratify the deed. If so, why does he state that everyone agrees that the recipient is not required to ratify the deed?

בְּרַם, נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ יוֹסֵף – דְּאָמַר רַבֵּינוּ יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ, שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ. וּמַאי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל? דְּרַבָּנַן לְגַבֵּי רַבִּי מֵאִיר – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא.

Rabbi Zeira explains: Indeed, the statement of our teacher, Rav Yosef, appears to be correct, as our teacher Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The opinions here should be reversed. This, the baraita taught by bar Kappara, according to which the deed does not require ratification, is the statement of the Rabbis. But Rabbi Meir says that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect payment. And what is the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that everyone agrees that in this case, the recipient is not required to ratify the deed? Rabbi Yoḥanan means that this is the statement of the Rabbis, and a statement of the Rabbis that is disputed only by Rabbi Meir is tantamount to a statement accepted by all.

וְהָא אִיפְּכָא תְּנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! אֵיפוֹךְ. וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמָנִין! אֵיפוֹךְ.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn the opposite in the mishna: And the Rabbis say that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant? This means that the recipient is required to ratify the deed. The Gemara replies: Reverse the opinions in the mishna. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that they were not fit to bear witness, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible. This indicates that according to the Rabbis the document requires ratification. The Gemara answers: Here too, reverse the opinions.

וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים״ קָאָמַר! אֵיפוֹךְ. לֵימָא לֵיפוֹךְ נָמֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא? לָא,

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to the proof that the recipient is required to bring, that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy, and not by ratifying the deed? The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the recipient is required to prove his claim only by ratifying the deed, whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish maintains that the recipient is required to bring witnesses. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that we should also reverse the objection that Rabbi Yoḥanan raised to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish previously, and say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: No, that is unnecessary.

11.25.2024 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ה

Calendar View

New to Talmud?

Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.

How to get started

The Hadran Women’s Tapestry

Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.

View our tapestry

I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.

Yael Merlini

Berlin, Germany

In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.

Lisa Berkelhammer

San Francisco, CA , United States

Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!

Elisheva Brauner

Jerusalem, Israel

I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this

Denise Neapolitan

Cambridge, United Kingdom

I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!

Pamela Elisheva

Bakersfield, United States

My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.

Rina Goldberg

Englewood NJ, United States

At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.

Deborah Hoffman-Wade

Richmond, CA, United States

In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.

Rhondda May

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.

Rebecca Stulberg

Ottawa, Canada

I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives

linda kalish-marcus

Efrat, Israel

With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!

Sharon Mink

Haifa, Israel

Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .

Goldie Gilad

Kfar Saba, Israel

I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.

Michelle Lewis

Beit Shemesh, Israel

A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf

Debbie Fitzerman

Ontario, Canada

Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!

Elisheva Brauner

Jerusalem, Israel

While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.

Meryll Page

Minneapolis, MN, United States

After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.

Caroline Graham-Ofstein

Bet Shemesh, Israel

It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.

Joanna Rom

Northwest Washington, United States

I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.

Naomi Niederhoffer

Toronto, Canada

I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!

Shoshana Ruerup