בבא בתרא קסז

בבא בתרא קסז

וּמְשַׁוֵּי לְהוּ זוּזִי; מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – שֵׁית מְאָה אִיסְתֵּירֵי וְזוּזָא, שֵׁית מְאָה זוּזֵי וְחַד זוּזָא? יַד בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.

and change them into a smaller number of dinars. Therefore, what can you say? The highest and lowest remaining possibilities are: Six hundred istira and a dinar, and six hundred dinars and one more dinar. The guiding principle is that the holder of the document is at a disadvantage, and the lesser of these two values is assumed.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמַחְוֵי חֲתִימוּת יְדֵיהּ בְּבֵי דִינָא, לָא לַחְוֵי בְּסוֹף מְגִילְּתָא; דִּלְמָא מַשְׁכַּח לַהּ אַחֵר וְכָתֵיב דְּמַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ זוּזִי, וּתְנַן: הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

§ Abaye said: With regard to this one who needs to show his signature in court for the purpose of corroborating his signature on a document, he should not show it by writing it at the end of the parchment, lest another, unscrupulous, person find the parchment and write above the signature that the signatory owes him money. And such a document would be valid, as we learned in a mishna (175b): If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property, i.e., property that is currently in the possession of the debtor.

הָהוּא בַּזְבָּינָא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נַיחְזֵי לִי מָר חֲתִימוּת יְדֵיהּ, דְּכִי אָתוּ רַבָּנַן מַחְווּ לִי, מְעַבַּרְנָא לְהוּ בְּלָא מִכְסָא. אַחְוִי לֵיהּ בְּרֵישׁ מְגִילְּתָא. הֲוָה קָא נָגֵיד בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר קַדְמוּךָ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain Jewish tax collector who came before Abaye and said to him: Let the Master show me his signature on a piece of paper to keep in my records, as when rabbis come to me and show me a note with your signature on it, attesting to the fact that they are Torah scholars, I let them pass without paying the tax. Abaye showed him his signature at the top of the parchment, though the unscrupulous tax collector kept pulling the parchment away from Abaye so that the signature would be at the bottom. Abaye noticed this and said to him: The Sages have already anticipated people such as you and advised that one should never write his signature at the bottom of a paper.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִתְּלָת וְעַד עֲשַׂר – לָא לִכְתּוֹב בְּסוֹף שִׁיטָה, דִּלְמָא מְזַיֵּיף וְכָתֵב. וְאִי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ, נַיהְדְּרֵיהּ לְדִבּוּרֵיהּ תְּרֵין תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי, אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מִיתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ בְּאֶמְצַע שִׁיטָה.

§ Abaye said: When writing a promissory note, one should not write any number from three until ten at the end of a line, lest someone commit forgery and write an extension to the number, since it is at the end of the line. In Hebrew and Aramaic, the words for the numbers three through nine can be changed to thirty through ninety, respectively, by appending to them the suffix in, written with the letters yod and nun. Ten can be changed to twenty in a similar manner. And if by chance it occurs for him that these numbers fall out at the end of a line, he should repeat his words two or three times, stating and restating the agreement in question, as it is impossible that the number will not eventually occur for him in the middle of a line. When there is a contradiction, it is the final mention of the amount that is authoritative, as the mishna teaches.

הָהוּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״תִּילְתָּא בְּפַרְדֵּיסָא״. אֲזַל מַחְקֵיהּ לְגַגֵּיהּ דְּבֵית וְכַרְעֵיהּ, וְשַׁוְּיֵהּ ״וּפַרְדֵּיסָא״, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא רְוִיחַ לֵיהּ עָלְמָא לְהַאי וָיו? כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of sale in which it was written that the item sold was: In my garden, one-third of the orchard. The purchaser went and erased the roof and the foot of the beit of the term: Of the orchard [befardeisa], and thereby changed the prefix beit into a vav, yielding: In my garden one-third, and the orchard [ufardeisa], indicating that the sale included one-third of the garden in addition to all of the orchard. The document came before Abaye, who said to the purchaser: What is the reason that there is so much space around this vav? Since the letter vav is narrower than the letter beit, a larger space between letters emerged as compared to the spacing of letters in the rest of the document. Abaye bound the purchaser, i.e., he subjected him to physical coercion, and he admitted to the forgery.

הָהוּא דַּהֲוָה כְּתִב בֵּיהּ: ״מְנָת רְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן אַחֵי״. הֲוָה לְהוּ אַחָא דִּשְׁמֵיהּ ״אַחַי״, אֲזַל כְּתַב בֵּיהּ וָיו, וְשַׁוְּיֵהּ ״וְאַחַי״. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּחִיק לֵיהּ עָלְמָא לְהַאי וָיו כּוּלֵּי הַאי? כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of sale in which it was written that the item being sold was: The portions of Reuven and Shimon, brothers [aḥei]. Reuven and Shimon happened to have a brother whose name was Aḥai, which, when writing without vowels, is spelled identically to aḥei. The purchaser went and wrote a conjunctive vav in the document before the word aḥei, and changed the wording into: The portions of Reuven and Shimon and Aḥai. The document came before Abaye, who said to the purchaser: What is the reason that it is so crowded around this vav? By inserting the extra vav, a smaller space between letters emerged as compared to the spacing of letters in the rest of the document. Abaye bound the purchaser, i.e., he subjected him to physical coercion, and he admitted the forgery.

הָהוּא שְׁטָרָא דַּהֲוָה חֲתִים עֲלֵיהּ רָבָא וְרַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דֵּין חֲתִימוּת יְדָא דִּידִי הִיא, מִיהוּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא לָא חֲתִימִי לִי מֵעוֹלָם! כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁלָמָא דִּידִי – זַיֵּיפְתְּ, אֶלָּא דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר אַדָּא, דְּרָתֵית יְדֵיהּ – הֵיכִי עֲבַדְתְּ? אָמַר: אַנַּחִי יְדַאי אַמִּצְרָא. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: קָם אַזַּרְנוּקָא וּכְתַב.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain document upon which the signatures of Rava and Rav Aḥa bar Adda were signed. The one holding the document came before Rava, who said to him: This is my signature, but I never signed any document before Rav Aḥa bar Adda. Rava bound the holder of the document, i.e., he subjected him to physical coercion, and he admitted the forgery. Rava said to him: Granted, you were able to forge my signature, but how did you perform a forgery of Rav Aḥa bar Adda’s signature, since his hands shake and as a result his signature is distinctive? The man said: I placed my hands on the rope of a narrow footbridge [amitzra], and was thereby able to duplicate Rav Aḥa’s signature. And some say that the forgery was accomplished when the forger stood upon a wobbly water skin [azarnuka] and wrote the signature.

מַתְנִי׳ כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַשּׁוֹבָר לָאִשָּׁה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָן. וְהַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

MISHNA: A scribe may write a bill of divorce for a man who requests one, even if his wife is not with him to give her consent when he presents his request, as there is no possibility that he will misuse the document. And a scribe may write a receipt for a woman upon her request, attesting to the payment of her marriage contract, even if her husband is not with her to give his consent. This is true provided that the scribe recognizes the parties requesting the document, to prevent misrepresentation. And for both documents, the husband gives the scribe his wages.

כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלֹּוֶה – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֹוֶה עִמּוֹ. וְהַלֹּוֶה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may write a promissory note for a debtor who requests one, even if the creditor is not with him when he requests the document, but a scribe may not write a promissory note for a creditor who requests it unless the debtor is with him and consents. And it is the debtor who gives the scribe his wages.

כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ, וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַלּוֹקֵחַ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מוֹכֵר עִמּוֹ. וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may write a bill of sale for a seller of a field who requests one even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request, but a scribe may not write a bill of sale for a purchaser who requests it unless the seller is with him and consents. And it is the purchaser who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֵירוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may not write documents of betrothal and documents of marriage except with the consent of both parties, the groom and the bride. And it is the groom who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטַר אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וְהַמְקַבֵּל נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר.

A scribe may not write contracts for sharecroppers and contractors except with the consent of both parties, i.e., the sharecropper or contractor and the one who hires him. And it is the sharecropper or contractor who gives the scribe his wages.

אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי בֵּירוּרִין וְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לִשְׁנֵיהֶם כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנַיִם – לָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה לְעַצְמוֹ.

A scribe may not write documents testifying to arbitration agreements or any other court enactment except with the consent of both parties to the litigation. And both parties give the scribe his wages. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The scribe writes two documents for the two parties, one for this one by himself, and one for that one by himself.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָן״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט, וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוֹבָר.

GEMARA: What is meant by: Provided that the scribe recognizes the parties requesting the document? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: It means provided that he recognizes the man’s name in the case of the bill of divorce and the woman’s name in the case of the receipt.

יָתֵיב רַב סָפְרָא וְרַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא וְרַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, וְיָתֵיב אַבָּיֵי גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְיָתְבִי וְקָמִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט – אִין, שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה – לָא?! שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוֹבָר – אִין, שֵׁם הָאִישׁ – לָא?!

The Gemara relates: Rav Safra and Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana were sitting, and Abaye was sitting near them. And as they were sitting, they raised a dilemma: Did Rav mean that with regard to the man’s name in the case of bill of divorce bill, yes, it must be known to the scribe, but the woman’s name need not be known to the scribe? And did he mean that with regard to the woman’s name in the case of the receipt, yes, it must be known to the scribe, but the man’s name need not be known to the scribe?

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא כָּתֵב גִּיטָּא, וְאָזֵיל וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהַיְאךְ!

But if so, let there be a concern that perhaps the man who made the request writes the bill of divorce and intends to go and give it to the wife of another man with the same name.

וְזִמְנִין אָזְלָא כָּתְבָה אִשָּׁה שׁוֹבָר, וְיָהֲבָה לְגַבְרָא דְּלָאו דִּילַהּ!

And similarly, in the case of the receipt let there be a concern that there will be times when the woman writes the receipt and intends to give it to a man who is not her husband, whose wife shares her name.

אֲמַר לְהוּ אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: שֵׁם הָאִישׁ בַּגֵּט – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה. שֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוֹבָר – וְהוּא הַדִּין לְשֵׁם הָאִישׁ.

Abaye said to them: You are not understanding Rav’s statement correctly. This is what Rav says: The man’s name in the case of the bill of divorce must be known to the scribe, and the same is true of the woman’s name, which must also be known to the scribe. And the woman’s name in the case of the receipt must be known to the scribe, and the same is true of the man’s name, which must also be known to the scribe.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ לִשְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִים בְּעִיר אַחַת – דִּלְמָא כָּתֵיב גִּיטָּא, וְאָזֵיל וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהַיְאךְ! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִים בְּעִיר אַחַת – אֵין מְגָרְשִׁין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה.

They continued their line of questioning: And even if both names are known to the scribe, let there be a concern for the possibility of two men with the same name, such as two men named Yosef ben Shimon, who live in one city and whose wives share the same name as well, and perhaps the man who made the request will write the bill of divorce and intend to go and give it to the wife of the other man who bears the same name as him. Rav Aḥa bar Huna said to them in reply that this is what Rav says: If there are two men named Yosef ben Shimon who live in one city and are married to women who share the same name, they may divorce their wives only in the presence of one another.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל לְמָתָא אַחְרִיתָא וּמַחְזֵיק לֵיהּ לִשְׁמֵיהּ בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן, וְכָתֵיב גִּיטָּא וּמַמְטֵי לֵיהּ לְאִיתְּתֵיהּ דְּהַיְאךְ!

They continued to ask: But even if the scribe knows the man’s name and the name of the man’s wife, let there be a concern that perhaps someone will go to another city and establish a false name for himself as Yosef ben Shimon, and he will write the bill of divorce and give it to the wife of the other man, whose name really is Yosef ben Shimon.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא, הָכִי אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שֶׁהוּחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to them that this is what Rav says: With regard to anyone whose name has been established in a city for thirty days, there is no concern harbored about him that his name is false. It is assumed that this is his true name.

לָא אִיתַּחְזַק, מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ וְעָנֵי. רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: רַמָּאָה – בְּרַמָּאוּתֵיהּ זְהִיר.

They continued to ask: What if his name has not been established for thirty days? How can a newcomer in a town have a bill of divorce drawn up for him? Abaye said: It is sufficient that people call him by the name he claims for himself and he responds to that call. Rav Zevid said: A liar is careful about upholding his lies, and just because he responds to being called by a particular name does not prove he is telling the truth. A newcomer would therefore have to wait thirty days before requesting that a scribe write him a bill of divorce.

הָהוּא תְּבָרָא דַּהֲוָה חֲתִים עֲלַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא. אָתְיָא לְקַמֵּיהּ הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: לָאו אֲנָא הֲוַאי. אָמַר, אֲנָא נָמֵי אֲמַרִי לְהוּ: לָאו אִיהִי הִיא, וַאֲמַרוּ לִי: מִיקָּשׁ הוּא דְּקַשָּׁא לַהּ – וּבְגַר לַהּ קָלָא.

§ There was a certain receipt of payment of a marriage contract upon which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba was signed as a witness. That woman, whose name matched the name on the receipt, came before Rav Yirmeya, seeking to collect payment of her marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya recognized her name, but not her appearance. The woman said to him: It was not I whose name was on the receipt that you signed, but another woman with the same name; I have not collected payment of my marriage contract. Rav Yirmeya said: I, too, said to the other witnesses signed on the document: The woman for whom we signed the receipt is not she. But they said to me: It is in fact the same woman, but she has aged and her voice has matured and changed, and that is why you do not recognize her.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן:

Abaye said that although the Sages said: