## Bava Batra Daf 128b

###### Bava Batra 128b:1
[Bava Batra 128b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:1)

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְכוּלְּהוּ! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **The refutation** of the opinions **of all** the *amora’im* who held that a person who became blind after witnessing a matter can, in certain cases, testify about it, is indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Bava Batra 128b:2
[Bava Batra 128b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:2)

שְׁלַח רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא: הָאוֹמֵר עַל תִּינוֹק בֵּין הַבָּנִים – נֶאֱמָן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba sent** another ruling **to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama: One who says** something **concerning** one **child among** his **sons** is **deemed credible, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **he is not deemed credible.**


###### Bava Batra 128b:3
[Bava Batra 128b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:3)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, הָאוֹמֵר עַל תִּינוֹק בֵּין הַבָּנִים: ״יִירַשׁ כׇּל נְכָסַי״ – נֶאֱמָן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** Rabbi Abba **saying? Abaye said** that **this** is what Rabbi Abba **is saying: One who says concerning** one **child among** his **sons: He shall inherit all my property,** is **deemed credible, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka,** who holds that one can bequeath all his property to one of his heirs (130a). **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **he is not deemed credible, in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka.


###### Bava Batra 128b:4
[Bava Batra 128b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: הַאי ״נֶאֱמָן״ וְ״אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן״?! ״יִירַשׁ״ וְ״לֹא יִירַשׁ״ מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava objects to this** explanation: According to Abaye’s explanation, **this** wording: Is **deemed credible, and: He is not deemed credible,** is not precise; **he should have** employed the terms: **Shall inherit, and: Shall not inherit,** as the issue is the ability of the father to specify who will inherit from him, not his credibility.


###### Bava Batra 128b:5
[Bava Batra 128b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:5)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָאָמַר, הָאוֹמֵר עַל תִּינוֹק בֵּין הַבָּנִים: ״בְּכוֹר הוּא״ – נֶאֱמָן, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that **this** is what Rabbi Abba **is saying: One who says about** one **child among** his **sons** that **he is** his **firstborn** is **deemed credible, in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** (127b); **and Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **he is not deemed credible, in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Bava Batra 128b:6
[Bava Batra 128b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:6)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״תִּטּוֹל אִשְׁתִּי כְּאֶחָד מִן הַבָּנִים״ – נוֹטֶלֶת כְּאֶחָד מִן הַבָּנִים. אָמַר רָבָא: וּבִנְכָסִים שֶׁל עַכְשָׁיו, וּבְבָנִים הַבָּאִין לְאַחַר מִכָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba sent** another ruling **to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama:** In a case of **one who says: My wife will take** a portion of my estate **like one of the sons, she takes** a portion **like one of the sons,** as it is considered a gift. **Rava says: And** this ruling is only **with regard to** the husband’s **current property,** which he can give her as a gift. The husband cannot give her a portion of his future property. **And** furthermore, the calculation of her portion must take into account not only the number of sons the husband has at the time of his statement, but also **the sons who come,** i.e., who will be born, **afterward.**


###### Bava Batra 128b:7
[Bava Batra 128b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:7)

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא: הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵירוֹ; מַלְוֶה אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִפְרַעְתִּי כְּלוּם, וְלֹוֶה אוֹמֵר: פָּרַעְתִּי מֶחֱצָה, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין שֶׁפָּרַע כּוּלּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע, וְגוֹבֶה מֶחֱצָה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין; אֲבָל מִמְּשׁוּעְבָּדִין לָא, דְּאָמְרִי: אֲנַן אַעֵדִים סָמְכִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba sent** another ruling **to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama:** In the case of **one who produces a promissory note against another,** and **the creditor says: I was not repaid anything, and the debtor says: I repaid half** the debt, **and the witnesses testify that** the debtor **repaid the entire** debt, then **this** debtor **takes an oath** that he repaid half, as is the *halakha* with regard to one who admits to a part of a claim, and he is exempt from paying that half. **And** the creditor **collects** the second **half from unsold property; but not from liened** property that was sold after the loan, **as** the buyers can **say: We rely on the witnesses** that the debt was repaid in its entirety.


###### Bava Batra 128b:8
[Bava Batra 128b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:8)

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה הָוֵי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים – אִירְתוֹתֵי אִירְתַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara compares this *halakha* to the case of a promissory note that states that the debtor owes the creditor: *Sela* coins, without stating how many. The creditor claims that he lent the debtor five *sela* and the debtor claims that he borrowed only three. Rabbi Akiva holds that since the wording of the promissory note indicates a minimum debt of two *sela*, and the creditor could not have collected the third *sela* without the debtor’s admission, the latter’s admission to a part of the claim cannot render him liable to take an oath. The Gemara states: **And even according to Rabbi Akiva, who says that** the debtor is not liable to take an oath, as with regard to the third *sela* his legal status **is** similar to that of **one who returns a lost item, this statement** applies only in a case **where there are no witnesses** to the loan. **But where there are witnesses,** as is the case in Rabbi Abba’s ruling, the debtor **fears** denying the entire debt. Therefore he is liable to take an oath that he repaid half, as one who admits to a part of the claim.


###### Bava Batra 128b:9
[Bava Batra 128b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַדְּרַבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה מִקְצָת הַטַּעֲנָה הָוֵי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא עֵדִים דְּקָא מְסַיְּיעִי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים דְּקָא מְסַיְּיעִי לֵיהּ – וַדַּאי מֵשִׁיב אֲבֵדָה הָוֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar bar Rav Ashi objects to this: On the contrary; even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva and **says** that the debtor **is considered** one who **admits to a part of the claim, this statement** applies only in a case **where there are no witnesses who support him. But** here in the case of Rabbi Abba, **where there are witnesses who support him,** testifying that he repaid the entire debt, his legal status **is certainly** that of **one who returns a lost item,** and he does not need to take an oath that he repaid half.


###### Bava Batra 128b:10
[Bava Batra 128b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:10)

דָּרֵשׁ מָר זוּטְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: הִלְכְתָא בְּכׇל הָנֵי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, כְּדִשְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דְּרַב נַחְמָן, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אֵין גּוֹבִין״ מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Mar Zutra taught in the name of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: The *halakha* in all these *halakhot*** is **as Rabbi Abba sent to Rav Yosef bar Ḥama. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: What** about the statement with **which Rav Naḥman** disagreed, i.e., that a debt can be collected by taking the slaves the debtor left his heirs? Is the *halakha* in accordance with this ruling of Rabbi Abba as well, despite the principle that in monetary matters the *halakha* is in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s opinion? Rav Ashi **said to him: We teach** a different tradition, that Rabbi Abba’s statement rules that a creditor **does not collect** the debt from the slaves the debtor left his heirs, **and** that **Rav Naḥman said the same.**


###### Bava Batra 128b:11
[Bava Batra 128b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/128b:11)

וְאֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** then **what** possibility **does** Mar Zutra **exclude** in ruling that **the *halakha*** is in accordance with Rabbi Abba’s statement?