## Bava Batra Daf 154a

###### Bava Batra 154a:1
[Bava Batra 154a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 154a:2
[Bava Batra 154a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Bava Batra 154a:3
[Bava Batra 154a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 154a:4
[Bava Batra 154a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 154a:5
[Bava Batra 154a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 154a:6
[Bava Batra 154a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 154a:7
[Bava Batra 154a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Batra 154a:8
[Bava Batra 154a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:8)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Batra 154a:9
[Bava Batra 154a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Batra 154a:10
[Bava Batra 154a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Batra 154a:11
[Bava Batra 154a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154a:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.