## Bava Batra Daf 154b

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

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!

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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!

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


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

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.

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


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

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!

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


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

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.

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


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

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


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

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.

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


###### Bava Batra 154b:12
[Bava Batra 154b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154b:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Batra 154b:13
[Bava Batra 154b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/154b:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.