## Bava Batra Daf 165a

###### Bava Batra 165a:1
[Bava Batra 165a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:1)

אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather,** Rav was referring to uttering **a hint,** i.e., words with a bare trace, **of malicious speech.**


###### Bava Batra 165a:2
[Bava Batra 165a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:2)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רוֹב בְּגָזֵל, וּמִיעוּט בַּעֲרָיוֹת, וְהַכֹּל בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע. בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** The **majority** of people succumb to sin **with regard to robbery, and a minority** of people succumb to sin **with regard to sexual matters, and everyone** succumbs to sin **with regard to malicious speech.** The Gemara asks: Can it **enter your mind** that all people sin **with regard to malicious speech?** The Gemara answers: **Rather,** Rav was referring to uttering **a hint of malicious speech.**


###### Bava Batra 165a:3
[Bava Batra 165a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:3)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ מִנְהַג מְדִינָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches, with regard to documents, that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything** is **in accordance with regional custom.** The Gemara wonders: **And does the first *tanna* not accept** that one should follow the **regional custom?** It is not reasonable that he would take issue with such a basic concept.


###### Bava Batra 165a:4
[Bava Batra 165a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי פָּשׁוּט, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבֵיד לִי פָּשׁוּט״, וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר – קְפֵידָא. נְהִיגִי מְקוּשָּׁר, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבֵיד לִי מְקוּשָּׁר״, וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ פָּשׁוּט – קְפֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** in explanation: **In a place where the custom** is to write **an ordinary** document, **and** one **said to** a scribe: **Make an ordinary** document **for me, and** the scribe **went** and **made a tied** document **for him,** it is assumed that he was **particular** about wanting an ordinary document. Similarly, in a place where **the custom** is to write **a tied** document, **and** one **said to** a scribe: **Make a tied** document **for me, and** the scribe **went** and **made an ordinary** document **for him,** it is assumed that he was **particular** about wanting a tied document. In both of these cases, the document is considered to have been written without the consent of the one who requested it. If it is a bill of divorce it may not be used, as a bill of divorce must be written with the knowledge and consent of the husband.


###### Bava Batra 165a:5
[Bava Batra 165a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:5)

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי בְּפָשׁוּט וּמְקוּשָּׁר, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבֵיד לִי פָּשׁוּט״, וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר; מָר סָבַר: קְפֵידָא, וּמָר סָבַר: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** the *tanna’im* of the mishna **disagree** is **in a place where the custom** is to write **both an ordinary** document **and a tied** document, **and** one **said to** a scribe: **Make an ordinary** document **for me, and** the scribe **went and made a tied** document **for him.** In such a case, one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the one requesting the document was **particular** about wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the one requesting the document was merely **indicating** his **position to** the scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection.


###### Bava Batra 165a:6
[Bava Batra 165a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** Concerning **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar, they all hold** that when one gives instructions to an agent, he is merely **indicating** his **position to him,** as opposed to expressing an insistence on certain details.


###### Bava Batra 165a:7
[Bava Batra 165a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:7)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – דִּתְנַן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel** holds this is the case, **as we have** just **said. Rabbi Shimon** holds this as well, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Kiddushin* 48a), as explained by the Gemara there, that the first *tanna* rules that if a woman appoints an agent to accept her betrothal money and tells him that the man will be giving a golden dinar, or that he will be giving a silver dinar, and he in fact gives the other type of dinar, the betrothal is not valid, as in accepting the wrong dinar the agent did not follow the woman’s instructions exactly.


###### Bava Batra 165a:8
[Bava Batra 165a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:8)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם הִטְעָהּ לְשֶׁבַח, הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **Rabbi Shimon says: If he misled her to** her **advantage,** i.e., he told her he was going to give a silver dinar and gave her a golden dinar, **she is betrothed.** When the woman told the agent to receive the silver dinar she did not mean to insist that the dinar be silver as opposed to gold, but was only indicating her position, which is that she would have no objection to receiving only a silver dinar.


###### Bava Batra 165a:9
[Bava Batra 165a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:9)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – דִּתְנַן, הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה: ״הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, וְקִיבְּלוֹ לָהּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר – פָּסוּל; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר. מָר סָבַר: קְפֵידָא, וּמָר סָבַר: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues: **Rabbi Elazar** also holds this, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 65a): With regard to **the woman who,** when designating her agent for receipt of her bill of divorce, **said** to her agent: **Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, and he received it for her in another place,** the divorce is **invalid; and Rabbi Elazar deems** it **valid.** One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the woman is **particular** that her instructions be followed, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Elazar, **holds** that she was merely **indicating** her **position to** the agent, informing him of where she thought her husband would be.


###### Bava Batra 165a:10
[Bava Batra 165a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:10)

[פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד כּוּ׳] בִּשְׁלָמָא מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, פָּסוּל – אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְעָלְמָא כָּשֵׁר – הָכָא נָמֵי כָּשֵׁר; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָסוּל. אֶלָּא פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד – פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **an ordinary** document **in which** the signature of **a single witness is written,** and a tied document in which the signatures of only two witnesses are written, they are both not valid. The Gemara asks: **Granted,** it **was necessary** for the mishna to teach that **a tied** document **in which** the signatures of only **two witnesses are written** is **not valid,** as it might **enter your mind to say** that **since generally** a document is **valid** with two signatures, **here too** it is **valid;** therefore, the mishna **teaches us that** it is in fact **not valid. But** why was it necessary to state that **an ordinary** document **in which** the signature of **a single witness is written** is not valid; isn’t this **obvious?**


###### Bava Batra 165a:11
[Bava Batra 165a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:11)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא נִצְרְכָא – דַּאֲפִילּוּ עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב, וְעֵד אֶחָד בְּפֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** It **is necessary** to state this *halakha* **only** to teach **that even** if there is **one witness** signed on the document **in writing and,** in addition, **one witness** testifies **orally** to the contents of the document, the document is not valid.


###### Bava Batra 165a:12
[Bava Batra 165a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:12)

אַמֵּימָר אַכְשַׁר בְּעֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב וְעֵד אֶחָד עַל פֶּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר: וְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי – כְּלוֹמַר, לָא סְבִירָא לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Ameimar deemed** a document **valid in** the case of **one witness** signed on the document **in writing and one witness** testifying **orally** to the contents of the document. **Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: And what of that** statement **of Abaye,** which deemed such a document invalid? Ameimar **said to him: I did not hear** of it, as though **to say: I do not hold** like it; I disagree with Abaye.


###### Bava Batra 165a:13
[Bava Batra 165a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/165a:13)

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi asks: **But** if you disagree, the **difficulty**