## Bava Batra Daf 43a

###### Bava Batra 43a:1
[Bava Batra 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:1)

אַמַּאי? נוֹגְעִין בְּעֵדוּתָן הֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** is this so? Aren’t partners **biased in their testimony,** as they jointly own the property in question?


###### Bava Batra 43a:2
[Bava Batra 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:2)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״. וְכִי כְּתַב לוֹ מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זו״;ֹ וְ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״; וְ״יָדַי מְסוּלָּקוֹת הֵימֶנָּה – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the partner who is testifying **wrote to** the other partner: **I do not have** any **legal** dealings **or involvement with regard to this field, thereby** relinquishing his ownership of the field. The Gemara asks: **And if** he **wrote** this **to him, what of it? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **one who says to another: I do not have** any **legal** dealings **or involvement concerning this field, or: I have no dealings with it, or: My hands are removed from it, has said nothing?** That is to say, these statements have no legal standing.


###### Bava Batra 43a:3
[Bava Batra 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:3)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ. וְכִי קָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ מַאי הָוֵי? הֲרֵי מַעֲמִידָהּ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the one testifying **performed** an act of **acquisition with** the other partner. Since relinquishing his share in this fashion is effective, his testimony is no longer biased. The Gemara asks: **And if** he **performed** an act of **acquisition with** the one testifying, **what of it?** His testimony is still biased, as he is **establishing** the field **before his creditor.** Once he transferred his share to his partner, his creditor will now be able to collect from the property that he formerly co-owned, as a creditor can collect from property that a debtor once owned despite the fact that he has relinquished his ownership of it. Since his testimony enables him to repay his debt, it is biased.


###### Bava Batra 43a:4
[Bava Batra 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:4)

דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֶה לַחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחְרָיוּת – אֵין מֵעִיד לוֹ עָלֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידָהּ בִּפְנֵי בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Ravin bar Shmuel says in the name of Shmuel: One who sells a field to another** even **without a guarantee** that if the field will be repossessed the seller will compensate the buyer for his loss **cannot testify with regard to** ownership of that field **on behalf of** the buyer **because** he is **establishing** the field **before his creditor.**


###### Bava Batra 43a:5
[Bava Batra 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּקַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ אַחְרָיוּת. אַחְרָיוּת דְּמַאן? אִי נֵימָא אַחְרָיוּת דְּעָלְמָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אַחְרָיוּת דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ מֵחֲמָתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the one testifying **assumes** financial **responsibility for** the field. Therefore, his testimony is not biased. The Gemara clarifies: **Responsibility with regard to whom? If we say** that he assumes **general responsibility,** such that if anyone collects the field from his former partner for whatever reason, he is liable to compensate the partner, then **all the more so** it is **preferable for him** that the field remain in his former partner’s possession, as if the claimant will be successful in obtaining the field, the witness will have to compensate the partner. **Rather,** it is referring to a case where he assumes **responsibility** only **for** a loss **that comes to** his former partner in the property **resulting from** the field being seized by one of his creditors to collect payment for **his** debts. He is, therefore, not an interested party, as in any event he owes the same debt, either to his creditor or to his partner.


###### Bava Batra 43a:6
[Bava Batra 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:6)

וְכִי מְסַלֵּק נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִינֵּיהּ – מִי מִסְתַּלַּק? וְהָתַנְיָא: בְּנֵי עִיר שֶׁנִּגְנַב סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן, אֵין דָּנִין בְּדַיָּינֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מֵאַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיסַלְּקוּ בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְלִידַיְינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if he removes himself from** the property by having the former partner acquire his share in it, **is** it actually effective to **remove** him, so that there is no longer a concern for biased testimony? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a case of **residents of a city whose Torah scroll was stolen,** the case is **not adjudicated by** the **judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from** the testimony of the **people of that city,** as their testimony is biased? **And if it is so** that relinquishing one’s share renders one as not biased, then **let two of them remove themselves from** their share in the Torah scroll, **and** then the court can **judge** the case based on their testimony.


###### Bava Batra 43a:7
[Bava Batra 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:7)

שָׁאנֵי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, דְּלִשְׁמִיעָה קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A Torah scroll is different, as it stands for** the people **to listen** to the Torah reading from it. Since they are obligated to listen to the Torah reading, they stand to benefit from this Torah scroll even if they relinquish their ownership share in it, and their testimony is biased.


###### Bava Batra 43a:8
[Bava Batra 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִבְנֵי עִירִי״ – אֵין דָּנִין בְּדַיָּינֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מֵאַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. אַמַּאי? לִיסַלְּקוּ בֵּי תְרֵי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, וְלִידַיְינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says: Give one hundred dinars to the residents of my city,** the distribution of the funds is **not adjudicated by** the **judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from** the testimony of the **people of that city,** as their testimony is biased. **Why** not? **Let two** people **remove themselves** from their share in the funds **and** then the court can **judge** the case based on their testimony.


###### Bava Batra 43a:9
[Bava Batra 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:9)

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** this *halakha* is stated **with regard to** a case where the gift was for the purpose of procuring **a Torah scroll,** and the same aforementioned reasoning applies.


###### Bava Batra 43a:10
[Bava Batra 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לַעֲנִיֵּי עִירִי״ – אֵין דָּנִין בְּדַיָּינֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מֵאַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. וְתִסְבְּרָא – עֲנִיִּים שָׁקְלִי, דַּיָּינֵי מִיפַּסְלִי?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין דָּנִין בְּדַיָּינֵי עֲנִיֵּי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מֵעֲנִיֵּי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. וְאַמַּאי? לִסְתַּלְּקוּ בֵּי תְרֵי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, וְלִידַיְינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says: Give one hundred dinars to the poor** people **of my city,** the distribution of the funds is **not adjudicated by** the **judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from** testimony of the **people of that city,** as their testimony is biased. **And** how can **you understand** the fact that the **poor take** the money and the **judges are** thereby **disqualified** as interested parties? **Rather, say:** The distribution of the funds is **not adjudicated by** the **poor judges of that city, and proof may not be brought from** the testimony of the **poor people of that city. And why** not? **Let two** people **remove themselves** from their share in the funds **and** then the court can **judge** the case based on their testimony.


###### Bava Batra 43a:11
[Bava Batra 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:11)

הָכָא נָמֵי בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לְהוּ ״עֲנִיִּים״? דְּהַכֹּל אֵצֶל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה – עֲנִיִּים הֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here, too** this *halakha* is stated **with regard to** a case where the gift was for the purpose of procuring **a Torah scroll,** and the same aforementioned reasoning applies. The Gemara asks: **And** if it is referring to money for purchasing a Torah scroll rather than money earmarked for charity, **why** does the *baraita* **call** the recipients: **Poor** people? **Because everyone is poor with regard to a Torah scroll,** as it is very expensive.


###### Bava Batra 43a:12
[Bava Batra 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:12)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי – עֲנִיִּים מַמָּשׁ, וּבְעַנְיֵי דְּרָאמוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ. וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּקִיץ לְהוּ – לִיתְּבוּ בֵּי תְרֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מַאי דְּקִיץ לְהוּ, וְלִידַיְינוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** it is referring to people who are **literally poor, as it teaches. And** the ruling of the *baraita* is stated **with regard to poor people, whose** support is **incumbent upon** all of the residents. Therefore, a gift to these poor people reduces their obligation, and all of their testimony is biased. The Gemara clarifies: **And what are the circumstances** in which this *baraita* states its ruling? **If** it is a place **where** the sum of charity that each resident is obligated to give is **fixed for them, let two of** them **give what is fixed for them** to give to the poor, **and** then the court can **judge** the case based on their testimony.


###### Bava Batra 43a:13
[Bava Batra 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:13)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּלָא קִיץ לְהוּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּקִיץ לְהוּ, וְנִיחָא לְהוּ – דְּכֵיוָן דְּרָוַוח, רָוַוח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the sum is **not fixed for them.** Therefore, this is not an option. **And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** it is referring to a place **where** the sum is **fixed for them. And** nevertheless, it is **amenable to** the residents of the city that the poor receive a gift, **because once** there is **a gain** for the poor people from this donation, there is **a gain,** and it lightens the burden on all of the people of the city.


###### Bava Batra 43a:14
[Bava Batra 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/43a:14)

וְנַעֲשִׁין שׁוֹמְרֵי שָׂכָר זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss Shmuel’s statement concerning partners: **And they become paid bailees** of their joint property with regard to **each other.**