— But the fine shades1 of slander [were meant].
Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Most [people are guilty] of robbery,2 a minority of lewdness, and all of slander. 'Of slander'? [How] could one imagine [such a thing]! — But the fine shades of slander1 [were meant].
RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: ALL DEPENDS ON THE USAGE OF THE COUNTRY. And does not the first Tanna hold [the principle of the] 'usage of the country'?3 — R. Ashi4 replied: Where5 it is the custom [to use] plain [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a plain deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one], the objection [is valid].6 [Where it] is the custom [to use] folded [deeds] and one said to [the scribe]. 'Prepare for me a folded deed', and [the latter] prepared for him a plain [one, legal] objection [may be raised.6 Their dispute relates to a place where [both] plain and folded [deeds] are in use, and he said to [the scribe], 'Prepare for me a plain [deed],' and [the latter] prepared for him a folded [one]. [In such a case],7 [one] master8 is of the opinion [that legal] objection [may be raised]9 and [the other] master10 is of the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation.11
Abaye said: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel and R. Simeon and R. Eleazar are of the opinion [that, in such a case,12 the instruction] is [regarded as] a mere intimation.13 [As to] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, [proof may be brought from] what has [just] been said. [As to] R. Simeon? — Because we learnt: R. Simeon said, If his mistake was in her favour, she is betrothed.14 [As to] R. Eleazar? — Because we learnt: If a woman said [to an agent] 'Receive a bill of divorce on my behalf at15 such and such a place', and he received it on her behalf at a different place [the divorce is] invalid; but R. Eleazar considers it valid.16 [for one] master is of the opinion [that by her instruction17 she expressed her] objection.18 while [the other] master holds the opinion [that] it was merely an intimation to him of the place.19
A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS etc.20 One can well understand why it was necessary [to state]. A FOLDED [ONE] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF TWO WITNESSES is invalid; [since] it might have been imagined [that] because elsewhere [such evidence is] valid, it is valid here also, it [was necessary] to teach us that it is invalid. [In the case] however, [of] A PLAIN [DEED] THAT BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE WITNESS, [is not this] obvious?21 Abaye replied: This was required22 [for the following]. That even [where, in addition to] the signature of one witness,23 there is also the oral evidence of another24 [the deed is invalid].
Amemar [once] declared [a deed] valid on the signature of one witness25 and the oral evidence of another.24 Said R. Ashi to Amemar: And what [about] the [view] of Abaye?26 [The other] replied to him: I did not hear [of it], that is to say27 I do not share his view. But, [if so],28 the difficulty
Baba Bathra 165b
in our Mishnah1 [remains]! — It2 teaches us this: That two [witnesses] on a folded [deed are] like one witness on a plain [one]; as in the latter3 the defect is Biblical,4 so also in the former5 the defect is Biblical.6 [This]7 can be proved.8 for the members of the College9 sent10 [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah:11 [In the case of witnesses] one of whom had signed12 [the deed] and the other [confirmed the contents] orally,13 are they combined?14 According to the first Tanna of R. Joshua b. Korha,15 the question does not arise because, [according to him, independent evidence16 of two can] not be combined even [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed,17 or the two [gave] oral [evidence]. The question, however, arises according to R. Joshua b. Korha.18 Is the [independent evidence] combined only [in the case where] the two [witnesses] signed the deed17 or where the two [gave] oral [evidence], but [in the case where] one witness signed17 and one [testified] orally, [their evidence] is not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [the following reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the opinion19 that [the witnesses] may be [regarded as] combined.
He20 said unto him:21 We learned it22 thus:23 for the members of the College sent [the following enquiry] to R. Jeremiah: [In the case of] two [witnesses] who gave evidence, one at one court24 and the other25 at another court,24 may [one] court come to the other and [thus cause the evidence to be] combined? According to the first Tanna of R. Nathan26 the question does not arise, since, [according to him, such evidence27 can] not be combined even where [it was given before] one court. The question, however, arises according to R. Nathan.28 Is [the evidence] combined only [where it was given] at one court, but [if] at two courts [it is] not combined, or [is there], perhaps, no difference? And he sent to them [his reply]; I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me, but your disciple is inclined to the opinion29 that [the witnesses may] be [regarded as] combined.
Mar b. Hiyya said: This was [the enquiry] addressed to him: [In the case where] two gave evidence at one28 court, and then they gave evidence at another30 court,31 may one [member] of either court come [to the other court] and combine?32 According to [the view] of R. Nathan,33 the question does not arise, [for] since witnesses may be combined, is there [any] need [to say that] judges [may be combined]? The question, however, arises according to the first Tanna of R. Nathan.34 [Is it] witnesses only that are not combined but judges are, or is there, perhaps, no difference? He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view35 that they may be combined.
Rabina said; Such was [the enquiry] sent to him: [Where] three [judges] sat down to confirm a deed, and one of them died,36 [is it] necessary to write; 'We were in a session37 of three38 and one is [now] no more,39 or not?40 He sent to them [in reply]: I am not worthy of having [this enquiry] addressed to me; but your disciple is inclined to the view41 that it is necessary to write, 'We were in a session of three38 and one is [now] no more'. And on account of this42 R. Jeremiah was re-admitted to the College.43
MISHNAH. [WHEN] IN [A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS] IT IS WRITTEN. 'A HUNDRED ZUZ WHICH ARE TWENTY44 SELA' [THE CREDITOR] RECEIVES ONLY45 TWENTY [SELA'].46 [IF THE ENTRY WAS]. 'A HUNDRED [ZUZ] WHICH ARE THIRTY [SELA']' HE47 RECEIVES ONLY45 A MANEH.48 [IF THE ENTRY READS], SILVER ZUZ IN WHICH ARE … AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF THE ENTRY READS]. 'SILVER SELA'S WHICH ARE…', AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT REPRESENTS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF], 'DARICS49 WHICH ARE … AND [THE AMOUNT IS] BLOTTED OUT, [IT IS] NO LESS THAN TWO. [IF] ABOVE50 A MANEH51 IS WRITTEN AND BELOW52 TWO HUNDRED,53 [OR IF] TWO HUNDRED53 [ARE WRITTEN] ABOVE AND A MANEH51 BELOW, ONE IS ALWAYS TO BE GUIDED BY THE LOWER ENTRY.54 IF SO,55 WHY SHOULD THE UPPER [PORTION AT ALL] BE WRITTEN? — IN CASE A LETTER IN THE LOWER [SECTION] BE RUBBED OFF IT MAY BE INFERRED56 FROM THE UPPER [PORTION].
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:57 'Silver'58 [signifies]no less than a silver denar. 'Silver denarii' or 'denarii silver' [signifies] no less than two silver denarii. 'Silver for denarii', [signifies] silver for no less than two gold denarii.59
The Master said: '"Silver" [signifies] no less than a silver denar.' Might it not signify60 a bar [of silver]? — R. Eleazar replied: [This is a case] where coin was mentioned.61 Might it not signify60 small change? — R. Papa replied: In [the case of] a place where small silver coins are not current.62
Our Rabbis taught: 'Gold'63 [signifies] no less than a golden denar. 'Gold denarii' or 'denarii gold' [signifies] no less than two gold denarii. 'Gold for denarii' [signifies] gold of the value of no less than two silver denarii.64
- To Next Folio -