Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Litigant Claims
Property Law
Sources
A
Rav Hamnuna said to
Rav Yehuda:
And what does the other
person
claim
in response to the demand for repayment?
If he says:
These
matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier
of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him.
If he says: Yes, I took
money from him,
but
it is
my
money that
I took,
then
when
the
witnesses come
and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him…
Shevuot 34b:2-6
The court requires that precise statements be made by the litigants. For example, litigants come to court and one of them claims: "He owes me a
maneh
that I lent to him," "... that I entrusted to him," "... that he stole from me," "... that he owes me as wages," or the like. Should the defendant answer: "I do not owe you anything," "I have nothing of yours," or "You are issuing a false claim," this is not a proper response. Instead, we tell the defendant: "Reply to his claim and clarify your answer as he clarified his claim…
Mishneh Torah, Plaintiff and Defendant 6-7
Rav Pappa, son of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, says: This
is what
we say in the name of Rava:
The defendant is not rendered a liar, because
people do not remember all frivolous matters.
Since the admission was not made seriously, perhaps the defendant forgot the incident. Therefore, his denial of its having occurred was not necessarily an outright lie. The Gemara relates: There was
a certain
man
who hid witnesses in
the
canopy
above
his
bed
to
hear the statement of
another…
Sanhedrin 29b:2-18
The Gemara comments:
This supports
the opinion of
Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says
that
Rav says:
The debtor
needs to say
to the witnesses to the loan or in his admission that he owes the creditor:
You are my witnesses.
Otherwise, their testimony is not valid.
It was also stated
that
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says
that
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
If one said to another:
I
have
one hundred dinars in your possession,
i.e., you owe me one hundred dinars, and the other
said to him: Yes…
Sanhedrin 29a:25-30
After
Rava
raised the dilemma, he then resolved it,
and ruled:
A person
does
not jest at the time of death, and
therefore
the statements of a person on his deathbed are considered as
if they were
written
in a document
and transmitted
to the relevant party.
Bava Batra 175a:9
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Come
and
hear
a proof from what is taught in a mishna (
Shevuot
38b): If one said to another:
I
have
one hundred dinars in your possession,
and the other one
said to him
in the presence of witnesses:
Yes,
that is so; and
the next day
the lender
said to
the borrower:
Give me
the money that you owe me, the
halakha
is as follows:
If
the borrower
said: I
already
gave it to you,
he is
exempt…
Bava Batra 6a:5-6
Rav Zevid says in the name of Rabbi Naḥman: Both
in the case where the court said:
Go
and
give him
what you owe him,
and
in the case where the court said:
You are liable to give him,
if the debtor subsequently
said: I repaid
the debt, his claim is
deemed credible.
Therefore, if the
creditor comes
and asks the court
to write
an authorization,
they do not write
the document
and give
it
to him.
Rather, if there is
room
to make a distinction
between different cases…
Bava Metzia 17a:3-10
The Gemara continues with the statement of Rava:
An admission
of a monetary obligation needs to be stated
in the presence of two
witnesses,
and
in this case, the one stating the admission
needs to say
to the witnesses:
Write
a document detailing the admission, as this document is to his detriment; they may not write one absent a directive.
Acquisition
by means of a symbolic act utilizing a cloth needs to be done
in the presence of two
witnesses,
and
the parties do
not need to say
to the witnesses:
Write
a document detailing…
Bava Batra 40a:2
If the one lodging a protest also
said: Do not tell
the possessor of the protest,
what
is the
halakha
?
Rav Zevid said:
It is not a valid protest, because
isn’t he saying: Do not tell him?
Therefore, word of the protest will not reach the possessor and it is meaningless.
Rav Pappa
disagreed and
said
that the owner merely meant:
Do not tell him personally,
but they, i.e. the witnesses, should
tell others.
In that case, word of the protest will reach the possessor, since
your friend has a friend
whom he tells about the protest…
Bava Batra 39a:2-7
§ The mishna discusses other cases where the defendant denies an entire claim. In a case where one said to another:
I have one hundred dinars in your possession,
and the latter
said to him: Yes,
I acknowledge that claim; and
the next day
the claimant
said to him: Give
the money
to me,
and the defendant responded:
I
already
gave it to you,
he is
exempt.
But if he responded:
Nothing
of
yours
is
in my possession,
i.e., he denies that a debt ever existed, he is
liable
to pay…
Shevuot 38b:12
Rabbi Abba raises an objection
to the opinion of Rav Huna from a
baraita
in the
Tosefta
(
Bava Metzia
1:10): The legal status of
the admission of a litigant is similar to
that of the testimony of
one hundred witnesses, and
the statement of
a third party is deemed
more
credible than
the statements of
both of
the litigants.
How so?
If
this
litigant, the creditor,
says
that the debtor owes him
this
sum,
and that
litigant, the debtor,
says
that he owes
that
lower sum…
Gittin 64a:4
The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions:
And Ulla concedes
that in a case
where he
had initially
said to him:
The land
belonged to my ancestors and did not belong to your ancestors, that
he
cannot state a claim and return and state
a modified version of his
claim,
as Ulla allows the litigant only to reinterpret his initial claim, not to replace it with a contradictory claim.
And
Ulla also concedes that in a case
where he was standing in court and did not state
a particular
claim…
Bava Batra 31a:6-7
Rav Ḥaviva teaches
Rav Naḥman’s statement as referring
to the latter clause
in the mishna: If one said to another:
I have one hundred dinars in your possession,
and the latter
said to him: Yes,
and
the next day
the claimant
said to him: Give
the money
to me,
and the defendant responded:
I
already
gave it to you,
he is
exempt. And Rav Naḥman says:
Nevertheless, the court
administers an oath of inducement to him.
Shevuot 40b:21
And they say to him: Say how
exactly
you know that this
litigant
owes money to that
litigant, as the plaintiff claims.
If he said:
The defendant
said to me:
It is true
that I owe
the plaintiff, or if he says:
So-and-so said to me that
the defendant
owes
the plaintiff, the witness
has said nothing
and his testimony is disregarded. It is not valid testimony
unless he says:
The defendant
admitted in our presence to
the plaintiff
that he owes him,
e.g.,
two hundred dinars…
Sanhedrin 29a:14
The Gemara relates: There was
a certain
person
who said to another: Give me
the
hundred dinars that I lent you.
The latter
said to him:
This
matter never happened;
you did not lend me money. The creditor
went
and
brought witnesses who
testified that
he lent
the money to
him and
that the debtor had
repaid him. Abaye said: What
is there for the court to
do
in this case? The same witnesses said both statements;
they said
that the creditor
lent him
the money…
Shevuot 41b:13-42a:1
The Gemara asks:
But does
the admission of
his
own
mouth not render him liable
to pay
money? But isn’t
the legal status of
the admission of a litigant similar to
that of
one hundred witnesses?
Bava Metzia 3b:4
Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa
said to
Rabbi Abba:
With regard to this
issue,
I hold like the
halakha
said
by the Master,
i.e., you yourself.
As Rabbi Abba says
that
Rav Adda bar Ahava said
that
Rav says:
If
one says to another,
i.e., if a debtor says to his creditor:
I repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,
it is
required that so-and-so and so-and-so come
to court
and testify
that they witnessed the repayment…
Bava Batra 170a:18-170b:1
Ravina thought to say
that
this is
a case in which the principle
of Reish Lakish,
that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies.
Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This
is what
we say in the name of Rava:
In
any cases like this, we are concerned for
the possibility of
an erroneous court
that thinks that two constitute a court.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written in
the document: We, the members of
the court,
convened…
Sanhedrin 30a:2-5
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even
if
you say
that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of
the Rabbis
who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the mishna can be interpreted in a case
where both of them denied
knowledge of relevant testimony
within
the time required
for speaking
a short phrase,
and
the halakhic status of a pause or retraction
within
the time required
for speaking
a short phrase
is like
that of continuous
speech…
Shevuot 32a:17
Property Law
דיני רכוש
Laws of the Release of Loans
Laws of Selling Ancestral Fields
Laws of Selling Property in a Walled City
Laws of the Methods of Acquisition
Laws of Retraction of a Transaction before its Completion
Laws of Cancellation of a Transaction and the Seller's Responsibility
Stipulations of a Purchased Acquisition
Intent of the Seller and the Purchaser
Laws of Ownerless Property
Laws of Gifts
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
