Study Bava Batra folio 154A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ראיה – במאי? רב הונא אמר: ראיה בעדים. רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי: ראיה בקיום השטר.
The Talmud asks: With regard to the proof that the recipients must bring, in what manner is it brought? Rav Huna says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed, i.e., the recipients are required only to ascertain that the signatures of the witnesses on the deed are authentic in order to prove that it is not forged.
רב הונא אמר ראיה בעדים – קא מיפלגי בפלוגתא דרבי יעקב ורבי נתן;
The Talmud explains: Rav Huna says that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses. He maintains that R' Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of R' Ya’akov and R' Natan in the baraita (153b).
(סימן: מניח.) רבי מאיר – כרבי נתן, ורבנן – כרבי יעקב.
The Talmud notes a mnemonic device that indicates which tannaitic opinions are correlated: Manniaḥ, which represents the letters mem, nun, yod, ḥet, stands for Meir, Natan, Ya’akov, and the Rabbis [ḥakhamim]. This indicates that R' Meir, who says that the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed, holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Natan, who maintains that one presumes that the current situation reflects the situation at the time the gift was bestowed. And the Rabbis, who say that the recipients must bring proof that the giver was healthy, hold in accordance with the opinion of R' Ya’akov.
רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא אמרי ראיה בקיום השטר – קא מיפלגי במודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו; דרבי מאיר סבר: מודה בשטר שכתבו – אינו צריך לקיימו. ורבנן סברי: מודה בשטר שכתבו – צריך לקיימו.
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Talmud explains: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna maintain that R' Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment. The same ruling would apply to a case where the person on his deathbed admits that he wrote the deed granting the gift. They explain that R' Meir holds that when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor need not ratify it in court in order to collect payment, and in this case the giver cannot invalidate the deed by claiming that he was on his deathbed. But the Rabbis hold that even when there is a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor must ratify it in court in order to collect payment.