(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 167

BAVA BASRA 167 - sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld with warm Mazel Tov blessings to the newlyweds, Eli and Chaya Abeles. May they merit to build together a Bayis Ne'eman b'Yisrael that will be a pride to their dear parents and to all of Klal Yisrael!



(a) Abaye advises someone who needs to send his signature into Beis-Din for verification - to take care to sign at the top of the page ...

(b) ... for fear that should he lose it, it will be picked up by someone dishonest, who will then write a pre-signed I.O.U.

(c) Such a Sh'tar (which is not signed by two witnesses) - could in any event, only be used to claim from B'nei Chorin (but not from Meshubadim).

(d) The reason someone might need to send his signature into Beis-Din for verification is because in a case where one witness died, and the other witness needed to testify together with a third person on the deceased witnesses' signature, he would have to avoid verifying his own signature on the Sh'tar, in order to be able to testify on his co-witnesses' signature (as we explained in Kesuvos).

(a) That man, who was a tax-collector, ostensibly asked Abaye for his signature - in order to check it against the signature on the certificates that he handed to Talmidei-Chachamim, allowing them a tax reduction.

(b) When Abaye began signing on top of the Sh'tar (to conform with his own suggestion) - he tried to pull the Sh'tar up, to leave space above the signature for him to write an I.O.U. in Abaye's name.

(c) Abaye responded - that the Chachamim, who had already anticipated that, had outsmarted him.

(a) Abaye advise against writing - the (feminine version of the] numbers three to nine at the end of the line in a Sh'tar (because it will be easy for the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar to change the number from a unit to a ten [e.g. 'Shalosh' to 'Sheloshim').

(b) If in the process of writing the Sh'tar, one of these numbers happens to come up at the end of the line - the Sofer should make a point of repeating it a couple of times in the course of the Sh'tar, to ensure that it occurs, at least once, in the middle of the line (and as we have already learned, if there is a discrepancy in a Sh'tar, we follow the end of the Sh'tar against the beginning).

(a) That purchaser erased the entire left-hand section of the 'Beis', (of the Sh'tar that testified that he had purchased 'Tilsa be'Pardeisa) - changing it into a 'Vav', which reads 'a third plus an orchard', instead of the original 'a third of an orchard'.

(b) Abaye tied him to the Amud to give him Malkos and he admitted to his forgery. What gave the man's game away was - the unusually wide space between what was left of the 'Beis' and the rest of the word.

(c) Abaye did the same with another man - who took the Sh'tar that testified that he purchased '*M'nas* Reuven ve'Shimon Achi' (meaning that he had bought *the portion of field* belonging to those two brothers), and added a 'Vav' to the word 'Achi' (the name of a third brother, and whose property he thereby added to the list of what now belonged to him).

(d) What gave *this* man's game away was - the lack of space between the 'Vav' and Achi.

(a) When a Sh'tar came before Rava on which he and Rav Acha bar Ada had signed, Rava recognized his own signature, even though the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar had forged both signatures. What gave the game away was - the fact that he placed Rava before Rav Acha bar Ada, whereas Rava was always particular about letting Rav Acha bar Ada sign first.

(b) Rava's surprise at his ability to forge Rav Acha bar Ada's signature - was due to Rav Acha's shaky handwriting, making it difficult to forge.

(c) The man gave two possible explanations of how he achieved it. He may have done it by holding on to the rope that spanned the river together with the bridge ('a'Metzra'), made for someone crossing over the bridge to hold on to. Alternatively - he stood on a bucket that was used to draw water from the well as he signed.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses some Dinim about writing a Sh'tar. The Tana - permits the man to write a Get, the woman, the receipt of her Kesuvah, the debtor, a Sh'tar-Chov, and the seller, a Sh'tar Mechirah, even without the other party being present.

(b) A Get does not require the presence of the woman concerned - because her husband has the right to divorce her against her will.

(c) The common reason for all the others is - because it is to their benefit.

(d) A Sofer may only write a Get - if he recognizes both parties.

7) We will see later why the husband has to pay the Sofer for the Get. He also has to pay him for the woman's receipt of the Kesuvah - because it is to his advantage.




(a) It is obvious why the Sofer is not permitted to write a Sh'tar for the creditor or for the purchaser in the absence of the other party. The borrower and the seller - have to pay the Sofer.

(b) The Sofer may only write Sh'tarei Erusin and Nisu'in, Sh'tarei Arisus and Kablanus and Sh'tarei Birurin (concerning two litigants who are choosing a Beis-Din, which will be explained later) if both parties are present.

(c) 'Sh'tarei Erusin' are - the engagement contract entered into between the fathers of the Chasan and the Kalah.

(d) The definition of 'Arisus' is - where Reuven undertakes to work Shimon's field for a percentage of the crops (a half, a third or a quarter, as per Minhag); whereas that of 'Kablanus' is - where he does so for a fixed amount (of the crops).

(a) The Chasan, the Mekabel and both parties, respectively - pay the Sofer in the previous cases.

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - the witnesses order two independent Sh'tarei Birurin, one for each party.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav initially interprets our Mishnah 'u'Vilevad she'Yehei Makiran' to mean - that the Sofer and the Eidim must recognize the man in the case of the Get, and the woman in the case of the receipt).

(b) This is necessary - because otherwise, we are afraid that the man may give the Get to another man's wife, enabling her to claim her Kesuvah with it (it is unclear why, here, we are not afraid that she will consider herself divorced, like we explain in the next case [see also Tosfos DH 've'Leichush']), or the woman, the receipt to another divorced man, absolving him from his obligation to pay his wife her Kesuvah.

(c) The problem Rav Safra, Rav Acha bar Hunan and Rav Huna bar Chinena have with the obvious inference of this statement is - that if the Sofer does not need to know the name of the woman when he writes the Get, and the man when he writes the receipt, then why are we still not afraid that the former will give the Get to another woman and render her divorced, and that the woman will give the receipt to another divorced man.

(d) Abaye solved the problem by citing Rav, who said 'Shem ha'Ish be'Get, ve'Hu ha'Din le'Shem ha'Ishah; Shem ha'Ishah be'Shover, ve'Hu ha'Din le'Shem ha'Ish'.

(a) Even if the Sofer does know the name of the man and the woman, says Rav Acha bar Huna, we would be afraid that there is another couple in town with the same names, were it not for a ruling of Rav - who forbids two Yosef ben Shimon living in the same town to divorce their wives, not in the presence of each other (when the Megaresh will be forced to give the Get to *his* wife, and the woman, the receipt to *her* husband) and not to the other's spouse.

(b) Rav Huna (or Rav Acha) bar Chinena Amar Rav dismisses the suspicion that someone may arrive in town and call himself Yosef ben Simon in order to divorce the real Yosef ben Shimon's wife - by citing a Chazakah that a person would not dare practice such a deception for more than thirty days, in case the truth becomes known.

(c) In a case where the Megaresh had not yet lived in the town for thirty days, according to Abaye - we test him by calling him by that name, and seeing if he reacts to it.

(d) Rav Z'vid disagree with Abaye. According to him - the impostor will be sure to practice his new role and live up to it. Consequently, there is no way he can be believed until thirty days have passed.

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba had signed on a receipt for a Kesuvah. When a woman came before him to claim her Kesuvah - he claimed that it was on her receipt that he had signed, in which her current claim was invalid.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba initially corroborated her claim, that it must have been another woman's receipt on which he signed, because she did not possess the same voice as the woman on whose receipt he had signed.

(c) He changed his mind however - when his co-signatories pointed out that her change of voice was caused by her having aged.

(d) Abaye accepted the revised version of Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba's testimony, in spite of the principle 'Keyvan she'Higid Shuv Eino Chozer u'Magid' - because it is not the way of a Talmid-Chacham to be acquainted with a woman's voice, and that his initial error was therefore understandable and acceptable.

(a) In a similar incident, when a woman claimed that she was not the woman on whose receipt he had signed - Rebbi Yirmiyah replied that she was.

(b) Following his own statement in the previous incident, Abaye nevertheless accepted Rebbi Yirmiyah's testimony, and did not take into account the fact that it is not the way of a Talmid-Chacham to be acquainted with a woman's voice - because that explains why he might err, but as long as he insists that he recognizes it, we believe him.

(c) Abaye advised Talmidei-Chachamim who go to betroth a woman, to go in the accompany of an Am ha'Aretz - (who will recognize the Kalah to be when they come to get married). Otherwise, they might change the Kalah (in the way that Lavan did), and not recognizing her, the Chasan will end up marrying a woman he had not betrothed.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,