רְאָיָה בְּמַאי רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר The Gemara 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.
רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי נָתָן The Gemara explains: Rav Huna says that the proof is presented by bringing witnesses. He maintains that Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Ya’akov and Rabbi Natan in the baraita (153b).
(סִימָן מַנִּיחַ) רַבִּי מֵאִיר כְּרַבִּי נָתָן וְרַבָּנַן כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב The Gemara 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 Rabbi Meir, who says that the giver must bring proof that he was on his deathbed, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 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 Rabbi Ya’akov.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּמוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מוֹדֶה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ צָרִיךְ לְקַיְּימוֹ Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna say that the proof is presented by the ratification of the deed. The Gemara explains: Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna maintain that Rabbi 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 Rabbi 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.
וְהָא אִיפְּלִיגוּ בַהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא דְּתַנְיָא אֵין נֶאֱמָנִין לְפוֹסְלוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים נֶאֱמָנִין The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree with regard to this matter once? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to witnesses who ratified their signatures but claimed that at the time they signed the document they were not fit to bear witness, their testimony is not deemed credible to invalidate the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Their testimony is deemed credible.
צְרִיכָא דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר הָהִיא בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם דְּאַלִּימֵי עֵדִים וּמַרְעִי שְׁטָרָא אֲבָל הָכָא הוּא דְּלָאו כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ אֵימָא לָא The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state both cases, because if only that case with regard to witnesses who disqualified their testimony was stated, one might think that the Sages say that their testimony is accepted only in that case, due to the fact that the testimony of witnesses is powerful and they can impair the validity of the document, but here, with regard to him, the giver, who admitted that he wrote the deed but it is not in his power to impair the validity of the deed, I would say that his claim is not accepted.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲבָל בְּהָךְ אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן צְרִיכָא And if only this case, with regard to a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, was stated, one might think that Rabbi Meir says that the giver cannot invalidate the deed only with regard to this case, but with regard to that case, where the witnesses ratified their signatures, I would say that Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis that witnesses can invalidate the deed. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.
וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי מַאי טַעְמָא אִי נֵימָא מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ כַּד הֲוָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלוֹהִי בְּשׁוּקָא וּבְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע הָוֵי אַדְּרַבָּה מִדְּכוּלְּהוּ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ כַּד קְצִיר וּרְמֵי בְּעַרְסֵיהּ וְהָא לָא כְּתִיב בָּהּ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּרִיא הָוֵי And Rabba also says: With regard to the proof that the recipients must present, it is presented by bringing witnesses who testify that the giver was healthy. Abaye said to him: What is the reason for this? If we say that due to the fact that in all deeds of gift the following formulation is written: When he was walking on his feet in the marketplace, which indicates that the gift was the gift of a healthy person, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was on his deathbed, that is not correct. On the contrary, one could say that due to the fact that in all deeds concerning the gifts of a person on his deathbed the following is written: When he was sick and lying in his bed, and in this deed this was not written, therefore one may conclude from the deed that the giver was healthy.
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ Rabba replied: Since one can say this and one can say that, nothing can be concluded from the formulation of the deed. Therefore, due to the uncertainty, establish the property in the possession of its last known owner.
וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּעֵדִים וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר רְאָיָה בְּקִיּוּם הַשְּׁטָר And this dispute with regard to the statement of the Rabbis is also the subject of a dispute between other amora’im, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proof is presented by bringing witnesses, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The proof is presented by the ratification of the deed.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק בְּאֶחָד שֶׁמָּכַר בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו וּמֵת וּבָאוּ בְּנֵי מִשְׁפָּחָה וְעִרְעֲרוּ לוֹמַר קָטָן הָיָה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָה וּבָאוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַהוּ לְבוֹדְקוֹ אָמַר לָהֶם אִי אַתֶּם רַשָּׁאִים לְנַוְּולוֹ וְעוֹד סִימָנִין עֲשׂוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: There was an incident in Bnei Brak involving one who sold some of his father’s property that he had inherited, and he died, and the members of his family came and contested the sale, saying: He was a minor at the time of his death, and therefore the sale was not valid. And they came and asked Rabbi Akiva: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to exhume the corpse in order to examine it and ascertain whether or not the heir was a minor at the time of his death? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is not permitted for you to disgrace him for the sake of a monetary claim. And furthermore, signs indicating puberty are likely to change after death, and therefore nothing can be proved by exhuming the body.