If someone finds a promissory note in the street and it is unclear if it was paid back or not, can it be returned to the creditor? According to Rabbi Meir, it depends on whether or not the document specified that there was property lein on the loan – if there was, the document is not returned, if there was not, it is. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that in both cases, the document is not returned. There are two suggestions to explain the case of the Mishna – is it a case where the debtor agrees that the loan was not yet repaid or does the debtor claim it was repaid? First, the Gemara suggests the former and explains the position of Rabbi Meir that there may be a problem with the date of the loan written in the contract. Therefore there is a concern that land will be collected improperly from a date that may have preceded the loan. However, a contradiction is brought from a Mishna in Bava Batra where no such concern exists. Rav Asi and Abaye resolve the contradiction in different ways. Difficulties against each position are raised and resolved. In the resolution of Abaye’s opinion, they assume that Abaye holds that Rabbi Meir is concerned that if there is a property lien, the creditor and debtor may conspire together to lie in order to repossess and share land that the debtor sold. As Shmuel is not concerned about a conspiracy, he must either hold like Rav Asi or perhaps he understands the case in the Mishna differently – that the debtor claims the loan was repaid. If so, the basis for Rabbi Meir’s distinction is that he holds if a document does not include a property lien, it cannot be collected at all. Therefore, if there is no property lien, it can be returned to the creditor without concern of it being collected. Still, it is returned so the creditor can use the paper for other uses, i.e. to cover a jug. If it has a property lien, we trust the debtor that the loan was already paid back and it is not returned to the creditor. There is a debate among Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar about whether Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree in a case where the debtor admits there is still a loan or one where the debtor denies it. They each explain according to their position the basis of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. The Gemara introduces a braita and explains that it supports Rabbi Yochanan’s position and raises one difficulty with Rabbi Eleazar’s position and two with Shmuel. However, a difficulty is raised as the braita disagrees on two issues with Rabbi Elazar!
Bava Metzia 13
Share this shiur:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Metzia 13
בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה, דְּהָא שַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
This mishna is referring not to one who finds an ordinary promissory note but to one who finds deeds of transfer. This refers to a promissory note that establishes a lien on the debtor’s property from the date the note is written, regardless of when he borrows the money. Because the debtor obligated himself from that date, the creditor has the legal right to repossess his land from any subsequent purchasers.
אִי הָכִי, מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים לֹא יַחֲזִיר״, וְאוֹקֵימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, אַמַּאי לֹא יַחֲזִיר?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, the following difficulty arises: How will one account for the ruling of the mishna here, which teaches that if the promissory notes include a property guarantee, the finder should not return them to the creditor; and we established that the reference is to a case when the debtor admits that he still owes the debt and that the promissory note should not be returned due to suspicion that perhaps the debtor wrote it with the intention to borrow the money in Nisan but did not actually borrow it until Tishrei, and therefore, if the promissory note is returned to the creditor he will come to repossess the land from the purchasers unlawfully. If Rav Asi’s explanation is correct, why shouldn’t the finder return the document?
נֶחְזֵי אִי בִּשְׁטַר הַקְנָאָה – הָא שַׁעְבֵּיד לֵיהּ נַפְשֵׁיהּ! אִי בִּשְׁטָר דְּלָא הַקְנָאָה – לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ, דְּהָא אָמְרַתְּ כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: Let us see what the possibilities are. If the reference is to a deed of transfer, didn’t the debtor obligate himself that his property can be collected for payment of the loan from the date that the deed of transfer was written? Conversely, if the reference is to a promissory note that is not a deed of transfer, there is no room for concern, as you said that in such a case, when the lender is not present together with the borrower, we do not write such a document.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה, כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, מַתְנִיתִין כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַל אִתְּרַע לֵיהּ, וְחָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא אִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you: Although we do not write promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer when the lender is not present together with the borrower, with regard to the case in the mishna it can be explained that since the promissory note was dropped, its credibility was compromised, and consequently we are concerned that perhaps it happened to have been written in the absence of the lender, deviating from the standard procedure.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה.
Abaye stated an alternative explanation of the mishna that allows one to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender: The document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lender’s lien on the borrower’s land on the lender’s behalf, despite the fact that the loan did not occur yet. And this applies even with regard to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer.
מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה כִּי לֵיתֵיהּ לְמַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ דְּאִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.
Abaye offered this explanation because Rav Asi’s explanation was difficult for him; since you said with regard to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer that we do not write them when the lender is not present together with the borrower, there is no reason for concern that perhaps in the case of a found promissory note it happened to be written in the lender’s absence.
אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבָרִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְזִיר, שֶׁמָּא כְּתוּבִים הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִיתְּנָם. וְכִי נִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ?
The Gemara asks: But how can Abaye’s opinion be reconciled with that which we learned in a mishna (18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills [deyaitiki], or deeds of gift, or receipts, he may not return them to the people who are presumed to have lost them. The reason is that perhaps they were only written and not delivered, because the one who wrote them subsequently reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them. The Gemara asks: If he reconsidered and decided not to deliver them, what of it? Didn’t you say that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on behalf of the recipient? If so, why shouldn’t it be returned to him?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: This statement, that a creditor acquires the lien on the debtor’s land immediately when the witnesses sign the document, applies only in a case where the document came into the creditor’s possession; but in a case where the document did not come into his possession, as it was never given to him, we do not say that.
אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר. וְאוֹקִימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי.
The Gemara asks: Rather, how can the mishna be reconciled with Abaye’s opinion? As it teaches: With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee, he may not return them to the creditor. And we established that the mishna is referring to a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits to the debts, and nevertheless the finder may not return the note due to the suspicion that perhaps he wrote the promissory note with the intention to borrow the money in Nisan but he did not actually borrow it until Tishrei.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי אַקְנְיָיתָא – מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו אַקְנְיָיתָא, וְכִדְאָמְרִינַן. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Rav Asi, who says that the halakha that a promissory note may be written for a borrower in the absence of the lender applies only with regard to deeds of transfer, the mishna can be established as referring to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer, and it is as we stated above. But according to Abaye, who says that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the lender’s behalf, what is there to say? Why shouldn’t one return the promissory notes even if they include a property guarantee for the loan?
אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי, מַתְנִיתִין הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּחָיְישִׁ[ינַן] לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.
The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you that this is the reason for the ruling in the mishna: It is that the tanna suspects that there was repayment and collusion. Although the debtor admits his debt, he is suspected to be lying, as after he repaid the debt he might have colluded with the creditor to repossess land that he sold during the period of the loan, and the debtor and creditor would split the money between them.
וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה – מוֹקֵי מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה. אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר כְּאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, who says that we do not suspect repayment and collusion, what is there to say? How can the mishna be explained? This works out well if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, who says that only in the case of deeds of transfer is it permitted to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender. Accordingly, Shmuel can establish the mishna as referring to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer. But if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the creditor’s behalf, what is there to say?
שְׁמוּאֵל מוֹקֵי לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel can establish the mishna as referring to a case when the purported liable party does not admit to the debt, and therefore the finder may not return the promissory notes to the creditor.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? נְהִי דְּלָא גָּבֵי מִן מְשַׁעְבְּדֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי מִגְבֵּי גָּבֵי!
The Gemara asks: If so, in a case when the promissory notes do not include a property guarantee, why must the finder return them to the purported creditor? Granted, the creditor cannot collect the debt from liened property that had been sold, but he can collect it from the debtor’s unsold property, even though the debtor claims to be exempt.
שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵין גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel says that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, the creditor collects neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. Therefore, there is no harm in the finder returning the promissory note to the creditor.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל מַלְוֶה.
The Gemara asks: But since the creditor cannot collect the debt, why should the finder return the promissory note? For what purpose can the creditor use it? Rabbi Natan bar Oshaya says: The creditor can use it to cover the opening of his flask. Its only value is as a piece of paper.
וְנַהְדְּרֵיהּ (לְהוּ) לְלֹוֶה לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל לֹוֶה! לֹוֶה הוּא
The Gemara asks: If the document has only the value of the paper, let the finder return it to the debtor, to cover the opening of the debtor’s flask. The Gemara answers: The debtor is
דְּאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.
the one who says that these matters, the loan, never happened and that the promissory note is forged. Therefore, he has no claim to the paper on which the promissory note is written.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַחְזִיר, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in a case when the purported liable party does not admit to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using this promissory note but that one does collect a debt from unsold property. But in a case when the liable party admits to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder must return the promissory note, and we do not suspect the creditor and the debtor of engaging in repayment and collusion [veliknuneya] to the detriment of one who purchased land from the debtor.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, אֲבָל מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי נָמֵי גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא יַחְזִיר, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is in a case when the liable party admits to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, but one does collect a debt from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that one collects a debt from liened property too. But in a case when the liable party does not admit to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder may not return the promissory note, as we suspect that perhaps there was repayment.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּתַרְתֵּי.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and from it there is also a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel.
מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה, אֵין הַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The baraita teaches: In a case where one found promissory notes and they include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. If they do not include a property guarantee, then in a case when the debtor admits to the debt, one should return the promissory note to the creditor. But if the debtor does not admit to the debt, one should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁטָרי שֶׁיֵּשׁ (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. וְשֶׁאֵין (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.
The baraita continues: As Rabbi Meir would say: With promissory notes that include a property guarantee, one can collect the debt from liened property; but with those that do not include a property guarantee, one collects the debt only from unsold property. And the Rabbis say: With both this type and that type of promissory note, one can collect the debt from liened property.
תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, דְּאָמַר: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.
This is a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that according to Rabbi Meir, with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And Rabbi Elazar also says that according to both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we do not suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor.
וּבָרָיְיתָא קָתָנֵי: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, הָא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְקָתָנֵי: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן, חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא. דְּקָתָנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אַלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.
And the baraita teaches that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee the creditor cannot collect a debt from liened property, but he can collect it from unsold property. And the baraita also teaches that according to the opinions of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor, as it is taught that if one found promissory notes that include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. Apparently, we suspect collusion. This refutes Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that there is no suspicion of collusion.
וְהָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי הוּא?
The Gemara asks: But aren’t these two elements of Rabbi Elazar’s statement that are refuted by the baraita? Why was it stated above that only one element is refuted?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Bava Metzia 13
בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה, דְּהָא שַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
This mishna is referring not to one who finds an ordinary promissory note but to one who finds deeds of transfer. This refers to a promissory note that establishes a lien on the debtor’s property from the date the note is written, regardless of when he borrows the money. Because the debtor obligated himself from that date, the creditor has the legal right to repossess his land from any subsequent purchasers.
אִי הָכִי, מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים לֹא יַחֲזִיר״, וְאוֹקֵימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, אַמַּאי לֹא יַחֲזִיר?
The Gemara asks: If that is so, the following difficulty arises: How will one account for the ruling of the mishna here, which teaches that if the promissory notes include a property guarantee, the finder should not return them to the creditor; and we established that the reference is to a case when the debtor admits that he still owes the debt and that the promissory note should not be returned due to suspicion that perhaps the debtor wrote it with the intention to borrow the money in Nisan but did not actually borrow it until Tishrei, and therefore, if the promissory note is returned to the creditor he will come to repossess the land from the purchasers unlawfully. If Rav Asi’s explanation is correct, why shouldn’t the finder return the document?
נֶחְזֵי אִי בִּשְׁטַר הַקְנָאָה – הָא שַׁעְבֵּיד לֵיהּ נַפְשֵׁיהּ! אִי בִּשְׁטָר דְּלָא הַקְנָאָה – לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ, דְּהָא אָמְרַתְּ כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן.
The Gemara elaborates: Let us see what the possibilities are. If the reference is to a deed of transfer, didn’t the debtor obligate himself that his property can be collected for payment of the loan from the date that the deed of transfer was written? Conversely, if the reference is to a promissory note that is not a deed of transfer, there is no room for concern, as you said that in such a case, when the lender is not present together with the borrower, we do not write such a document.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה, כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, מַתְנִיתִין כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַל אִתְּרַע לֵיהּ, וְחָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא אִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you: Although we do not write promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer when the lender is not present together with the borrower, with regard to the case in the mishna it can be explained that since the promissory note was dropped, its credibility was compromised, and consequently we are concerned that perhaps it happened to have been written in the absence of the lender, deviating from the standard procedure.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה.
Abaye stated an alternative explanation of the mishna that allows one to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender: The document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lender’s lien on the borrower’s land on the lender’s behalf, despite the fact that the loan did not occur yet. And this applies even with regard to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer.
מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה כִּי לֵיתֵיהּ לְמַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ דְּאִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.
Abaye offered this explanation because Rav Asi’s explanation was difficult for him; since you said with regard to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer that we do not write them when the lender is not present together with the borrower, there is no reason for concern that perhaps in the case of a found promissory note it happened to be written in the lender’s absence.
אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבָרִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְזִיר, שֶׁמָּא כְּתוּבִים הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִיתְּנָם. וְכִי נִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ?
The Gemara asks: But how can Abaye’s opinion be reconciled with that which we learned in a mishna (18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills [deyaitiki], or deeds of gift, or receipts, he may not return them to the people who are presumed to have lost them. The reason is that perhaps they were only written and not delivered, because the one who wrote them subsequently reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them. The Gemara asks: If he reconsidered and decided not to deliver them, what of it? Didn’t you say that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on behalf of the recipient? If so, why shouldn’t it be returned to him?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: This statement, that a creditor acquires the lien on the debtor’s land immediately when the witnesses sign the document, applies only in a case where the document came into the creditor’s possession; but in a case where the document did not come into his possession, as it was never given to him, we do not say that.
אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר. וְאוֹקִימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי.
The Gemara asks: Rather, how can the mishna be reconciled with Abaye’s opinion? As it teaches: With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee, he may not return them to the creditor. And we established that the mishna is referring to a case when the liable party, i.e., the debtor, admits to the debts, and nevertheless the finder may not return the note due to the suspicion that perhaps he wrote the promissory note with the intention to borrow the money in Nisan but he did not actually borrow it until Tishrei.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי אַקְנְיָיתָא – מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו אַקְנְיָיתָא, וְכִדְאָמְרִינַן. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara elaborates: Granted, according to Rav Asi, who says that the halakha that a promissory note may be written for a borrower in the absence of the lender applies only with regard to deeds of transfer, the mishna can be established as referring to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer, and it is as we stated above. But according to Abaye, who says that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the lender’s behalf, what is there to say? Why shouldn’t one return the promissory notes even if they include a property guarantee for the loan?
אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי, מַתְנִיתִין הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּחָיְישִׁ[ינַן] לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.
The Gemara answers that Abaye could have said to you that this is the reason for the ruling in the mishna: It is that the tanna suspects that there was repayment and collusion. Although the debtor admits his debt, he is suspected to be lying, as after he repaid the debt he might have colluded with the creditor to repossess land that he sold during the period of the loan, and the debtor and creditor would split the money between them.
וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה – מוֹקֵי מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה. אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר כְּאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: But according to Shmuel, who says that we do not suspect repayment and collusion, what is there to say? How can the mishna be explained? This works out well if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi, who says that only in the case of deeds of transfer is it permitted to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender. Accordingly, Shmuel can establish the mishna as referring to promissory notes that are not deeds of transfer. But if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that a document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the creditor’s behalf, what is there to say?
שְׁמוּאֵל מוֹקֵי לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel can establish the mishna as referring to a case when the purported liable party does not admit to the debt, and therefore the finder may not return the promissory notes to the creditor.
אִי הָכִי, כִּי אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? נְהִי דְּלָא גָּבֵי מִן מְשַׁעְבְּדֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי מִגְבֵּי גָּבֵי!
The Gemara asks: If so, in a case when the promissory notes do not include a property guarantee, why must the finder return them to the purported creditor? Granted, the creditor cannot collect the debt from liened property that had been sold, but he can collect it from the debtor’s unsold property, even though the debtor claims to be exempt.
שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵין גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel says that Rabbi Meir would say: In the case of a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, the creditor collects neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. Therefore, there is no harm in the finder returning the promissory note to the creditor.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל מַלְוֶה.
The Gemara asks: But since the creditor cannot collect the debt, why should the finder return the promissory note? For what purpose can the creditor use it? Rabbi Natan bar Oshaya says: The creditor can use it to cover the opening of his flask. Its only value is as a piece of paper.
וְנַהְדְּרֵיהּ (לְהוּ) לְלֹוֶה לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל לֹוֶה! לֹוֶה הוּא
The Gemara asks: If the document has only the value of the paper, let the finder return it to the debtor, to cover the opening of the debtor’s flask. The Gemara answers: The debtor is
דְּאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.
the one who says that these matters, the loan, never happened and that the promissory note is forged. Therefore, he has no claim to the paper on which the promissory note is written.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַחְזִיר, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in a case when the purported liable party does not admit to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using this promissory note but that one does collect a debt from unsold property. But in a case when the liable party admits to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder must return the promissory note, and we do not suspect the creditor and the debtor of engaging in repayment and collusion [veliknuneya] to the detriment of one who purchased land from the debtor.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, אֲבָל מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי נָמֵי גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא יַחְזִיר, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is in a case when the liable party admits to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, but one does collect a debt from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that one collects a debt from liened property too. But in a case when the liable party does not admit to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder may not return the promissory note, as we suspect that perhaps there was repayment.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּתַרְתֵּי.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and from it there is also a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel.
מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה, אֵין הַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The baraita teaches: In a case where one found promissory notes and they include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. If they do not include a property guarantee, then in a case when the debtor admits to the debt, one should return the promissory note to the creditor. But if the debtor does not admit to the debt, one should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁטָרי שֶׁיֵּשׁ (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. וְשֶׁאֵין (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.
The baraita continues: As Rabbi Meir would say: With promissory notes that include a property guarantee, one can collect the debt from liened property; but with those that do not include a property guarantee, one collects the debt only from unsold property. And the Rabbis say: With both this type and that type of promissory note, one can collect the debt from liened property.
תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, דְּאָמַר: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.
This is a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that according to Rabbi Meir, with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And Rabbi Elazar also says that according to both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we do not suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor.
וּבָרָיְיתָא קָתָנֵי: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, הָא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְקָתָנֵי: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן, חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא. דְּקָתָנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אַלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.
And the baraita teaches that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee the creditor cannot collect a debt from liened property, but he can collect it from unsold property. And the baraita also teaches that according to the opinions of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor, as it is taught that if one found promissory notes that include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. Apparently, we suspect collusion. This refutes Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that there is no suspicion of collusion.
וְהָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי הוּא?
The Gemara asks: But aren’t these two elements of Rabbi Elazar’s statement that are refuted by the baraita? Why was it stated above that only one element is refuted?
