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 month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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 month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
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.
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
New York, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, 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 Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
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?
