Bava Metzia 13

בשטרי הקנאה דהא שעביד נפשיה

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.

אי הכי מתניתין דקתני אם יש בהן אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר ואוקימנא כשחייב מודה ומשום שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי ואתי למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין אמאי לא יחזיר

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?

נחזי אי בשטר הקנאה הא שעביד ליה נפשיה אי בשטר דלא הקנאה ליכא למיחש דהא אמרת כי ליכא מלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן

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.

אמר לך רב אסי אף על גב דשטרי דלאו הקנאה כי ליכא מלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן מתניתין כיון דנפל אתרע ליה וחיישינן דלמא אקרי וכתוב

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.

אביי אמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו ואפילו שטרי דלאו הקנאה

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.

משום דקשיא ליה כיון דאמרת בשטרי דלאו הקנאה כי ליתיה למלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן ליכא למיחש דאקרי וכתוב

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.

אלא הא דתנן מצא גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים דייתיקי מתנה ושוברים הרי זה לא יחזיר שמא כתובים היו ונמלך עליהם שלא ליתנם וכי נמלך עליהם מאי הוי והא אמרת עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו

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?

הני מילי היכא דקא מטו לידיה אבל היכא דלא מטו לידיה לא אמרינן

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.

אלא מתניתין דקתני מצא שטרי חוב אם יש בהם אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר ואוקימנא כשחייב מודה ומשום שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי

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.

בשלמא לרב אסי דאמר בשטרי אקנייתא מוקי לה בשטרי דלאו אקנייתא וכדאמרינן אלא לאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו מאי איכא למימר

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?

אמר לך אביי מתניתין היינו טעמא דחייש לפרעון ולקנוניא

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.

ולשמואל דאמר לא חיישינן לפרעון ולקנוניא מאי איכא למימר הניחא אי סבר לה כרב אסי דאמר בשטרי הקנאה מוקי מתניתין בשטרי דלאו הקנאה אלא אי סבר כאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו מאי איכא למימר

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?

שמואל מוקי למתניתין כשאין חייב מודה

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.

אי הכי כי אין בהן אחריות נכסים אמאי יחזיר נהי דלא גבי מן משעבדי מבני חרי מגבי גבי

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.

שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אומר היה רבי מאיר שטר חוב שאין בו אחריות נכסים אין גובה לא ממשעבדי ולא מבני חרי

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.

וכי מאחר שאינו גובה אמאי יחזיר אמר רבי נתן בר אושעיא לצור על פי צלוחיתו של מלוה

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.

ונהדריה להו ללוה לצור על פי צלוחיתו של לוה לוה הוא

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

דאמר לא היו דברים מעולם

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.

אמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת בשאין חייב מודה דרבי מאיר סבר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים אינו גובה לא ממשעבדי ולא מבני חרי ורבנן סברי ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי מבני חרי מגבא גבי אבל כשחייב מודה דברי הכל יחזיר ולא חיישינן לפרעון ולקנוניא

§ 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.

ורבי יוחנן אמר מחלוקת כשחייב מודה דרבי מאיר סבר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי אבל מבני חרי מגבא גבי ורבנן סברי ממשעבדי נמי גבי אבל כשאין חייב מודה דברי הכל לא יחזיר דחיישינן לפרעון

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.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ותיובתא דרבי אלעזר בחדא ותיובתא דשמואל בתרתי

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.

מצא שטרי חוב ויש בהם אחריות נכסים אף על פי ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אין בהן אחריות נכסים בזמן שהלוה מודה יחזיר אין הלוה מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה דברי רבי מאיר

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.

שהיה רבי מאיר אומר שטרי שיש בהם אחריות נכסים גובה מנכסים משועבדים ושאין בהם אחריות נכסים גובה מנכסים בני חורין וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה גובה מנכסים משועבדים

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.

תיובתא דרבי אלעזר בחדא דאמר לרבי מאיר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים אינו גובה מנכסים משועבדים ולא מנכסים בני חורין וקאמר בין לרבי מאיר בין לרבנן לא חיישינן לקנוניא

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.

וברייתא קתני שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי הא מבני חורין מגבא גבי וקתני בין לרבי מאיר בין לרבנן חיישינן לקנוניא דקתני אף על פי ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אלמא חיישינן לקנוניא

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.

והא הני תרתי הוא

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?