Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 9, 2016 | 讝壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 13

If someone finds a document of a loan in the street and it is unclear if it was paid back or not, can he return it to the lender? 聽According to Rabbi Meir, it depends on whether or not there was property liened to the loan written in the document. 聽The gemara debates whether or not the mishna was referring to a case where the borrower admitted there was a loan or not. 聽The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that no matter what we don’t return the document. 聽There is a debate among Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar about in what case Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree and what their disagreement is about.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 13


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘砖讟专讬 讛拽谞讗讛 讚讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 谞驻砖讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

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鈥檚 explanation is correct, why shouldn鈥檛 the finder return the document?

谞讞讝讬 讗讬 讘砖讟专 讛拽谞讗讛 讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬 讘砖讟专 讚诇讗 讛拽谞讗讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讚讛讗 讗诪专转 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: Let us see what the possibilities are. If the reference is to a deed of transfer, didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻诇 讗转专注 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗拽专讬 讜讻转讜讘

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lender鈥檚 lien on the borrower鈥檚 land on the lender鈥檚 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讚讗拽专讬 讜讻转讜讘

Abaye offered this explanation because Rav Asi鈥檚 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鈥檚 absence.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜砖讜讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诪讗 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 砖诇讗 诇讬转谞诐 讜讻讬 谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: But how can Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檛 you say that a document鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on behalf of the recipient? If so, why shouldn鈥檛 it be returned to him?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: This statement, that a creditor acquires the lien on the debtor鈥檚 land immediately when the witnesses sign the document, applies only in a case where the document came into the creditor鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬

The Gemara asks: Rather, how can the mishna be reconciled with Abaye鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讟专讬 讗拽谞讬讬转讗 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讗拽谞讬讬转讗 讜讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the lender鈥檚 behalf, what is there to say? Why shouldn鈥檛 one return the promissory notes even if they include a property guarantee for the loan?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讟专讬 讛拽谞讗讛 诪讜拽讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the creditor鈥檚 behalf, what is there to say?

砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪谉 诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讬 讙讘讬

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鈥檚 unsold property, even though the debtor claims to be exempt.

砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬

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.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇爪讜专 注诇 驻讬 爪诇讜讞讬转讜 砖诇 诪诇讜讛

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.

讜谞讛讚专讬讛 诇讛讜 诇诇讜讛 诇爪讜专 注诇 驻讬 爪诇讜讞讬转讜 砖诇 诇讜讛 诇讜讛 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 flask. The Gemara answers: The debtor is

讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬讞讝讬专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞讚讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转专转讬

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讜讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜讛 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 讛诇讜讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讟专讬 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

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.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 讛讗 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讜拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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鈥檚 opinion that there is no suspicion of collusion.

讜讛讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 these two elements of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement that are refuted by the baraita? Why was it stated above that only one element is refuted?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 13

讘砖讟专讬 讛拽谞讗讛 讚讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 谞驻砖讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

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鈥檚 explanation is correct, why shouldn鈥檛 the finder return the document?

谞讞讝讬 讗讬 讘砖讟专 讛拽谞讗讛 讛讗 砖注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讬 讘砖讟专 讚诇讗 讛拽谞讗讛 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讚讛讗 讗诪专转 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara elaborates: Let us see what the possibilities are. If the reference is to a deed of transfer, didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗住讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讻讬 诇讬讻讗 诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻诇 讗转专注 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讗拽专讬 讜讻转讜讘

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.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lender鈥檚 lien on the borrower鈥檚 land on the lender鈥檚 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.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专转 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讻讬 诇讬转讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬讞砖 讚讗拽专讬 讜讻转讜讘

Abaye offered this explanation because Rav Asi鈥檚 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鈥檚 absence.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜砖讜讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖诪讗 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 砖诇讗 诇讬转谞诐 讜讻讬 谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: But how can Abaye鈥檚 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鈥檛 you say that a document鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on behalf of the recipient? If so, why shouldn鈥檛 it be returned to him?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讜 诇讬讚讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: This statement, that a creditor acquires the lien on the debtor鈥檚 land immediately when the witnesses sign the document, applies only in a case where the document came into the creditor鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇诇讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬

The Gemara asks: Rather, how can the mishna be reconciled with Abaye鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讟专讬 讗拽谞讬讬转讗 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讗拽谞讬讬转讗 讜讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the lender鈥檚 behalf, what is there to say? Why shouldn鈥檛 one return the promissory notes even if they include a property guarantee for the loan?

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讬砖 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛谞讬讞讗 讗讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讟专讬 讛拽谞讗讛 诪讜拽讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘砖讟专讬 讚诇讗讜 讛拽谞讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 住讘专 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire the lien on the creditor鈥檚 behalf, what is there to say?

砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 谞讛讬 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪谉 诪砖注讘讚讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讬 讙讘讬

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鈥檚 unsold property, even though the debtor claims to be exempt.

砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬

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.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘专 讗讜砖注讬讗 诇爪讜专 注诇 驻讬 爪诇讜讞讬转讜 砖诇 诪诇讜讛

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.

讜谞讛讚专讬讛 诇讛讜 诇诇讜讛 诇爪讜专 注诇 驻讬 爪诇讜讞讬转讜 砖诇 诇讜讛 诇讜讛 讛讜讗

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鈥檚 flask. The Gemara answers: The debtor is

讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛讬讜 讚讘专讬诐 诪注讜诇诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讜诇讗 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬讞讝讬专 讜诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉 讜诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讻砖讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 诪讘谞讬 讞专讬 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 讗讘诇 讻砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诪讜讚讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讚讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇驻专注讜谉

And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞讚讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘转专转讬

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讜讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜讛 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 讛诇讜讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

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.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 砖讟专讬 砖讬砖 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐

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.

转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪谞讻住讬诐 诪砖讜注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 诪谞讻住讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讜拽讗诪专 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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.

讜讘专讬讬转讗 拽转谞讬 砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪诪砖注讘讚讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬 讛讗 诪讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 诪讙讘讗 讙讘讬 讜拽转谞讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讗诇诪讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇拽谞讜谞讬讗

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鈥檚 opinion that there is no suspicion of collusion.

讜讛讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 these two elements of Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 statement that are refuted by the baraita? Why was it stated above that only one element is refuted?

Scroll To Top