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

Daf Yomi

March 18, 2024 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 19

Today’s daf is sponsored by Allie Alperovich in loving memory of her grandmother, Frima Iosilevich who passed away this week a month shy of her 98th birthday.

Rav Ashi was uncertain whether the law that a person can retrieve lost items by giving an identifying mark (siman) is a Torah law or not. As a result, when he reconciled the contradiction between the Tosefta that permitted one to return a lost get to the wife when the husband agreed and Mishna that did not, he explained that it could be returned if the husband gave a siman muvhak, a very clear one, and not more generic siman. Raba bar bar Hanna lost a get that he was supposed to deliver. It was found and he retrieved it by giving a siman (a basic one) and also by tviut aina, visual recognition, which is specifically permitted to Torah scholars, but he was unsure if the rabbis permitted it to be returned to him on account of the siman or the visual recognition. The Tosefta Bava Metzia 1:5, quoted previously, ruled that a get for divorce or emancipation document for a slave can be returned to the wife/slave if the husband/owner agrees. Both documents have financial ramifications, as the produce of the woman’s property becomes her own in the event of divorce, and items the slave purchases belong to his owner while he is a slave but are his own if he is a free man. If so, why are we not concerned that perhaps they were not divorced/freed, and by returning the document to the woman or slave, we may be allowing them to collect property that is not rightfully theirs? If one gives a gift using the language “now and after death,” the body of the item is given as a gift, but the produce is still owned by the original owner until his/her death. There is another contradiction between our Mishna and a braita as our Mishna states that wills can be returned if the owner admits he/she gave it and we are not concerned that the owner wrote it and then changed his/her mind and never gave it to the recipient, and a braita states that even if both agree that it was given, we do not return the document to either one. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal resolves the contradiction by differentiating between the cases – the Mishna refers to a promise of one on one’s deathbed (which one can rescind)聽 and the braita refers to a gift of a healthy person (which can’t be rescinded). The Gemara explains in detail the relevance of that distinction. Rav Zevid resolves the contradiction differently. He says that both the Mishna and braita refer to a gift on one’s deathbed but the Mishna is in a case where the one who wants to return the deed is the person who wrote it and the braita is when it is his son (after the original owner’s death).

讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讬 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜拽讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜讚讜拽讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗


lost a bill of divorce, which had been given to him to deliver, in the study hall. When it was found, he said: If they request a distinguishing mark, I have one for it. If it depends on visual recognition, I have methods of recognition for it. They returned the bill of divorce to him. He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it to me due to the distinguishing mark that I supplied, and they hold that distinguishing marks are used to return lost items by Torah law, or if they returned it to me due to my visual recognition, and it was specifically because I am a Torah scholar, as Torah scholars are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, but an ordinary person would not be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


讙讜驻讗 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself cited above: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, in a case when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it, the finder must return it to the wife. If the husband does not admit to this, the finder may neither return it to this one, the husband, nor to that one, the wife.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇讬转谉 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇 讘注诇 讝讘讬谉 驻讬专讬 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讙讬讟讗 讚讻转讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


In any event, the baraita states that when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it, the finder must return it to the wife. The Gemara challenges: But let us suspect that perhaps he wrote the bill of divorce intending to give it in Nisan, but did not give it to her until Tishrei, and the husband went and sold the produce of his wife鈥檚 property in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei, since the divorce had not yet taken effect. And the wife might then produce the bill of divorce, which he wrote in Nisan, and come to repossess the produce from the purchasers unlawfully.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This works out well according to the one who says that once he has decided to divorce her, the husband no longer has the rights to his wife鈥檚 produce. Since the husband had no right to sell the produce, the wife repossessed it rightfully. But according to the one who says that the husband has rights to his wife鈥檚 produce until the actual time of giving the bill of divorce, what is there to say?


讻讬 讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讱


The Gemara answers: When she comes to repossess the produce, we say to her: First bring proof as to when the bill of divorce came into your possession, and then we will allow you to repossess the sold produce.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 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 诇诇讜讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: But in what way is it different from promissory notes? As we learned in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for the loan, he may not return them to the creditor. And we interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where the liable party admits that he has not yet repaid the debt, and the reason the promissory note cannot be returned is due to the possibility that perhaps he wrote it intending to borrow money in Nisan, but ultimately did not borrow it until Tishrei, and the creditor might therefore use the promissory note to unlawfully repossess property that the debtor sold between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专 讜讻讬 讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讬讚讱


According to the Gemara鈥檚 suggestion with regard to a bill of divorce, there, in the case of a promissory note, it should also be returned, and when the creditor comes to repossess the debtor鈥檚 property that was sold in the interim, let the court say to him: First bring proof as to when the promissory note came into your possession.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讗转讬 诇讜拽讞 讜转讘注讛 讗诪专 讛讗讬 讚讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讛 专讘谞谉 诇讙讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 转注讙讬谉 讜转讬转讬讘 讛砖转讗 讚拽讗 讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 转讬讝诇 讜转讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛


The Sages say that it is not comparable. Here, with regard to a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the purchaser will come and demand that the wife prove when it was given to her, as he will say to himself: The fact that the Sages returned the bill of divorce to her was only so that she would not dwell alone as a deserted wife and not be able to remarry for lack of a bill of divorce. Now that she is coming to repossess the property her husband sold me, she should go and bring proof as to when the bill of divorce came into her possession.


讛讻讗 讙讘讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讜拽讞 讜转讘注 诪讚讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讟专 讞讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇诪讟专祝 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽诪讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讜诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 诪讟讗 砖讟专讗 诇讬讚讬讛


By contrast, here, with regard to a promissory note, the purchaser will not come and demand proof, because he will infer from the fact that the Sages returned the promissory note to him that it is obviously valid from the date written in it. After all, for what halakha did the court return it to him? It was clearly in order to repossess property with it. Therefore, he will conclude from it: The Sages clarified the matter and determined that, in fact, this promissory note came into the possession of the creditor prior to my purchase of property from the debtor.


砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讗讬谉 讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


搂 The mishna teaches: Bills of manumission of slaves that are found should not to be returned. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one found a bill of manumission in the marketplace, in a case when the master admits that he gave the bill to the slave, one should return it to the slave. If the master does not admit to it, one should neither return it to this person, the master, nor to that person, the slave.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇 注讘讚讗 讜拽谞讛 谞讻住讬谉 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讛专讘 讜讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇砖讞专讜专 讚讻转讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: In any event, the baraita states that when the master admits that he gave the bill of manumission to the slave, the one who found it should return it to the slave. But why should he return it? Let us suspect that perhaps he wrote the bill of manumission intending to give it to him in Nisan, but he did not give it to him until Tishrei, and the slave went and bought property in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei, at which time he was still a slave, in which case the property belongs to his master, and the master then went and sold that property. And if the bill of manumission is returned to the slave, he might produce the bill of manumission, which his master wrote in Nisan, in order to claim that the property was not his master鈥檚 to sell, and repossess the property from the purchasers unlawfully.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This works out well according to the one who says that it is in a slave鈥檚 interest to leave his master鈥檚 authority and attain freedom and in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that when a document serves the interests of its intended recipient, its witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf. Accordingly, a slave attains freedom at the moment his bill of manumission is signed, even if it is given to him at a later date. Therefore, the halakha in the baraita works out well. But according to the one who says that it is against a slave鈥檚 interests to leave his master鈥檚 authority and attain freedom, what is there to say?


讚讻讬 讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 砖讞专讜专 诇讬讚讱


The Gemara answers that when the slave comes to repossess the property, we say to him: Bring proof as to when the bill of manumission reached your possession and you were freed.


讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 讚讗 转讛讗 诇诪讬拽诐 讜诇讛讬讜转 砖讗诐 诪转 谞讻住讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪转谞讛 讻诇 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


搂 The mishna teaches: If one found wills [deyaytiki] or deeds of gift, he should not return them. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered a deyaytiki and is collected by the designated recipient after the death of the giver? It is a deed that states: This deed will be to stand [da tehe lemeikam] and exist as proof that if this person dies, his property is to be given to so-and-so. An ordinary deed of gift, by contrast, is any deed in which it is written: This gift is given from today and after the death of the giver.


讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘讗 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: Apparently, only if it is written in the deed: From today and after the death of the giver, the recipient acquires the gift, and otherwise, he does not acquire the gift. Is there no deed of gift that is effective even without the clause: And after my death?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 砖讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讻诇 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: What deed of gift of a healthy person is considered like the deed of gift of a person on his deathbed, in that the recipient acquires it only after the death of the giver? It is any deed in which it is written: This gift is given from today and after the giver鈥檚 death.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that these documents may not be returned to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as perhaps the one who wrote them reconsidered and decided not to deliver them. The Gemara infers: The reason that these deeds may not be returned is that the one who wrote them doesn鈥檛 say to the finder: Give them to their intended recipient. But if he says: Give them, the finder must give them.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讚讬讬转拽讗讜转 讗驻讜转讬拽讗讜转 讜诪转谞讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


And the Gemara raises a contradiction to that inference from a baraita that states that if one found wills, or deeds of designated repayment, or deeds of gift, even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗


Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: This is not difficult.


讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注


This halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a healthy person, and that halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna that teaches that if the giver says: Give it to its intended recipient, the finder must give it, applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed, who is capable of retracting his gift.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讛讗讬 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛


Therefore, the finder must give the deed to the recipient, as we say: What is there to say as a reason for not returning the deed? One might suggest that perhaps the giver initially wrote a deed of gift for this person, but then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and then he wrote a second deed of gift for another person and thereby gave his property to him. And now that his first deed was found, he wishes to retract his gift to that second person to whom he gave the property, by dishonestly validating the first deed.


讗讬 讘诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讝讻讬 讚讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讬讬转讗


This attempt to retract his latter gift will not succeed. If he gave his property to the recipient of the second deed of gift as the gift of a healthy person, then the second recipient incurs no loss by the first deed being given to its intended recipient. This is because, when the two deeds are produced in court, the recipient of the later one acquires the property, as the owner evidently retracted the first gift. Since one who gave away his property while on his deathbed can subsequently retract his gift, the second recipient acquires the property.


讗讬 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘转专讬讬转讗 讝讻讬 讚拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讬讬转讗


So too, if he gave it to the second person as the gift of a person on his deathbed, he incurs no loss. This is because the recipient of the later deed acquires the property, as the giver evidently retracted his gift to the first recipient.


讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 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 讘讘专讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗


And when the baraita teaches that even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, the one who found it should neither return it to this person nor to that person, it is referring to the case of a gift given by a healthy person, who is not able to retract his gift.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诇讛讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 诪讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讬讛讘转讗 讜谞讬讛讚专讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讻转讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讻讬 诪驻讬拽 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讝讻讛 讘讬讛 讛讜讗


Therefore, one may not return the deed, as we say that perhaps the giver initially wrote a deed of gift for this person but then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and then he wrote a second deed of gift for another person and thereby gave his property to him; and now he wishes to retract his gift to that second person to whom he gave the property, thinking: Since I cannot retract the gift legally, I will say to the court that I gave the first deed of gift to this first person, and they will return the deed of gift to him, in order that when he produces this deed of gift, which is dated earlier, he will thereby acquire the property.


讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讻转讘 讻转讘转 诪讬讛讘 诇讗 讬讛讘转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讬讛讘转讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讘转讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讘注讬转 讚转转讘讛 诇讛讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻转讘讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讬讛讘转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讝讻讬


Rather, we say to the giver: We will not give this document to this person, as perhaps you wrote it but did not give it to him, and then you gave the property to another person, and you now wish to retract your gift to him unlawfully. Therefore, if in fact you did not give this property as a gift to another person, and you wish to return it to this person, then do the following: Write another deed of gift for him now and give it to him, so that if you did previously give the property to another person, he will incur no loss, as the earlier recipient acquires the gift.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讬讬转拽讗讜转 拽讗 转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讛 讜讛讗 讘讘专讬讛


Rav Zevid objects to this distinction between the mishna and baraita, asking: But don鈥檛 this mishna and that baraita both teach halakhot with regard to wills? How can Rabbi Abba bar Memel explain that the baraita is referring to the gift of a healthy person? Rather, Rav Zevid said that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to the gift of a person on his deathbed, and nevertheless, the contradiction between them is not difficult; this mishna is referring to him, the giver himself, who authorizes the return of the will to its intended recipient, and that baraita is referring to a case where the giver died, and his son is the one who is authorizing the return of the will.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讚讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽诪讗 讜讘转专讗 讘转专讗 讝讻讬 讚讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna, which indicates that if the giver says: Give it to the recipient, the finder must give it to him, is referring to a case where the giver himself authorizes giving the will, as he is capable of retracting it. Therefore, there is no harm in giving the will to the recipient, as we say that even if in the meantime he already gave the property to another person, the latter recipient incurs no loss. This is because in a case where there are two wills, a first one and a last one, the recipient of the last one acquires the property, as the owner evidently retracted the first will.


讻讬 拽讗 转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 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 讘讘专讬讛


And when the baraita teaches that even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, the one who found it should neither return it to this person nor to that person, it is referring to a case where the one who wrote it died, and it is his son who authorizes its return to the recipient.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘 讗讘讜讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讘转专 讗讘讜讛 讻转讘 讗讬讛讜 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗讘讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜谞转讘讜 诇讬讛 讻转讘讬讛 讜谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讜讗 讝讻讬 讜谞驻诇讜讙 讘讛讚讬讛


In that case, the deed may not be returned, as we say that perhaps his father wrote the deed of gift for this person and then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and after his father died, the son wrote a deed of gift giving the property to another person and gave it to him. And now the son wishes to retract that gift, thinking: Since I cannot retract the gift legally, I will say to the court that my father gave his deed of gift to this first person, and they will return him his deed of gift, and he will then go and appropriate the property from the one who legally acquired the property, as he will be successful in acquiring it, and I will divide it with him.


讛诇讻讱 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讚讚诇诪讗 诪讻转讘 讻转讘讬讛 讗讘讜讛 诪讬讛讘 诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讘转讬讛 讗转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讬讛


Therefore, we say to the son: We will not give this deed to this person, as perhaps your father wrote it but did not give it to him, and then you gave the property to another person, and now you wish to retract your gift.


讗诇讗 讗讬 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗 讗诪专转 讚讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讱 讝讬诇 讗转 讛砖转讗 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜讻转讘转讬讛 讗转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽诪讗 讜讘转专讗 拽诪讗 讝讻讬


Rather, if you are telling the truth that your father gave him this property, then you should go now and write another deed of gift for him, so that even if your father did not give him this property, and you wrote a deed of gift giving this property to another person, he will incur no loss. This is because in a case where there are two deeds of gift, a first one and a last one, the recipient of the first one acquires the property.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讜讘专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


The Sages taught in a baraita: If one found a receipt for payment of a marriage contract, in a case when the wife admits that it was paid, he should return it to the husband. If the wife does not admit that it was paid, he should neither return it to this person, the husband, nor to that person, the wife.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬转谉 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇讛 讝讘谞转讛 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪谞讬住谉 注讚 转砖专讬


In any event, the baraita states that when the wife admits that it was paid, one should return the receipt to the husband. The Gemara asks: But let us suspect that perhaps the wife wrote the receipt intending to give it to the husband in Nisan, but ultimately she did not give it to him until Tishrei, and she went and sold her marriage contract for financial advantage in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei. In other words, she received a sum of money and in exchange agreed that if she were to be divorced or widowed and become entitled to payment of her marriage contract, the money would belong to the purchaser of the rights to her marriage contract.


讜诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜讗转讗 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


And then after the couple is divorced, and the purchaser collects payment of the marriage contract from the husband, the husband will produce the receipt that was written in Nisan and will come to repossess property from the purchasers unlawfully.


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia- 15-21 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if you find a court document on the street, you can return it to...
din & daf elana stein hain thumbnail

Din & Daf: Acting in Someone Else鈥檚 Interest without their Knowledge

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain Acting in Someone Else鈥檚 Interest...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metiza 19: What is the Norm?

The daf describes a variety of scenarios where documents are found and the different types of fraud that can be...

Bava Metzia 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 19

讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讬 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜拽讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜讚讜拽讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬砖 讚注诇诪讗 诇讗


lost a bill of divorce, which had been given to him to deliver, in the study hall. When it was found, he said: If they request a distinguishing mark, I have one for it. If it depends on visual recognition, I have methods of recognition for it. They returned the bill of divorce to him. He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it to me due to the distinguishing mark that I supplied, and they hold that distinguishing marks are used to return lost items by Torah law, or if they returned it to me due to my visual recognition, and it was specifically because I am a Torah scholar, as Torah scholars are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, but an ordinary person would not be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


讙讜驻讗 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself cited above: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, in a case when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it, the finder must return it to the wife. If the husband does not admit to this, the finder may neither return it to this one, the husband, nor to that one, the wife.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇讬转谉 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇 讘注诇 讝讘讬谉 驻讬专讬 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讙讬讟讗 讚讻转讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


In any event, the baraita states that when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it, the finder must return it to the wife. The Gemara challenges: But let us suspect that perhaps he wrote the bill of divorce intending to give it in Nisan, but did not give it to her until Tishrei, and the husband went and sold the produce of his wife鈥檚 property in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei, since the divorce had not yet taken effect. And the wife might then produce the bill of divorce, which he wrote in Nisan, and come to repossess the produce from the purchasers unlawfully.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转谉 注讬谞讬讜 诇讙专砖讛 砖讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讘注诇 驻讬专讜转 注讚 砖注转 谞转讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This works out well according to the one who says that once he has decided to divorce her, the husband no longer has the rights to his wife鈥檚 produce. Since the husband had no right to sell the produce, the wife repossessed it rightfully. But according to the one who says that the husband has rights to his wife鈥檚 produce until the actual time of giving the bill of divorce, what is there to say?


讻讬 讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讱


The Gemara answers: When she comes to repossess the produce, we say to her: First bring proof as to when the bill of divorce came into your possession, and then we will allow you to repossess the sold produce.


讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 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 诇诇讜讜转 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 诇讜讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: But in what way is it different from promissory notes? As we learned in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee for the loan, he may not return them to the creditor. And we interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where the liable party admits that he has not yet repaid the debt, and the reason the promissory note cannot be returned is due to the possibility that perhaps he wrote it intending to borrow money in Nisan, but ultimately did not borrow it until Tishrei, and the creditor might therefore use the promissory note to unlawfully repossess property that the debtor sold between Nisan and Tishrei from the purchasers.


讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讚专 讜讻讬 讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讬讚讱


According to the Gemara鈥檚 suggestion with regard to a bill of divorce, there, in the case of a promissory note, it should also be returned, and when the creditor comes to repossess the debtor鈥檚 property that was sold in the interim, let the court say to him: First bring proof as to when the promissory note came into your possession.


讗诪专讬 讛讻讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讗砖讛 讗转讬 诇讜拽讞 讜转讘注讛 讗诪专 讛讗讬 讚讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讛 专讘谞谉 诇讙讬讟讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 转注讙讬谉 讜转讬转讬讘 讛砖转讗 讚拽讗 讗转讬讗 诇诪讟专祝 转讬讝诇 讜转讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讬讚讛


The Sages say that it is not comparable. Here, with regard to a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce, the purchaser will come and demand that the wife prove when it was given to her, as he will say to himself: The fact that the Sages returned the bill of divorce to her was only so that she would not dwell alone as a deserted wife and not be able to remarry for lack of a bill of divorce. Now that she is coming to repossess the property her husband sold me, she should go and bring proof as to when the bill of divorce came into her possession.


讛讻讗 讙讘讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讜拽讞 讜转讘注 诪讚讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇砖讟专 讞讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇诪讟专祝 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽诪讜 专讘谞谉 讘诪讬诇转讗 讜诪拽诪讬 讚讬讚讬 诪讟讗 砖讟专讗 诇讬讚讬讛


By contrast, here, with regard to a promissory note, the purchaser will not come and demand proof, because he will infer from the fact that the Sages returned the promissory note to him that it is obviously valid from the date written in it. After all, for what halakha did the court return it to him? It was clearly in order to repossess property with it. Therefore, he will conclude from it: The Sages clarified the matter and determined that, in fact, this promissory note came into the possession of the creditor prior to my purchase of property from the debtor.


砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讟专 砖讞专讜专 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讗讬谉 讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


搂 The mishna teaches: Bills of manumission of slaves that are found should not to be returned. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one found a bill of manumission in the marketplace, in a case when the master admits that he gave the bill to the slave, one should return it to the slave. If the master does not admit to it, one should neither return it to this person, the master, nor to that person, the slave.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛专讘 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇注讘讚 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讻转讘 诇讬转谉 诇讜 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇 注讘讚讗 讜拽谞讛 谞讻住讬谉 诪谞讬住谉 讜注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讛专讘 讜讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 讜诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇砖讞专讜专 讚讻转讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜拽讗 讟专讬祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


The Gemara asks: In any event, the baraita states that when the master admits that he gave the bill of manumission to the slave, the one who found it should return it to the slave. But why should he return it? Let us suspect that perhaps he wrote the bill of manumission intending to give it to him in Nisan, but he did not give it to him until Tishrei, and the slave went and bought property in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei, at which time he was still a slave, in which case the property belongs to his master, and the master then went and sold that property. And if the bill of manumission is returned to the slave, he might produce the bill of manumission, which his master wrote in Nisan, in order to claim that the property was not his master鈥檚 to sell, and repossess the property from the purchasers unlawfully.


讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


This works out well according to the one who says that it is in a slave鈥檚 interest to leave his master鈥檚 authority and attain freedom and in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that when a document serves the interests of its intended recipient, its witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf. Accordingly, a slave attains freedom at the moment his bill of manumission is signed, even if it is given to him at a later date. Therefore, the halakha in the baraita works out well. But according to the one who says that it is against a slave鈥檚 interests to leave his master鈥檚 authority and attain freedom, what is there to say?


讚讻讬 讗转讬 诇诪讟专祝 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗讬诪转 诪讟讗 砖讞专讜专 诇讬讚讱


The Gemara answers that when the slave comes to repossess the property, we say to him: Bring proof as to when the bill of manumission reached your possession and you were freed.


讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 讚讗 转讛讗 诇诪讬拽诐 讜诇讛讬讜转 砖讗诐 诪转 谞讻住讬讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪转谞讛 讻诇 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


搂 The mishna teaches: If one found wills [deyaytiki] or deeds of gift, he should not return them. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered a deyaytiki and is collected by the designated recipient after the death of the giver? It is a deed that states: This deed will be to stand [da tehe lemeikam] and exist as proof that if this person dies, his property is to be given to so-and-so. An ordinary deed of gift, by contrast, is any deed in which it is written: This gift is given from today and after the death of the giver.


讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘讗 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 拽谞讬


The Gemara asks: Apparently, only if it is written in the deed: From today and after the death of the giver, the recipient acquires the gift, and otherwise, he does not acquire the gift. Is there no deed of gift that is effective even without the clause: And after my death?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 砖讛讬讗 讻诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讻诇 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛 诪讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛


Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: What deed of gift of a healthy person is considered like the deed of gift of a person on his deathbed, in that the recipient acquires it only after the death of the giver? It is any deed in which it is written: This gift is given from today and after the giver鈥檚 death.


讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that these documents may not be returned to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as perhaps the one who wrote them reconsidered and decided not to deliver them. The Gemara infers: The reason that these deeds may not be returned is that the one who wrote them doesn鈥檛 say to the finder: Give them to their intended recipient. But if he says: Give them, the finder must give them.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讚讬讬转拽讗讜转 讗驻讜转讬拽讗讜转 讜诪转谞讜转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 诪讜讚讬谉 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


And the Gemara raises a contradiction to that inference from a baraita that states that if one found wills, or deeds of designated repayment, or deeds of gift, even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗


Rabbi Abba bar Memel said: This is not difficult.


讛讗 讘讘专讬讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注


This halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a healthy person, and that halakha applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna that teaches that if the giver says: Give it to its intended recipient, the finder must give it, applies in a case of a gift given by a person on his deathbed, who is capable of retracting his gift.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讛讗讬 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛


Therefore, the finder must give the deed to the recipient, as we say: What is there to say as a reason for not returning the deed? One might suggest that perhaps the giver initially wrote a deed of gift for this person, but then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and then he wrote a second deed of gift for another person and thereby gave his property to him. And now that his first deed was found, he wishes to retract his gift to that second person to whom he gave the property, by dishonestly validating the first deed.


讗讬 讘诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚讻讬 谞驻拽讗 转专转讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讝讻讬 讚讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讬讬转讗


This attempt to retract his latter gift will not succeed. If he gave his property to the recipient of the second deed of gift as the gift of a healthy person, then the second recipient incurs no loss by the first deed being given to its intended recipient. This is because, when the two deeds are produced in court, the recipient of the later one acquires the property, as the owner evidently retracted the first gift. Since one who gave away his property while on his deathbed can subsequently retract his gift, the second recipient acquires the property.


讗讬 讘诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚讘转专讬讬转讗 讝讻讬 讚拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讬讬转讗


So too, if he gave it to the second person as the gift of a person on his deathbed, he incurs no loss. This is because the recipient of the later deed acquires the property, as the giver evidently retracted his gift to the first recipient.


讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 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 讘讘专讬讗 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗


And when the baraita teaches that even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, the one who found it should neither return it to this person nor to that person, it is referring to the case of a gift given by a healthy person, who is not able to retract his gift.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诇讛讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 讻转讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜住讘专 诪讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讬讛讘转讗 讜谞讬讛讚专讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讻转讘讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讻讬 诪驻讬拽 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讝讻讛 讘讬讛 讛讜讗


Therefore, one may not return the deed, as we say that perhaps the giver initially wrote a deed of gift for this person but then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and then he wrote a second deed of gift for another person and thereby gave his property to him; and now he wishes to retract his gift to that second person to whom he gave the property, thinking: Since I cannot retract the gift legally, I will say to the court that I gave the first deed of gift to this first person, and they will return the deed of gift to him, in order that when he produces this deed of gift, which is dated earlier, he will thereby acquire the property.


讗诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讻转讘 讻转讘转 诪讬讛讘 诇讗 讬讛讘转 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讬讛讘转讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讘转讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讘注讬转 讚转转讘讛 诇讛讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讻转讘讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讬讛讘转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽讚讬诐 讝讻讬


Rather, we say to the giver: We will not give this document to this person, as perhaps you wrote it but did not give it to him, and then you gave the property to another person, and you now wish to retract your gift to him unlawfully. Therefore, if in fact you did not give this property as a gift to another person, and you wish to return it to this person, then do the following: Write another deed of gift for him now and give it to him, so that if you did previously give the property to another person, he will incur no loss, as the earlier recipient acquires the gift.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讜讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讬讬转拽讗讜转 拽讗 转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬讛 讜讛讗 讘讘专讬讛


Rav Zevid objects to this distinction between the mishna and baraita, asking: But don鈥檛 this mishna and that baraita both teach halakhot with regard to wills? How can Rabbi Abba bar Memel explain that the baraita is referring to the gift of a healthy person? Rather, Rav Zevid said that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to the gift of a person on his deathbed, and nevertheless, the contradiction between them is not difficult; this mishna is referring to him, the giver himself, who authorizes the return of the will to its intended recipient, and that baraita is referring to a case where the giver died, and his son is the one who is authorizing the return of the will.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讚讘专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讬讛讘讛 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽诪讗 讜讘转专讗 讘转专讗 讝讻讬 讚讛讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪拽诪讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna, which indicates that if the giver says: Give it to the recipient, the finder must give it to him, is referring to a case where the giver himself authorizes giving the will, as he is capable of retracting it. Therefore, there is no harm in giving the will to the recipient, as we say that even if in the meantime he already gave the property to another person, the latter recipient incurs no loss. This is because in a case where there are two wills, a first one and a last one, the recipient of the last one acquires the property, as the owner evidently retracted the first will.


讻讬 拽讗 转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 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 讘讘专讬讛


And when the baraita teaches that even if both the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient agree that it is valid, the one who found it should neither return it to this person nor to that person, it is referring to a case where the one who wrote it died, and it is his son who authorizes its return to the recipient.


讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘 讗讘讜讛 诇讛讗讬 讜讗诪诇讬讱 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜讘转专 讗讘讜讛 讻转讘 讗讬讛讜 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪讛讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬 讗讬诪专 诇讛讜 讚讗讘讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讜谞转讘讜 诇讬讛 讻转讘讬讛 讜谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讛讜讗 讝讻讬 讜谞驻诇讜讙 讘讛讚讬讛


In that case, the deed may not be returned, as we say that perhaps his father wrote the deed of gift for this person and then reconsidered and did not give it to him, and after his father died, the son wrote a deed of gift giving the property to another person and gave it to him. And now the son wishes to retract that gift, thinking: Since I cannot retract the gift legally, I will say to the court that my father gave his deed of gift to this first person, and they will return him his deed of gift, and he will then go and appropriate the property from the one who legally acquired the property, as he will be successful in acquiring it, and I will divide it with him.


讛诇讻讱 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讛讗讬 讻转讘讗 诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讚讚诇诪讗 诪讻转讘 讻转讘讬讛 讗讘讜讛 诪讬讛讘 诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讬讛讘转讬讛 讗转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜拽讗 讛讚专转 讘讬讛


Therefore, we say to the son: We will not give this deed to this person, as perhaps your father wrote it but did not give it to him, and then you gave the property to another person, and now you wish to retract your gift.


讗诇讗 讗讬 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗 讗诪专转 讚讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讱 讝讬诇 讗转 讛砖转讗 讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讚讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讛讘讛 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜讻转讘转讬讛 讗转 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讬转 讘讛 驻住讬讚讗 讚拽诪讗 讜讘转专讗 拽诪讗 讝讻讬


Rather, if you are telling the truth that your father gave him this property, then you should go now and write another deed of gift for him, so that even if your father did not give him this property, and you wrote a deed of gift giving this property to another person, he will incur no loss. This is because in a case where there are two deeds of gift, a first one and a last one, the recipient of the first one acquires the property.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 砖讜讘专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛


The Sages taught in a baraita: If one found a receipt for payment of a marriage contract, in a case when the wife admits that it was paid, he should return it to the husband. If the wife does not admit that it was paid, he should neither return it to this person, the husband, nor to that person, the wife.


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘注诇 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘讛 诇讬转谉 讘谞讬住谉 讜诇讗 谞转谞讛 注讚 转砖专讬 讜讗讝诇讛 讝讘谞转讛 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诪谞讬住谉 注讚 转砖专讬


In any event, the baraita states that when the wife admits that it was paid, one should return the receipt to the husband. The Gemara asks: But let us suspect that perhaps the wife wrote the receipt intending to give it to the husband in Nisan, but ultimately she did not give it to him until Tishrei, and she went and sold her marriage contract for financial advantage in the interim, between Nisan and Tishrei. In other words, she received a sum of money and in exchange agreed that if she were to be divorced or widowed and become entitled to payment of her marriage contract, the money would belong to the purchaser of the rights to her marriage contract.


讜诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 诇砖讜讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讘谞讬住谉 讜讗转讗 诇诪讟专祝 诇拽讜讞讜转 砖诇讗 讻讚讬谉


And then after the couple is divorced, and the purchaser collects payment of the marriage contract from the husband, the husband will produce the receipt that was written in Nisan and will come to repossess property from the purchasers unlawfully.


讗诪专 专讘讗


Rava said:


Scroll To Top