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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 16, 2016 | 讬状讚 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 20

More cases are brought of lost documents that are found and whether or not they can be returned.


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

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇

Conclude from the fact that this suspicion is not taken into account that the halakha of Shmuel is accepted. As Shmuel says: In the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller then forgives the debt of the debtor, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. Therefore, if the wife did engage in the deception mentioned above, it was within her rights, as she is able to forgive the debt of the marriage contract.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讬转讬讛 诇讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖砖讟专 讻转讜讘讛 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讟专 讻转讜讘讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转

Abaye said: This is not conclusive proof. Even if you say that the halakha of Shmuel is not accepted, here we are dealing with a case where the marriage contract emerges from her possession, which indicates that she did not sell it. And Rava disagreed with Abaye and said: If the reason there is no suspicion that she sold her marriage contract is due to the fact that the marriage contract emerged from her possession, this reason is insufficient, as we should suspect that there might be two marriage contracts.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 砖讜讘专 讘讝诪谞讜 讟专讬祝 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜

And Abaye said in response: First, we are not concerned about the remote possibility of two marriage contracts. And furthermore, even if there is only one marriage contract, which was sold before the receipt was given to the husband, the receipt is valid, as a receipt can be used to repossess property from the time it was written, even if it was given on a later date. In saying this, Abaye conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that once a monetary document is written for someone, the document鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讗讬讙专讜转 砖讜诐 讜讗讬讙专讜转 诪讝讜谉 砖讟专讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讜砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: If one found documents of appraisal of a debtor鈥檚 property for the purpose of debt collection; or documents concerning food, which were drawn up when one accepted upon himself to provide sustenance for another; documents of 岣litza; or documents of refusal of a girl upon reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father; or documents of beirurin, a concept that will be explained in the Gemara; or any court enactment, e.g., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, in all of these cases, the finder must return the document to its presumed owner.

诪爪讗 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻诪讛 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 拽砖讜专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇诇讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讛诇讜讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讞讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇诪诇讜讛

If one found documents in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, both of them types of containers, or if he found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. And how many documents are considered to be a bundle of documents? It is three that are tied together. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the documents make reference to loans of one person who borrowed money from three people, the finder must return them to the debtor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost. If the documents make reference to loans of three people who borrowed money from one person, he must return them to the creditor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost.

诪爪讗 砖讟专 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转

If one found a document among his documents that were given to him by other people as a trustee, and he does not know what its nature is, i.e., he does not remember who gave it to him or whether the debt mentioned in it has been paid, the document is placed aside until Elijah the prophet comes and clarifies the issue through his prophecy. If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among them, he should do what is stated in the simponot.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 转专讙诪讜 砖讟专讬 讟注谞转讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚

GEMARA: What is meant by documents of beirurin? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages interpret it to mean documents recording each litigant鈥檚 clarification [beirur] of his claims in a court case. Rabbi Yirmeya, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, said: It is referring to cases where this litigant chooses [borer] one judge, and that litigant chooses one judge, and they choose the third judge for the case. The two litigants sign a document in which they declare which judges they choose.

讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The Gemara addresses that which the mishna states: And with regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this:

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬谞讱 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

We are concerned for the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri, and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. Since this bill of divorce was found in court, it belongs to this category and should be returned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 诇专讘讛 讛讬讻讬 驻砖讬讟 诪专 讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讚讗 砖讟专讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 转谞谉

Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve the halakha in the case of a bill of divorce, which is a ritual matter, from the mishna, which discusses monetary matters? Rabba said to him: Fool, we learned in the mishna that this halakha applies in the case of documents of 岣litza and documents of refusal as well, which are ritual matters.

驻拽注 讗专讝讗 讚讘讬 专讘 诪专 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 驻拽注 讜诪专 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 驻拽注

At that point, the supporting cedar beam of the study hall dislodged. One Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as you spoke to me offensively, and the other Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as it was you who spoke to me offensively.

诪爪讗 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讞驻讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诪转 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诇讬拽讗 讚住讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If one found documents in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, he must return them. The Gemara asks: What is a 岣fisa? Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is a small flask. What is a deluskema? Rabba bar Shmuel says: It is a container [telika] used by the elderly.

转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 讻专讜讻讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 拽砖讜专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

The mishna teaches: If one found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. The Sages taught in a baraita: How many documents constitute a roll of documents? A roll is three documents rolled together. And how many constitute a bundle of documents? A bundle is three documents tied together.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 拽砖专 住讬诪谉

The Gemara infers: Conclude from it that if one lost an item that has a knot, the type of knot can serve as a distinguishing mark by means of which the owner can describe the item, and it therefore must be returned to him.

讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讻专讜讻讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

The Gemara rejects this inference: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach that the reference is to three documents that are rolled together? The fact that they are rolled together is what serves as a distinguishing mark, rather than the knots.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转讻专讬讱 转讻专讬讱 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘专讗砖讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讙讜讚讛 讚专诪讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜讻专讜讻讜转

The Gemara asks: If so, this case is identical to the case of a roll of documents, which is also mentioned in the mishna. What is the difference between a roll and a bundle? The Gemara answers: A roll is referring to a case where each and every one of the documents is located at the top of another one, i.e., they are rolled together such that the tope of each page is near the bottom of the previous page. A bundle, by contrast, is referring to a case where they are located one on top of the other and rolled together.

诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: What does the person who found the documents proclaim so that the owner can claim it? The Gemara answers: He proclaims the number of documents that he found, and the owner can describe them by saying that they were rolled together.

诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 转诇转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach specifically a case of three documents? Even if two documents are found, they can also be returned in this manner.

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讘注讗 诪讻专讬讝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讟专讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rather, the finder proclaims his find in a manner similar to that which Ravina said: If one finds coins, he simply proclaims that he found coins, without specifying the number. Here too, the finder proclaims that he found documents, and the owner describes them by both their exact number and the fact that they were rolled together. Therefore, if there are only two documents the description is deficient, as the number two is already implicit in the finder鈥檚 proclamation that he found documents, which is plural.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇诇讜讛 讜讻讜壮 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪诇讜讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one finds three promissory notes that make reference to the loans of one person who borrowed from three people, he must return them to the debtor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the creditors, what are they doing together in one place?

讚诇诪讗 诇拽讬讜诪讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 讚诪拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the three creditors all went to court in order to ratify their promissory notes, and the notes were lost together there. The Gemara responds that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are ratified.

讚诇诪讗 诪讬讚讗 讚住驻专讗 谞驻讬诇 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬讜诪讬讛 讘讬讚讗 讚住驻专讗

The Gemara asks: Perhaps they fell from the hand of the scribe of the court after he ratified them. The Gemara answers: A person does not leave his ratified promissory note in the possession of the scribe. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that the promissory notes were lost by the debtor.

砖诇砖讛 砖诇讜讜 诪讗讞讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讻讜壮 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讜讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If the promissory notes make reference to the loans of three people who borrowed from one person, the one who found them must return them to the creditor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the debtors, what are they doing together?

讚诇诪讗 诇诪讻转讘谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 讘转诇转 讬讚讬 住驻专讬

The Gemara asks: Perhaps the three went to one scribe to write the promissory notes, and the notes were then lost together. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are written in the handwriting of three different scribes.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇拽讬讜诪讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 诪诇讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讬讛 诇讜讛 诇讗 诪拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the three debtors went to the court in order to ratify the promissory notes, and they lost them there. The Gemara answers: It is the creditor who ratifies his promissory note; the debtor does not ratify his promissory note.

讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 住诪驻讜谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讞拽 讜驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among one鈥檚 documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. The Gemara cites that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: With regard to a simpon that emerges from the possession of a creditor, even if it is written in his own handwriting and is clearly not forged, it is considered as though he were merely jesting and the simpon is invalid.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚 住讜驻专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住驻专讗 讗转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 驻住讜诇 住讘专 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬 讜讗转讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜拽讗 驻专注 诇讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讻转讜讘 讗谞讗 讚讻讬 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗转谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state this halakha in a case where it is written in the handwriting of a scribe, as it can be said that he happened to have an opportunity to have the scribe write the simpon, and therefore he had him write it before the debt was repaid. But even in a case where it is written in the handwriting of the creditor it is invalid. The creditor may have written the simpon himself before the debt was repaid, thinking: Perhaps the debtor will happen to come at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and wish to repay me. I should prepare a document of cancellation, as, if I do not give him one, he will not give me the money. I will therefore write the document now, so that when he brings me the money, I will give it to him.

转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rav based on that which we learned in the mishna: If there are simponot among one鈥檚 documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. This is apparently referring to simponot that are in the possession of the creditor.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诪爪讗讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers that the mishna is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. This indicates that the simpon is valid, as had the debt not been repaid, the creditor would not have put the simpon note among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 诇讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖讟专讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讜注 砖讟专讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 驻专讜注讬谉

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 statement from a mishna (Bava Batra 172a): If one found among his documents a simpon that says: The debt mentioned in the promissory note of Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and there are two people by that name who owe him money, the debts mentioned in the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as each can claim that the cancellation is referring to his debt, and the burden of proof rests upon the creditor. Apparently, a simpon that is found in the possession of the creditor is valid.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers that this mishna, too, is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讜 讗讘讗 讜砖诇讗 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 讜砖诇讗 诪爪讗谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 砖砖讟专 讝讛 驻专讜注

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 statement from a mishna (Shevuot 45a): If orphans who inherited their father鈥檚 property demand repayment of a debt owed to their father from the orphans of the debtor, they are required to take an oath stating: We take an oath that our father did not instruct us on his deathbed that the debt mentioned in this promissory note was repaid and it should be returned to the debtor, nor did our father say to us on an earlier date that it was repaid, nor did we find among the documents of our father a simpon stating that this promissory note was repaid. This too, seems to indicate that a simpon is valid even if it is found in the possession of the creditor.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers by citing the statement of Rav Safra, who said in this context that this reference is to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 住诪驻讜谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讬转拽讬讬诐 诪讞讜转诪讬讜

Come and hear another challenge from a baraita: A simpon upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The court verifies the validity of the witnesses鈥 signatures and thereby ratifies the document. This too seems to include a simpon that is in the possession of the creditor. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita reads: Is ratified by obtaining confirmation from its signatories,

  • 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 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 20

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬转讗 诇讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪讜讻专 砖讟专 讞讜讘 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讝专 讜诪讞诇讜 诪讞讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬讜专砖 诪讜讞诇

Conclude from the fact that this suspicion is not taken into account that the halakha of Shmuel is accepted. As Shmuel says: In the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller then forgives the debt of the debtor, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor鈥檚 heir can forgive the debt. Therefore, if the wife did engage in the deception mentioned above, it was within her rights, as she is able to forgive the debt of the marriage contract.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇讬转讬讛 诇讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖砖讟专 讻转讜讘讛 讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 砖讟专 讻转讜讘讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转

Abaye said: This is not conclusive proof. Even if you say that the halakha of Shmuel is not accepted, here we are dealing with a case where the marriage contract emerges from her possession, which indicates that she did not sell it. And Rava disagreed with Abaye and said: If the reason there is no suspicion that she sold her marriage contract is due to the fact that the marriage contract emerged from her possession, this reason is insufficient, as we should suspect that there might be two marriage contracts.

讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讞讚讗 诇砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜注讜讚 砖讜讘专 讘讝诪谞讜 讟专讬祝 讗讘讬讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讚讬讜 讘讞转讜诪讬讜 讝讻讬谉 诇讜

And Abaye said in response: First, we are not concerned about the remote possibility of two marriage contracts. And furthermore, even if there is only one marriage contract, which was sold before the receipt was given to the husband, the receipt is valid, as a receipt can be used to repossess property from the time it was written, even if it was given on a later date. In saying this, Abaye conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that once a monetary document is written for someone, the document鈥檚 witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讗讬讙专讜转 砖讜诐 讜讗讬讙专讜转 诪讝讜谉 砖讟专讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 讜砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: If one found documents of appraisal of a debtor鈥檚 property for the purpose of debt collection; or documents concerning food, which were drawn up when one accepted upon himself to provide sustenance for another; documents of 岣litza; or documents of refusal of a girl upon reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father; or documents of beirurin, a concept that will be explained in the Gemara; or any court enactment, e.g., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, in all of these cases, the finder must return the document to its presumed owner.

诪爪讗 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻诪讛 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 拽砖讜专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇诇讜讛 砖诇砖讛 讛诇讜讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讞讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇诪诇讜讛

If one found documents in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, both of them types of containers, or if he found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. And how many documents are considered to be a bundle of documents? It is three that are tied together. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the documents make reference to loans of one person who borrowed money from three people, the finder must return them to the debtor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost. If the documents make reference to loans of three people who borrowed money from one person, he must return them to the creditor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost.

诪爪讗 砖讟专 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 注讚 砖讬讘讜讗 讗诇讬讛讜 讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转

If one found a document among his documents that were given to him by other people as a trustee, and he does not know what its nature is, i.e., he does not remember who gave it to him or whether the debt mentioned in it has been paid, the document is placed aside until Elijah the prophet comes and clarifies the issue through his prophecy. If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among them, he should do what is stated in the simponot.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 砖讟专讬 讘讬专讜专讬谉 讛讻讗 转专讙诪讜 砖讟专讬 讟注谞转讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讝讛 讘讜专专 诇讜 讗讞讚

GEMARA: What is meant by documents of beirurin? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages interpret it to mean documents recording each litigant鈥檚 clarification [beirur] of his claims in a court case. Rabbi Yirmeya, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, said: It is referring to cases where this litigant chooses [borer] one judge, and that litigant chooses one judge, and they choose the third judge for the case. The two litigants sign a document in which they declare which judges they choose.

讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

搂 The Gemara addresses that which the mishna states: And with regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this:

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬谞讱 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

We are concerned for the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri, and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. Rav 岣sda said to Rabba: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in the mishna: With regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. Since this bill of divorce was found in court, it belongs to this category and should be returned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注诪专诐 诇专讘讛 讛讬讻讬 驻砖讬讟 诪专 讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讚讗 砖讟专讬 讞诇讬爪讛 讜诪讬讗讜谞讬谉 转谞谉

Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve the halakha in the case of a bill of divorce, which is a ritual matter, from the mishna, which discusses monetary matters? Rabba said to him: Fool, we learned in the mishna that this halakha applies in the case of documents of 岣litza and documents of refusal as well, which are ritual matters.

驻拽注 讗专讝讗 讚讘讬 专讘 诪专 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 驻拽注 讜诪专 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 驻拽注

At that point, the supporting cedar beam of the study hall dislodged. One Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as you spoke to me offensively, and the other Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as it was you who spoke to me offensively.

诪爪讗 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 诪讗讬 讞驻讬住讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讞诪转 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讟诇讬拽讗 讚住讘讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If one found documents in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema, he must return them. The Gemara asks: What is a 岣fisa? Rabba bar bar 岣na says: It is a small flask. What is a deluskema? Rabba bar Shmuel says: It is a container [telika] used by the elderly.

转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 讛讜讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 讻专讜讻讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 砖诇砖讛 拽砖讜专讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

The mishna teaches: If one found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. The Sages taught in a baraita: How many documents constitute a roll of documents? A roll is three documents rolled together. And how many constitute a bundle of documents? A bundle is three documents tied together.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 拽砖专 住讬诪谉

The Gemara infers: Conclude from it that if one lost an item that has a knot, the type of knot can serve as a distinguishing mark by means of which the owner can describe the item, and it therefore must be returned to him.

讛讗 转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 砖诇砖讛 讻专讜讻讬谉 讝讛 讘讝讛

The Gemara rejects this inference: Doesn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach that the reference is to three documents that are rolled together? The fact that they are rolled together is what serves as a distinguishing mark, rather than the knots.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转讻专讬讱 转讻专讬讱 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讘专讗砖讛 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗讙讜讚讛 讚专诪讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜讻专讜讻讜转

The Gemara asks: If so, this case is identical to the case of a roll of documents, which is also mentioned in the mishna. What is the difference between a roll and a bundle? The Gemara answers: A roll is referring to a case where each and every one of the documents is located at the top of another one, i.e., they are rolled together such that the tope of each page is near the bottom of the previous page. A bundle, by contrast, is referring to a case where they are located one on top of the other and rolled together.

诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: What does the person who found the documents proclaim so that the owner can claim it? The Gemara answers: He proclaims the number of documents that he found, and the owner can describe them by saying that they were rolled together.

诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 转诇转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬谉 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach specifically a case of three documents? Even if two documents are found, they can also be returned in this manner.

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讘注讗 诪讻专讬讝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讟专讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rather, the finder proclaims his find in a manner similar to that which Ravina said: If one finds coins, he simply proclaims that he found coins, without specifying the number. Here too, the finder proclaims that he found documents, and the owner describes them by both their exact number and the fact that they were rolled together. Therefore, if there are only two documents the description is deficient, as the number two is already implicit in the finder鈥檚 proclamation that he found documents, which is plural.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讛诇讜讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇诇讜讛 讜讻讜壮 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪诇讜讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one finds three promissory notes that make reference to the loans of one person who borrowed from three people, he must return them to the debtor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the creditors, what are they doing together in one place?

讚诇诪讗 诇拽讬讜诪讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 讚诪拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the three creditors all went to court in order to ratify their promissory notes, and the notes were lost together there. The Gemara responds that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are ratified.

讚诇诪讗 诪讬讚讗 讚住驻专讗 谞驻讬诇 诇讗 诪砖讛讬 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讬讜诪讬讛 讘讬讚讗 讚住驻专讗

The Gemara asks: Perhaps they fell from the hand of the scribe of the court after he ratified them. The Gemara answers: A person does not leave his ratified promissory note in the possession of the scribe. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that the promissory notes were lost by the debtor.

砖诇砖讛 砖诇讜讜 诪讗讞讚 讬讞讝讬专 诇诪诇讜讛 讜讻讜壮 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讜讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讘注讜 讙讘讬 讛讚讚讬

搂 The mishna teaches: If the promissory notes make reference to the loans of three people who borrowed from one person, the one who found them must return them to the creditor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the debtors, what are they doing together?

讚诇诪讗 诇诪讻转讘谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 讘转诇转 讬讚讬 住驻专讬

The Gemara asks: Perhaps the three went to one scribe to write the promissory notes, and the notes were then lost together. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are written in the handwriting of three different scribes.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇拽讬讜诪讬谞讛讜 讗讝诇讬 诪诇讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讬讛 诇讜讛 诇讗 诪拽讬讬诐 砖讟专讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the three debtors went to the court in order to ratify the promissory notes, and they lost them there. The Gemara answers: It is the creditor who ratifies his promissory note; the debtor does not ratify his promissory note.

讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 住诪驻讜谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 诪诇讜讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪砖讞拽 讜驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches: If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among one鈥檚 documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. The Gemara cites that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: With regard to a simpon that emerges from the possession of a creditor, even if it is written in his own handwriting and is clearly not forged, it is considered as though he were merely jesting and the simpon is invalid.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚 住讜驻专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 住驻专讗 讗转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻转讜讘 讘讻转讘 讬讚讜 驻住讜诇 住讘专 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬 讜讗转讬 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讜拽讗 驻专注 诇讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗讻转讜讘 讗谞讗 讚讻讬 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 讝讜讝讬 讗转谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state this halakha in a case where it is written in the handwriting of a scribe, as it can be said that he happened to have an opportunity to have the scribe write the simpon, and therefore he had him write it before the debt was repaid. But even in a case where it is written in the handwriting of the creditor it is invalid. The creditor may have written the simpon himself before the debt was repaid, thinking: Perhaps the debtor will happen to come at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and wish to repay me. I should prepare a document of cancellation, as, if I do not give him one, he will not give me the money. I will therefore write the document now, so that when he brings me the money, I will give it to him.

转谞谉 讗诐 讬砖 注诪讛谉 住诪驻讜谞讜转 讬注砖讛 诪讛 砖讘住诪驻讜谞讜转

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rav based on that which we learned in the mishna: If there are simponot among one鈥檚 documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. This is apparently referring to simponot that are in the possession of the creditor.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诪爪讗讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers that the mishna is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. This indicates that the simpon is valid, as had the debt not been repaid, the creditor would not have put the simpon note among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 谞诪爪讗 诇讗讞讚 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖讟专讜 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讜注 砖讟专讜转 砖谞讬讛诐 驻专讜注讬谉

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 statement from a mishna (Bava Batra 172a): If one found among his documents a simpon that says: The debt mentioned in the promissory note of Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and there are two people by that name who owe him money, the debts mentioned in the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as each can claim that the cancellation is referring to his debt, and the burden of proof rests upon the creditor. Apparently, a simpon that is found in the possession of the creditor is valid.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers that this mishna, too, is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讘讜注讛 砖诇讗 驻拽讚谞讜 讗讘讗 讜砖诇讗 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讗讘讗 讜砖诇讗 诪爪讗谞讜 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转讬讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 砖砖讟专 讝讛 驻专讜注

Come and hear another challenge to Rav鈥檚 statement from a mishna (Shevuot 45a): If orphans who inherited their father鈥檚 property demand repayment of a debt owed to their father from the orphans of the debtor, they are required to take an oath stating: We take an oath that our father did not instruct us on his deathbed that the debt mentioned in this promissory note was repaid and it should be returned to the debtor, nor did our father say to us on an earlier date that it was repaid, nor did we find among the documents of our father a simpon stating that this promissory note was repaid. This too, seems to indicate that a simpon is valid even if it is found in the possession of the creditor.

讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬谉 砖讟专讜转 拽专讜注讬谉

The Gemara answers by citing the statement of Rav Safra, who said in this context that this reference is to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

转讗 砖诪注 住诪驻讜谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讜 注讚讬诐 讬转拽讬讬诐 讘讞讜转诪讬讜 讗讬诪讗 讬转拽讬讬诐 诪讞讜转诪讬讜

Come and hear another challenge from a baraita: A simpon upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The court verifies the validity of the witnesses鈥 signatures and thereby ratifies the document. This too seems to include a simpon that is in the possession of the creditor. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita reads: Is ratified by obtaining confirmation from its signatories,

Scroll To Top