Commentary for Bava Batra 344:8

ואביי לנפילה דחד לא חיישינן לנפילה דרבים חיישינן

And whence is it deduced that the losing [of a deed] is not to be apprehended? — For we learned: IF THERE WERE TWO [MEN] IN THE SAME TOWN [AND THE] NAME OF THE ONE [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON AND THE NAME OF [THE] OTHER [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON, NEITHER MAY PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE OTHER, NOR MAY ANOTHER [PERSON] PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THEM. Either of them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they'. ');">¹⁵</span> however [it follows] may [produce a bond of indebtedness] against others. But why? Why not apprehend the loss [of the deed]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One Joseph, the creditor, might have lost the bond and the other Joseph who presents it might have found it. ');">¹⁶</span> from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that either of them is entitled to establish a claim against a third patty by the production of his bond. ');">¹⁷</span> then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'. ');">¹⁸</span> it may be deduced that we do not apprehend the loss. And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the inference from our Mishnah, could he suggest that loss of the deed should be apprehended? ');">¹⁹</span> We do not apprehend the loss [of a deed] by one [particular individual];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is most unlikely that a particular person of the very same name as the one who presents the bond should have lost it. ');">²⁰</span> but we do apprehend loss [of deeds] generally by many.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not unusual for people to lose their bonds and for others to find them. Hence, as regards the bond presented at R. Huna's court, Abaye was well justified in suggesting that loss of the deed should be suspected. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 344:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.