Commentary for Bava Metzia 26:2
R. Eleazar says: The difference of opinion [in our Mishnah] concerns a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness]. R. Meir being of the opinion that a document which contains no clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property does not entitle [the creditor] to exact payment either from encumbered property or from unencumbered property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Meir every note of indebtedness must, in order to be valid, contain a clause mortgaging the borrower's property, otherwise the loan is treated as a verbal loan without witnesses, and the lender can only claim his money if the borrower admits the debt. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 26:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.