Commentary for Bava Metzia 26:7
It has been taught in support of R. Johanan, and in refutation of R. Eleazar in one point, and of Samuel in two points: If one has found notes of indebtedness in which there is a clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property, even if both [the debtor and creditor] admit [the genuineness of the documents], one should not return them either to the one or to the other. But if they contain no clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property, then as long as the borrower admits [the debt] they should be returned to the lender, but if the borrower does not admit the debt, they should not be returned either to the one or to the other. This is the view of R. Meir, for R. Meir maintained that notes of indebtedness which contain a clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property [entitle the lender to] exact payment from encumbered property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore they must not be returned, even if their genuineness is admitted, as we are afraid of a 'fraudulent agreement'. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 26:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.