Commentary for Bava Metzia 25:17

ונהדריה להו ללוה לצור על פי צלוחיתו של לוה לוה הוא

— how can it be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the document not be returned to the lender, seeing that it is valid from the date of writing? ');">¹⁶</span> — Samuel explains the Mishnah as referring to a case where the debtor does not admit [the genuineness of the document].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the borrower maintains that the document was forged, and his plea is accepted because the loss of the document tends to show that it was not properly taken care of, the reason for the negligence being, one had a right to assume, that the document was deemed to be invalid. ');">¹⁷</span> But if so, why should [the document] be returned when it does not contain a clause mortgaging [the borrower's] property? Granted that he [the lender] may not exact payment from encumbered property, he may surely exact payment from unencumbered property! — Samuel has his own reason. For Samuel stated: R. Meir used to say: A note of indebtedness which has no clause mortgaging property does not [entitle the creditor to] exact payment from either encumbered or unencumbered property. But since it does not [entitle one] to exact payment, why should it be returned? — R. Nathan b. Oshaiah said: That the lender may use it as a stopper for his bottle. Then let us give it back to the borrower that he may use it as a stopper for his bottle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 7b. ');">¹⁸</span> — It is the borrower

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 25:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.