Commentary for Bava Metzia 25:9
אלא מתניתין דקתני מצא שטרי חוב אם יש בהם אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר ואוקימנא כשחייב מודה ומשום שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי
[The question arises,] however: [As regards] our Mishnah, which teaches: IF ONE HAS FOUND NOTES OF INDEBTEDNESS, IF THEY CONTAIN A CLAUSE MORTGAGING [THE DEBTOR'S] PROPERTY, ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM, and we explained that [it refers to a case] where the debtor admits [the debt], and the reason why [the notes are not returned] is that they may have been written with a view to granting a loan in Nisan, while the loan may not actually have been granted until Tishri — it is right according to R. Assi, who says that [the first cited Mishnah] refers to deeds of transfer, as [this latter Mishnah can then be explained as] referring to [documents which are] not deeds of transfer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are not to be returned because they may have been written illegally in the absence of the lender (before the date of the actual loan), and the fact that they were dropped by the owner would show that they were not deemed to be valid documents. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 25:9. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.