Commentary for Bava Metzia 26:5

But in a case where the debtor admits [the debt] all agree that [the document] should be returned, and that we are not afraid that the debt may have been already paid and a fraudulent agreement reached [between the lender and the borrower to exact payment from the purchasers of the borrower's property]. But R. Johanan says: The difference of opinion [in our Mishnah] concerns a case where the debtor admits [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 from encumbered property, but it does entitle him to exact payment from unencumbered property. But in a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he admits that the document is genuine, but contends that the debt has been paid. ');">⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 26:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.