Reference for Bava Metzia 26:8
וברייתא קתני שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי הא מבני חורין מגבא גבי וקתני בין לר"מ בין לרבנן חיישינן לקנוניא דקתני אע"פ ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אלמא חיישינן לקנוניא
and that those that contain no clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property [entitle the lender] to exact payment from unencumbered property [only]. But the Sages say: In either case does [the document entitle the lender to] exact payment from encumbered property. This is a refutation of R. Eleazar in one point, as he maintained that according to R. Meir a document that contains no clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property does not [entitle the lender to] exact payment either from encumbered or unencumbered property, and he [further] said that both R. Meir and the Rabbis agree that we are not afraid of a fraudulent agreement [between the lender and the borrower to exact payment from the purchasers of the borrower's property], while the Baraitha teaches that a document which contains no clause mortgaging [the debtor's] property [does not entitle the creditor to] exact payment from encumbered property but does [entitle him to exact] payment from unencumbered property, and it [further] proceeds to indicate that both R. Meir and the Rabbis agree that we are afraid of a 'fraudulent agreement', for it teaches that even if both parties admit [the debt] one must not return [the documents] either to the one or to the other, which shows that we are afraid of a fraudulent agreement [between the parties to rob the purchasers of the borrower's property]. But are not these two points?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was maintained before that the Baraitha refutes the view of R. Eleazar in one point only. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>