Reference for Bava Metzia 32:19
וכפרן הואיל ואתא לידן נימא ביה מלתא דאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אמרו לו צא תן לו
Therefore Raba said: There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of deeds of assignment dealt with in the Mishnah. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the document is to be returned. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> is this: we say: He has himself to blame for the loss, for at the time when he paid [the debt] he should have torn up the document, or he should have [asked for] another document to be written [entitling him to claim the property], as according to law [the creditor] need not return the property], and it is only because [of the command], <i>And thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 18. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> that the Rabbis declared that it should be returned: therefore he [the debtor] is [in the position of one who is] buying [the property] anew, and he ought to ask for a deed of sale to be written [and given to him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a deed of transfer entitles the creditor to keep the seized property even when the debtor offers to repay the loan, and as the Rabbis decided that the property should be returned merely on the grounds of equity, the debtor, on failing to get the deed of transfer back, ought to have asked for a new deed — a deed of sale — as if the property had then been sold to him by the creditor. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> [But] in regard to a note of indebtedness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with by Samuel. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> what may be argued [in favour of the return thereof is] that if it had been paid he should have torn up the note?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they apply to a note of indebtedness the same reason that is given for the law that a lost 'deed of transfer' has to be returned, viz., that since it has not been torn up the debt must still be due and the document still valid. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [To this] I say: He [the creditor] may have given an excuse by telling him [the debtor], 'I shall give it to you to-morrow, as I have not got it with me just now,' or he [the creditor] may have kept it back until he is refunded the scribe's fee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the debtor in case the creditor laid it out for him, the scrivener's fee being charged to the debtor. The debt may thus have been paid even though for some reason or other the creditor did not return the note to the debtor, and this should preclude the return of the note to the creditor.] ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Abbahu said in the name of R. Johanan: If one finds a note of indebtedness in the street, even if it contains the endorsement of the Court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. V. p. 33, n. 1. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> it shall not be returned to the owners: It is undoubtedly so when it does not contain the endorsement of the Court, as it may then be said that it was written for the purpose of a loan, and that [in fact] the loan was not granted. But even if it does contain the endorsement of the Court, which means that it is officially confirmed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra, ibid. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> it shall not be returned, because we are afraid that [the loan] may [in the meantime] have been repaid. R. Jeremiah objected [to the ruling of] R. Abbahu [from the following Mishnah]: 'All documents executed by a Court of Law shall be returned [when found]'? [R. Abbahu] answered him: Jeremiah my son, not all documents executed by a court of law are alike! Indeed, [the Mishnah refers to a case where the debtor] has been found to be a liar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On another occasion it was established that he told a lie. Therefore he would not be believed if he pleaded in this case that he had paid the debt. This is why the documents must be returned. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Raba [then] said: And because he has been found to be lying once [must it be assumed] that he would not pay [his debts] any more?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On another occasion it was established that he told a lie. Therefore he would not be believed if he pleaded in this case that he had paid the debt. This is why the documents must be returned. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — Therefore Raba said: Our Mishnah treats of a document containing a decree of the Court which confirms the creditor's right to belongings appropriated from the debtor, and of a document authorising a creditor to search for the debtor's belongings and to seize them wherever they may be found — and in accordance with [the interpretation of] R. Zera [given above].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these documents are not concerned with the payment of money, and therefore are to be returned. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> As we have just dealt with the case of [one who was found to be] a liar, we shall say something [more] about it. For R. Joseph b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: If they [the members of the Court] said to him [the debtor], 'Go [and] give him [what you owe him];'