Bava Metzia 27

Chapter 27

א חדא הוא דחד טעם הוא דמשום דקאמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת בשאין חייב מודה הוא מתרץ הכי

1 — They are really one, for there is one reason [for both views]. As it is because R. Eleazar says that the difference of opinion [in our Mishnah] concerns a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness] that he interprets it thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why R. Eleazar finds himself in disagreement with the Baraitha in the two points mentioned is that he interprets the Mishnah as referring to a case where the debtor does not admit the debt, and it therefore follows that the document, on the view of R. Meir, does not entitle the lender to exact payment even from unencumbered property, and when in consequence thereof R. Eleazar has to add, 'But when the debtor admits (the debt) all agree that (the document) should be returned,' he explains that 'we are not afraid that the debt may have been already paid and a fraudulent agreement reached,' etc. The two conclusions therefore result from the same premise. ');">1

ב תיובתא דשמואל בתרתי חדא כרבי אלעזר דהא מוקי מתניתין בשאין חייב מודה

2 The view of Samuel is refuted in two points. The one point [is the same] as [that which applies to] R. Eleazar, for he [also] interprets our Mishnah as referring to a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness]. And the other point is that Samuel says:2

ג וחדא דאמר שמואל מצא שטר הקנאה בשוק יחזיר לבעלים ולא חיישינן לפרעון

3 If one finds a deed of transfer3

ד תיובתא דקתני הכא אע"פ ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אלמא חיישינן לפרעון וכל שכן הכא דלא מודה לוה דחיישינן לפרעון

4 in the street one should return it to the owners, and we are not afraid that [the debt] may have been already paid.4

ה אמר שמואל מ"ט דרבנן סברי אחריות טעות סופר הוא

5 The refutation is that here [in the Baraitha] we are taught that even if both parties admit [the genuineness of the documents] one should not return them either to the one or to the other, which shows that we are afraid that [the debt] may have been paid, and it follows with even greater certainty that in a case where5

ו א"ל רבא בר איתי לרב אידי בר אבין ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל שבח שפר ושעבוד צריך לימלך

6 the borrower does not admit [the genuineness of the document] we are afraid that [the debt] may have been paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But according to R. Eleazar even a deed of transfer would not have to be returned if the debtor does not admit the debt, and the reason why R. Meir says that a document containing no mortgage clause should be returned is that it is of no use to the creditor, as he cannot enforce payment with such a document, and he may just have the paper for what it is worth. ');">6

ז לימא מאן דאמר הא לא אמר הא

7 Samuel said: What is the reason of the Rabbis [who maintain that a document which contains no clause mortgaging the debtor's property entitles the creditor to exact payment even from encumbered property]? They are of opinion that [the omission of the clause] mortgaging [the debtor's property] is due to an error of the scribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All notes of indebtedness must be assumed to contain the mortgage clause, as no one will lend money without adequate security, and if a note is produced which contains no mortgage clause it can only be due to an error on the part of the scribe who, in writing the note, failed to carry out the instructions given to him by the creditor. Cf. infra 15b; Keth. 104b; B.B. 169b. ');">7

ח לא קשיא כאן בשטר הלואה דלא יהיב אינש זוזי בכדי כאן במקח וממכר דעביד אינש דזבין ארעא ליומיה

8 Said Raba b. Ithi to R. Idi b. Abin: And has Samuel really said thus? Has not Samuel said: '[As regards] improvement [of the field], [the claim to] the best property, and mortgaging [the debtor's property] it is necessary for the scribe to consult [the seller of the field]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The scribe must ask whether, in drawing up a deed of sale of land, he is to insert clauses dealing with the guarantees given to the buyer in case the land is seized by the seller's creditors, and making clear the buyer's claims to compensation for improvements made by him in the land; to the best portions of the seller's land (as indemnity to the buyer); and to the seller's property generally as security against loss through seizure by the seller's creditors. For all this the seller's consent is required, which would show that the omission of the mortgage clause in a document is not merely 'a scribe's error'. ');">8

ט כי ההיא דאבוה בר איהי זבין עליתא מאחתיה אתא בעל חוב טרפא מיניה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל אמר ליה כתבה לך אחריות אמר ליה לא אמר ליה אם כן זיל לשלמא א"ל והא מר הוא דאמר אחריות טעות סופר הוא א"ל הני מילי בשטרי הלואה אבל בשטרי מקח וממכר לא דעביד אינש דזבין ארעא ליומיה

9 Shall we say that he who stated the one view [of Samuel] did not state the other?9

י אמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון באחריות ובא בעל חוב דראובן וקא טריף ליה מיניה דינא הוא דאזיל ראובן ומשתעי דינא בהדיה ולא מצי א"ל לאו בעל דברים דידי את דא"ל דמפקת מיניה עלי דידי הדר

10 — There is no contradiction [between the two views]. The first view [was stated] in connection with a note of indebtedness, [in which case it is assumed] that no man will advance money without adequate security.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a loan, where the lender derives no benefit from the transaction, one must assume that the lender will take no risks and will insist on adequate security. In such a case the omission of the mortgage clause could only be due to a mistake on the part of the scribe. ');">10

יא איכא דאמרי אפי' שלא באחריות נמי דא"ל לא ניחא לי דליהוי לשמעון תרעומת עלי

11 The second view [was stated] in connection with buying and selling, [in which case it is assumed] that a man may buy land for a day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer will take risks, for even if the land is ultimately seized by the seller's creditors, he (the buyer) will in the meantime have profited by the produce of the land. ');">11

יב ואמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות ויצאו עליה עסיקין עד שלא החזיק בה

12 as, for instance, Abbuha b. Ihi did, who bought a garret from his sister [and] a creditor came and took it away from him. He appeared before Mar Samuel [who] said to him: 'Did she write you a guarantee?' He answered, 'No.' [Whereupon Samuel] said to him: 'If so, go in peace.'12 So he said to him: 'Is it not you, Sir, who said that [the omission of a clause] mortgaging [the debtor's property] is due to an error of the scribe?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that even if the guarantee is not inserted in the deed, the Court assumes that the omission is only a scribe's error, and that the guarantee must have been given. ');">13 He [Samuel] answered him: 'This applies only to notes of indebtedness, but it does not apply to documents [drawn up in connection with] buying and selling, for a man may buy land for a day.' Abaye said:14 If Reuben sold a field to Simeon with a guarantee,15 and Reuben's creditor came and took it away from him, the law is that Reuben may go and sue him [the creditor],16 and he [the creditor] cannot say to him [Reuben]: 'I have nothing to do with you,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor cannot plead that Reuben's counter-claim does not affect his right to seize the land bought by Simeon, and that Simeon's claim should be dealt with by the Court as a separate action. ');">17 for he [Reuben] may say to him [the creditor]: 'What you take away from him [Simeon] comes back on me.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., I shall have to refund him the purchase money. I am thus directly concerned in your action against Simeon, and I have a right to stop you from seizing his land in virtue of my counter-claim. ');">18 Some say that even [if the field has been sold] without a guarantee the law is the same, for he [Reuben] may say to him [the creditor]: 'I do not wish Simeon to have a grudge against me.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although legally Simeon has no redress, as I did not offer him any guarantee against loss through the actions of my creditors, I do not wish him to feel that I have let him down by selling him property which was liable to be seized by my creditors. ');">19 Abaye also said: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without a guarantee, and claimants appeared [contesting Reuben's title to sell the land], he [Simeon]

Previous Chapter Next Chapter