Bava Metzia 25

בשטרי הקנאה דהא שעביד נפשיה

[The Mishnah deals] with deeds of transfer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By which the borrower transfers to the lender his property from the date of the document, so that the lender is entitled to seize property sold by the borrower after that date, whether the loan has actually been granted or not; v. B. B. (Sone. ed.) p. 753, n. 1. ');">¹</span>

אי הכי מתניתין דקתני אם יש בהן אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר ואוקימנא כשחייב מודה ומשום שמא כתב ללות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי ואתי למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין אמאי לא יחזיר

in which case he pledged himself [that his property would be at the disposal of the lender from the date given in the note].

נחזי אי בשטר הקנאה הא שעביד ליה נפשיה אי בשטר דלא הקנאה ליכא למיחש דהא אמרת כי ליכא מלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן

But if this is so, [how do we understand] our Mishnah, which teaches that, IF THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THEM MORTGAGING THE DEBTOR'S PROPERTY, THEY SHALL NOT BE RETURNED, and which has been explained as dealing with a case where the debtor admits the debt, and for the reason that [the documents] might have been written to secure a loan in Nisan, while the loan was not granted until Tishri, and [the lender] would seize unlawfully the property bought [by others from the borrower during that space of time]? Why should not [the documents] be returned? We ought to see: If it is a case of a deed of transfer, then he has pledged himself [to let the lender have the property from the date of the deed]; if it is not a deed of transfer, there is nothing to apprehend,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We need not fear that he would have the document written before the actual date of the loan, as the Court would not allow such a document to be written. ');">²</span>

א"ל רב אסי אע"ג דשטרי דלאו הקנאה כי ליכא מלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן מתניתין כיון דנפל אתרע ליה וחיישינן דלמא אקרי וכתוב

for you have said that if the lender is not present with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the borrower, to hand him over the money. ');">³</span>

אביי אמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו ואפילו שטרי דלאו הקנאה

we do not write [the note of indebtedness]? — R. Assi answered: Although ordinarily we do not write notes which are not deeds of transfer, when the lender is not present, in our Mishnah, which [deals with a document that] has been dropped and has consequently become suspect, we do apprehend that by some chance it might have been written [in the absence of the lender]. Abaye says: The witnesses acquire for him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lender. As soon as the witnesses have signed the document the borrower's property becomes legally liable to be seized by the lender, even if the money has not really been lent yet. There is therefore no fear of the lender seizing the borrower's sold property unlawfully, even if the document is an ordinary note of indebtedness. ');">⁴</span>

משום דקשיא ליה כיון דאמרת בשטרי דלאו הקנאה כי ליתיה למלוה בהדיה לא כתבינן ליכא למיחש דאקרי וכתוב

[the right to the property] by [affixing] their signatures [to the document], even if it is not a deed of transfer, [Abaye's reason for this explanation being] that he objected [to R. Assi's version]: If you say that notes which are not deeds of transfer are not written when the lender is not present, then there is no ground for the apprehension that by some chance they may have been written [in the absence of the lender]. But [it may be asked]: What of [the other Mishnah] which we learnt: If one has found bills of divorcement given to wives, deeds of liberation given to slaves, wills of dying persons, deeds of gifts and receipts, one need not return them, as they may have been written and then cancelled, without being handed over [to the persons mentioned in the deeds].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 18a; Git. 27a. ');">⁵</span>

אלא הא דתנן מצא גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים דייתיקי מתנה ושוברים הרי זה לא יחזיר שמא כתובים היו ונמלך עליהם שלא ליתנם וכי נמלך עליהם מאי הוי והא אמרת עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו

Now, even if they have been cancelled, what does it matter, in view of your statement that 'the witnesses acquire for him [the right to the property] by [affixing] their signatures [to the document]'? — This statement only applies to a case where [the documents] came to his [the creditor's] hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the creditor received the document at a later date, his right to the property is conceded from the date of the document. But if the document was cancelled and was never handed over to the creditor, the latter has no right to the debtor's property. ');">⁶</span>

הני מילי היכא דקא מטו לידיה אבל היכא דלא מטו לידיה לא אמרינן

but in a case where they did not come to his hand it does not apply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'We do not say (thus)'. ');">⁷</span>

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. ');">⁸</span>

בשלמא לרב אסי דאמר בשטרי אקנייתא מוקי לה בשטרי דלאו אקנייתא וכדאמרינן אלא לאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו מאי איכא למימר

as previously stated. But according to Abaye, who says: The witnesses, by their signatures, acquire for him [the lender the right to the property], how can it be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should not the documents be returned, seeing that their validity from the date of the witnesses' signatures could not be questioned? ');">⁹</span>

אמר לך אביי מתני' היינו טעמא דחייש לפרעון ולקנוניא

— Abaye will answer you: The reason for the teaching of our Mishnah is the fear that the debt may have been already paid and that a fraudulent agreement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G]. ');">¹⁰</span>

ולשמואל דאמר לא חיישינן לפרעון ולקנוניא מאי איכא למימר הניחא אי סבר לה כרב אסי דאמר בשטרי הקנאה מוקי מתניתין בשטרי דלאו הקנאה אלא אי סבר כאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו מאי איכא למימר

[may have been reached between the lender and the borrower].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The borrower may have dropped the document because he had already paid the debt, but he may subsequently have conspired with the lender to exact payment from the purchasers of the borrower's land (as if the debt had not been paid) with a view to sharing in the spoil. ');">¹¹</span>

שמואל מוקי למתניתין כשאין חייב מודה

But how could it be explained according to Samuel, who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 16b. ');">¹²</span>

אי הכי כי אין בהן אחריות נכסים אמאי יחזיר נהי דלא גבי מן משעבדי מבני חרי מגבי גבי

that we are not afraid that the debt may have been already paid and that a fraudulent agreement [may have been reached between the lender and the borrower]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel assumes that the borrower would tear up the note of indebtedness as soon as the debt is paid, and the conspiracy could not therefore arise. Cf. infra ibid. ');">¹³</span>

שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל אומר היה רבי מאיר שטר חוב שאין בו אחריות נכסים אין גובה לא ממשעבדי ולא מבני חרי

It would be right if he [Samuel] shared the view of R. Assi, who says that [the first cited Mishnah] is to be understood as referring to deeds of transfer, [as he could then explain our Mishnah as referring] to [documents which are] not deeds of transfer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the return of the lost documents might involve an injustice to the purchasers of the borrower's property, to which the lender would have no legal claim. ');">¹⁴</span>

וכי מאחר שאינו גובה אמאי יחזיר אמר רבי נתן בר אושעיא לצור על פי צלוחיתו של מלוה

But if he [Samuel] shared the view of Abaye, who says: The witnesses, by their signatures, acquire for him [the right to the property],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 73, n. 1. ');">¹⁵</span>

ונהדריה להו ללוה לצור על פי צלוחיתו של לוה לוה הוא

— how can it be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why should the document not be returned to the lender, seeing that it is valid from the date of writing? ');">¹⁶</span> — Samuel explains the Mishnah as referring to a case where the debtor does not admit [the genuineness of the document].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the borrower maintains that the document was forged, and his plea is accepted because the loss of the document tends to show that it was not properly taken care of, the reason for the negligence being, one had a right to assume, that the document was deemed to be invalid. ');">¹⁷</span> But if so, why should [the document] be returned when it does not contain a clause mortgaging [the borrower's] property? Granted that he [the lender] may not exact payment from encumbered property, he may surely exact payment from unencumbered property! — Samuel has his own reason. For Samuel stated: R. Meir used to say: A note of indebtedness which has no clause mortgaging property does not [entitle the creditor to] exact payment from either encumbered or unencumbered property. But since it does not [entitle one] to exact payment, why should it be returned? — R. Nathan b. Oshaiah said: That the lender may use it as a stopper for his bottle. Then let us give it back to the borrower that he may use it as a stopper for his bottle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 7b. ');">¹⁸</span> — It is the borrower