Bava Metzia 32

משום כדי חייו

— because of the need to support himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the same way the word 'to-day' in the second case indicates that the seller depends for his livelihood on that day's catch. This is why the Rabbis decided in both these cases that the sale should be regarded as valid. But in the first part these reasons do not apply. ');">¹</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רב האומר לחברו שדה שאני לוקח לכשאקחנה קנויה לך מעכשיו קנה

R. Huna said in the name of Rab: If one says to his neighbour: 'The field which I am about to buy shall, when I have bought it, be sold to you from now,' [the neighbour] acquires it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The moment the seller has bought the field from the original owner it becomes the property of the buyer, and the seller ends the transaction. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא מסתברא מלתא דרב בשדה סתם אבל בשדה זו לא מי יימר דמזבין לה ניהליה

Raba said: It stands to reason that Rab's decision is right [when applied to a case where the seller refers] to a field in general, but in [a case where the seller points out the land sold by saying] 'this field' [it would] not [be right, for] who can say whether [the owner of that field] will sell it to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a person sells or gives away a piece of land in general terms (without specifying it) the buyer, or the recipient, makes up his mind to acquire the land, as he knows that some land will be available for sale, and he believes that the person who offered the land to him will buy it and convey it to him. But when a person specifies the field he offers, the buyer or recipient will not take the offer seriously, as that field may not be in the market, and the person may not be able to realise his intention of buying that field and conveying it to his friend. ');">³</span>

והאלהים אמר רב אפי' בשדה זו מכדי רב כמאן אמרה לשמעתי' כר"מ דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם

But — by God! Rab himself did maintain that even when [the seller says] 'this field' [the sale is valid], seeing that Rab stated his law in accordance with [the view of] R. Meir, who said that a man may convey [to another person] a thing which has not yet come into existence, as it has been taught: If one says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after I shall become a proselyte, [or,] after thou shalt become a proselyte, [or,] after I shall be set free, [or,] after thou shalt be set free, [or,] after thy husband will have died, [or,] after thy brother-in-law will have given thee <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁴</span>

דתניא האומר לאשה התקדשי לי לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שתתגיירי (קידושין סו ב) לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שיחלוץ לך יבמיך (דברים כה, ה) לאחר שתמות אחותיך (ויקרא יח, יח) אינה מקודשת

[or] after thy sister will have died, [the woman] is not betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The transaction is not valid, as the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated by the man is beyond the power or control of the woman. ');">⁵</span>

ר"מ אומר מקודשת

R. Meir says: She is betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 93b. ');">⁶</span>

והא אשה כשדה זו דמיא וא"ר מאיר מקודשת:

Now, the woman [in this case] is like 'this field,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as in the case of 'this field' the seller, or donor, is unable to compel the original owner to dispose of the field (to enable the former to convey it to his friend), in the case of the woman also the fulfilment of the condition necessary to render the transaction valid is beyond her power or control. ');">⁷</span>

אמר שמואל המוצא שטר הקנאה בשוק יחזירו לבעלים דאי משום דכתב ללות ולא לוה הא שעבד נפשיה ואי משום פרעון לא חיישינן לפרעון דאם איתא דפרעיה מקרע הוה קרע ליה

and [yet] R. Meir says that she is betrothed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that according to the view of R. Meir on which Rab based his ruling, no distinction is made between 'the field' and 'a field'. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב נחמן אבא מן ספרי דייני דמר שמואל הוה והוינא כבר שיתא כבר שבע ודכרנא דהוו מכרזי ואמרי הני שטרי אקנייתא דמשתכחי בשוקא נהדרינהו למרייהו

Samuel said: If one finds a deed of transfer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 72, n. 4. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רב עמרם אף אנן תנינא כל מעשה בית דין הרי זה יחזיר אלמא לא חיישינן לפירעון א"ל רבי זירא מתניתין בשטרי חלטאתא ואדרכתא דלאו בני פרעון נינהו

in the street one shall return it to the owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is every reason to believe that the deed is still valid. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבא והני לאו בני פרעון נינהו והא אמרי נהרדעי שומא הדר עד תריסר ירחי שתא ואמר אמימר אנא מנהרדעא אנא וסבירא לי דשומא הדר לעולם

For even if [this were objected to] on the ground that [the deed] may have been written for the purpose of a loan and the loan may [in fact] not have been granted [the objection would not be valid] because [the borrower] pledged himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To let the lender have the property in any case. Cf. pp. 77-78. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא התם היינו טעמא דאמרי איהו הוא דאפסיד אנפשיה דבעידנא דפרעיה אבעי ליה למקרעיה לשטריה א"נ למכתב שטרא אחרינא עילויה

And if [this were objected to] on the ground that [the loan] may [in the meantime] have been repaid [the objection would not be valid either] because we are not afraid of repayment [having taken place], as [we assume that] if [the borrower] had repaid [the loan] he would have torn up [the deed]. R. Nahman said: My father was among the scribes of Mar Samuel's court when I was about six or seven years old, and I remember that they used to proclaim: 'Deeds of transfer which are found in the street should be returned to their owners.' R. Amram said: We have also learned so [in a Mishnah]: All documents executed by a court of law shall be returned [when found],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 200. This would include a note of indebtedness endorsed by the court and excluding the possibility of the loan not having been granted (cf. B.K. 112b) which would show that as long as we are sure that the loan was granted we do not suspect its validity on the ground that the loan may have been repaid. ');">¹²</span>

דמדינא ארעא לא בעיא למיהדר ומשום (דברים ו, יח) ועשית הישר והטוב בעיני ה' הוא דאמור רבנן תהדר הלכך מרישא הוא דקא זבין איבעי ליה למכתב שטר זביני

which shows that we are not afraid of repayment. [But] R. Zera said to him: Our Mishnah treats of documents containing decrees of the Court which confirm the creditor's right to belongings appropriated from the debtor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (from [H], to establish', make sure') = a document issued by the court authorising a creditor to keep certain properties allotted to him in payment of his debt. ');">¹³</span>

גבי שטר חוב מאי איכא למימר אם איתא דפרעיה איבעי ליה למיקרעיה לשטריה אימור אשתמוטי קא משתמיט ליה דא"ל למחר יהבנא לך דהשתא ליתיה גבאי אי נמי אפשיטי דספרא זייר ליה:

and of documents authorising a creditor to search for the debtor's belongings and to seize them wherever they may be found,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 95, n. 8. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן המוצא שטר חוב בשוק אע"פ שכתוב בו הנפק לא יחזירו לבעלים

which [documents] are not concerned with repayment. Raba [then] said: And are not such [documents] concerned with repayment? Have not the Nehardeans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A famous town in Babylonia, near the junction of the Euphrates and 'Nahr Malka,' and the seat of the Academy rendered famous by Samuel and other great Rabbis. Among the natives of Nehardea was R. Nahman (v. Hul. 95b). ');">¹⁵</span>

לא מיבעיא היכא דלא כתוב בו הנפק דאיכא למימר כתב ללות ולא לוה אלא אפי' כתוב בו הנפק ומאי ניהו דמקוים לא יחזיר דחיישינן לפרעון

said: [Property assigned in] valuation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the creditor. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתיביה רבי ירמיה לר' אבהו כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר א"ל ירמיה ברי לא כל מעשה ב"ד שוים אלא כגון שהוחזק כפרן

returns [to the debtor] until [the end of] twelve months,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the debtor pays during that time. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא ומשום דהוחזק כפרן חדא זמנא תו לא פרע כלל אלא אמר רבא מתניתין בשטר חלטאתא ואדרכתא וכדרבי זירא

and Amemar said: I am from Nehardea and I am of the opinion that the [property assigned in] valuation always returns?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no time limit, and whenever the debtor pays he is entitled to reclaim his property. [This being the case, the question of repayment arises also in these deeds of assignment, there being a possibility that the debtor had had his property restored on paying his debt, and in returning the documents to the creditor we empower the latter to seize anew the debtor's property.] ');">¹⁸</span>

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. ');">¹⁹</span> the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the document is to be returned. ');">²⁰</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. ');">²¹</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. ');">²²</span> [But] in regard to a note of indebtedness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with by Samuel. ');">²³</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. ');">²⁴</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.] ');">²⁵</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. ');">²⁶</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. ');">²⁷</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. ');">²⁸</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. ');">²⁸</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. ');">²⁹</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];'