Bava Metzia 37

אירכס ליה גיטא בי מדרשא אמר אי סימנא אית לי בגויה אי טביעות עינא אית לי בגויה אהדרוה ניהליה אמר לא ידענא אי משום סימנא אהדרוה ניהלי וקא סברי סימנין דאורייתא אי משום טביעות עינא אהדרוה ניהלי ודוקא צורבא מדרבנן אבל איניש דעלמא לא

lost a bill of divorcement in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The College, where the Rabbis and their disciples assemble for study. ');">¹</span>

גופא מצא גט אשה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

[When it was found] he said [to the finders]: If you [attach importance to] a distinguishing mark, I have one on it; if, [however, you attach importance to] recognition by sight,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not by particular marks but by its general appearance when produced. ');">²</span>

בזמן שהבעל מודה מיהא יחזיר לאשה וליחוש שמא כתב ליתן בניסן ולא נתן לה עד תשרי (מתני' בבא בתרא קסז א) ואזל בעל זבין פירי מניסן ועד תשרי ומפקא לגיטא דכתב בניסן ואתיא למטרף לקוחות שלא כדין

I am able to recognise it. [Whereupon the bill] was returned to him. He then said: I do not know whether it was returned to me because of the distinguishing mark<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Though it was not a Precise mark.] ');">³</span>

הניחא למ"ד כיון שנתן עיניו לגרשה שוב אין לבעל פירות שפיר אלא למ"ד יש לבעל פירות עד שעת נתינה מאי איכא למימר

[I indicated], and the view was held that [the indication of] distinguishing marks [entitles the loser to recover his property] in accordance with Biblical law, or whether it was returned to me because of my ability to recognise it by sight, and [such recognition would be accepted from] a Rabbinic scholar only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose word can be trusted and may be regarded as clear and definite. ');">⁴</span>

כי אתיא למטרף אמרינן לה אייתי ראיה אימת מטא גיטא לידך

but not from an ordinary person.

ומאי שנא משטרי חוב דתנן מצא שטרי חוב אם יש בהן אחריות נכסים לא יחזיר ואוקימנא כשחייב מודה ומשום שמא כתב ללוות בניסן ולא לוה עד תשרי וקא טריף לקוחות שלא כדין

The above text [states]: 'If one finds in the street a bill of divorcement, [the law is that] when the [former] husband admits [its validity] it shall be returned to the woman, but if the husband does not admit [its validity] it shall not be returned to either of them.' At all events [we are taught that] when the husband admits, [the bill of divorcement] is to be returned to the woman — ought we not to apprehend that [the husband] may have written it with the intention of giving it [to the wife] in Nisan but [in reality] did not give it to her till Tishri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The divorce would then have taken effect in Tishri, and up till then the husband would have been entitled to use, or to sell, the fruit of his wife's estate ([H]). ');">⁵</span>

התם נמי ליהדר וכי אתי למטרף נימא ליה אייתי ראיה אימת מטא שטר חוב לידך

and the husband may have gone and sold the fruit [of his wife's property]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wife's inherited estate (referred to in the previous note) of which the husband may use the income, without incurring any responsibility for loss or damage or deterioration affecting the estate itself. Cf. B.K. 89a. ');">⁶</span>

אמרי הכא גבי גט אשה אתי לוקח ותבעה אמר האי דהדרוה ניהלה רבנן לגיטא משום דלא תעגין ותיתיב השתא דקא אתיא למטרף תיזל ותיתי ראיה אימת מטא גיטא לידה

between Nisan and Tishri, and she may then come, produce the bill of divorcement that was written in Nisan, and take away [the fruit] from the buyers unlawfully?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the husband is entitled to the income of his wife's estate up to the day on which he hands her the bill of divorcement she would have no right to the income disposed of by the husband between Nisan and Tishri. ');">⁷</span>

הכא גבי שטר חוב לא אתי לוקח ותבע מדאהדרוה ניהליה רבנן לשטר חוב פשיטא למאי הלכתא אהדרוה ניהליה למטרף הוא שמע מינה קמו רבנן במילתא ומקמי דידי מטא שטרא לידיה:

This would be right according to him who says that as soon as the husband has made up his mind to divorce her he is no more entitled to the fruit [of her property],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Git. 17b. ');">⁸</span>

שחרורי עבדים וכו': ת"ר מצא שטר שחרור בשוק בזמן שהרב מודה יחזיר לעבד אין הרב מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

[and] it would be in order [for her to reclaim the sold fruit],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the fruit sold by the husband between Nisan and Tishri. ');">⁹</span>

בזמן שהרב מודה מיהא יחזיר לעבד ואמאי ניחוש שמא כתב ליתן לו בניסן ולא נתן לו עד תשרי ואזל עבדא וקנה נכסין מניסן ועד תשרי ואזיל הרב וזבנינהו ומפיק ליה לשחרור דכתב בניסן וקא טריף לקוחות שלא כדין

but according to him who says that the husband is entitled to the fruit [of her property] until the date on which he hands her [the bill of divorcement] — how is it to be explained? — When she comes to take away [the sold fruit] from the buyers we say to her: Bring proof when the bill of divorcement came to your hand. But why is [a bill of divorcement] different from notes of indebtedness, regarding which we have learnt: 'If one finds notes of indebtedness [the law is that] if they contain a clause pledging [the debtor's] property one shall not return them',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12b. ');">¹⁰</span>

הניחא למ"ד זכות הוא לעבד שיוצא מתחת רבו לחירות וכאביי דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין ליה שפיר אלא למ"ד חוב הוא לעבד שיוצא מתחת יד רבו לחירות מאי איכא למימר

and this is interpreted [as applying 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 in Nisan and the loan may not have been granted till Tishri, so that [the creditor] may take away [the debtor's sold property]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the property sold by the debtor between Nisan and Tishri. ');">¹¹</span>

דכי אתי למטרף אמרינן ליה אייתי ראיה אימת מטא שחרור לידך:

from the buyers unlawfully — [why do we not say] there also [that the documents] should be returned, and that when [the creditor] will come to take away [the debtor's sold property] from the buyers we shall tell him: Bring proof when the note of indebtedness came to your hand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the debtor actually borrowed the money and handed over to the creditor the note of indebtedness. ');">¹²</span>

דייתיקי מתנה וכו': ת"ר איזו היא דייתיקי דא תהא למיקם ולהיות שאם מת נכסיו לפלוני מתנה כל שכתוב בו מהיום ולאחר מיתה

— The answer is: In the case of a bill of divorcement the person who bought [from the husband the fruit of the wife's property] will come and demand of her [the proof],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the actual date on which her divorce took effect. ');">¹³</span>

אלמא אי כתיבא מהיום ולאחר מיתה הוא דקני ואי לא לא קני

saying: The reason why the Rabbis gave her back the bill of divorcement is that she may not be condemned to permanent widowhood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that she may not be prevented from marrying again by the lack of evidence as to her divorce from her previous husband. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר אביי הכי קאמר איזו היא מתנת בריא שהיא כמתנת שכיב מרע דלא קני אלא לאחר מיתה כל שכתוב בה מהיום ולאחר מיתה

but now that she has come [with the bill] to take away [the fruit of her property which I bought from her husband] let her go and bring proof when the bill of divorcement came to her hand! But in the case of a note of indebtedness the buyer will not come to demand [proof]. He will say [to himself]: As the Rabbis gave him back the note of indebtedness it is obvious that the purpose for which they gave it to him was [to enable him] to take away [the debtor's sold property from the buyer, and] this shows that the Rabbis made sure of the matter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Rabbis made sure that the creditor was legally entitled to seize the debtor's sold property. ');">¹⁵</span>

טעמא דלא אמר תנו הא אמר תנו נותנין

and that the note of indebtedness came to the hand [of the creditor] before my [purchase].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the debtor sold his property he had already incurred his debt to the creditor and given him the note of indebtedness. ');">¹⁶</span>

ורמינהו מצא דייתקאות אפותיקאות ומתנות אע"פ ששניהם מודין לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

[DEEDS OF] LIBERATION OF SLAVES, etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one finds a deed of liberation in the street, [the law is that] when the master admits [its validity] one shall return it to the slave, [but when] the master does not admit [its validity] one shall not return it to either of them. Thus [we are taught that] when the master admits, [the deed of liberation] is to be returned to the slave — why [is this so]? Ought we not to apprehend that [the master] may have written it with the intention of giving it [to the slave] in Nisan but [in reality] did not give it to him till Tishri, and the slave may have gone and bought property between Nisan and Tishri,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the property would belong to the master, as everything acquired by a slave becomes the possession of his master. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבי אבא בר ממל לא קשיא

and the master may have gone and sold it, and [the slave] may then produce the [deed of] liberation which was written in Nisan, and take away [the property] from the buyers unlawfully? This would be right according to him who says<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 12b. ');">¹⁸</span> that it is an advantage to a slave to be liberated from his master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As he becomes a member of the community of Israel. Anything that confers a benefit upon a person may be done for him in his absence, or without his knowledge, and for this reason a deed liberating a slave would take effect as soon as it is signed by the witnesses, even before it is handed to the slave. ');">¹⁹</span> regard being had to Abaye who says, 'the witnesses acquire it for him by affixing their signatures';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 13a; infra 35b. ');">²⁰</span> [and] it would be in order [for him to buy property as soon as the deed of liberation is signed]; but according to him who says that it is a disadvantage to a slave to be liberated from his master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it deprives him of certain privileges which a slave enjoys, and puts upon him new obligations. ');">²¹</span> — how is it to be explained?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the liberation, according to this view, is a disadvantage to the slave, and as nothing disadvantageous may be done to anyone in his absence, or without his knowledge, the deed of liberation cannot become effective until it is handed to the slave, and the signature of the witnesses cannot be said to acquire it for him before the date on which the document is received by him. ');">²²</span> — When [the slave] comes to take away [the property sold by the master] we say to him: 'Bring proof when the [deed of] liberation came to your hand.' WILLS, DEEDS OF GIFT, etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by WILLS?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] = last will and testament (cf. [G]). ');">²³</span> — [Documents which contain the words:] 'This shall be established and executed,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] This is no etymological derivation but a mere play on words. ');">²⁴</span> so that when [the author of the document] dies, his property becomes the possession of the person named [in the document].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any further formality, as the words of a dying person have the legal validity of a document written and delivered. ');">²⁵</span> [What are] DEEDS OF GIFT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a healthy person. ');">²⁶</span> — All [documents conferring a gift] which contain [the words]: 'From to-day — but after my death.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Indicating that the gift is to become from that date the property of the person named in the document but cannot be used by him until the death of the donor. ');">²⁷</span> But does this mean that only if it is written [in the document] 'From to-day — but after my death,' the person acquires [the gift], but if not, he does not acquire it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is: Why should it be necessary for the donor to write in the deed of gift the words 'But after my death' in order to enable the person named in the deed to acquire the gift? In the case of a dying person it is natural that the gift should not become valid till after the donor's death, as this was obviously the donor's intention. But in the case of a healthy person there is no reason why such a condition should be included in the document. The donor ought to be able to make the gift absolute at once. ');">²⁸</span> — Abaye answered: The meaning is this: 'Which gift of a healthy person is like the gift of a dying person in that [the person named] does not acquire it until after the death [of the donor]'? Every [gift regarding which] it is written [in the document conferring it]: 'From to-day — but after my death.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in ordinary cases the gift of a healthy person does become absolute at once. But in the case quoted, the Rabbis wished to indicate that the gift of a healthy person may be conferred on the same condition as that of a dying person — by including in the deed the words, 'But after my death.' ');">²⁹</span> The reason why [the documents named in the Mishnah are not returned] is that [ — as indicated in the Mishnah — the persons who lost them] did not say, 'Give them [to the persons named in the documents],' but if they said, 'Give them,' they would have to be given. Does not this contradict [the following Baraitha]: 'If one finds wills, mortgage deeds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to a second mortgage taken out on the same property. ');">³⁰</span> and deeds of gift, even if both [parties concerned] admit [their validity], one shall not return [the documents] to either of them'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason given below. ');">³¹</span> — R. Abba b. Memel answered: It is no contradiction: