Bava Metzia 69

איתא לדרב הונא כיון דמשתבע מלוה שאינה ברשותו היכי מצי מפיק לה אמר רבא שיש עדים שנשרפה

R. Huna's dictum be correct, since the creditor must swear that it is not in his possession, how can he produce it? — Said Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [MS.: R. Joseph.] ');">¹</span>

אי הכי מהיכא מייתי לה אלא אמר רב יוסף שיש עדים שנגנבה סוף סוף מהיכא מייתי לה דטרח ומייתי לה

There are witnesses that it was burnt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently no oath is imposed. ');">²</span>

אי הכי כי משתבע מלוה נמי לטרח לוה וליתי בשלמא מלוה ידע מאן קא עייל ונפק בביתיה ואזיל וטרח ומייתי לה אלא לוה מי ידע מאן עייל ונפיק בביתיה דמלוה

If so, whence can he produce it? — But, said, R. Joseph, there are witnesses that it was stolen. Yet after all, whence can he produce it? He may exert himself and bring it. If so, when the creditor swears, the debtor may take pains and bring it! — [No.] As for the creditor['s producing it], it is well: he knows who enters and leaves his house, and so he can go, exert himself, and produce it. But does the debtor know who enters and leaves the creditor's house?

אביי אומר גזירה שמא יטעון ויאמר לו אחר שבועה מצאתיה רב אשי אמר זה נשבע וזה נשבע זה נשבע שאינה ברשותו וזה נשבע כמה היה שוה והכי קאמר מי נשבע תחילה מלוה נשבע תחילה שמא ישבע זה ויוציא הלה את הפקדון

Abaye said: We fear lest he plead, saying to him, 'I found it after the oath.' R. Ashi said: Both must swear: one [sc. the creditor] that it is not in his possession; and the other, how much it was worth — And this is its meaning: Who swears first? The creditor must swear first [that the pledge is not in his possession], lest the other swear and then he produce the bailment.

רב הונא בר תחליפא משמיה דרבא אמר רישא דסיפא תיובתא לרב הונא סלע הלויתני עליו שתים היה שוה והלה אומר לא כי אלא סלע הלויתיך עליו סלע היה שוה פטור ואם איתא לדרב הונא מגו דמשתבע מלוה שאינה ברשותו לישתבע נמי אגילגול שבועה כמה היה שוה

R. Huna b. Tahlifa said in Raba's name: The first paragraph of the second clause refutes R. Huna. '"You did lend me a <i>sela'</i> on it, whilst it was worth two," and the other replies, "Not so: I lent you a <i>sela'</i> on it and it was [only] worth a <i>sela'</i>," he is free [from an oath.]' But if R. Huna's dictum is correct, since the creditor must swear that it is not in his possession, let him also swear, in virtue of a superimposed oath, how much it was worth!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For superimposed oaths, v. supra 3a ');">³</span>

אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמר לי תהא במאמינו ונהמניה לוה למלוה נמי בהא כמה הוה שוה לא קים ליה בגויה ונהמניה מלוה ללוה דקים ליה בגויה לא מהימן ליה

— Said R. Ashi: I repeated this discussion before R. Kahana, whereupon he observed to me: Let this apply where he believes him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clause means that the debtor believes the creditor that the pledge is lost and does not demand that he swear thereto. Hence there is no superimposed oath either. ');">⁴</span>

ומאי שנא לוה דמהימן ליה למלוה ומאי שנא מלוה דלא מהימן ליה ללוה לוה מקיים ביה במלוה (משלי יא, ג) תומת ישרים תנחם מלוה מקיים ביה בלוה (משלי יא, ג) וסלף בוגדים ישדם:

Then let the debtor believe the creditor in this too [viz.,] how much it was worth! — [The debtor reasons,] he [the creditor] did not fully ascertain it [sc. the value]. Then let the creditor believe the debtor, since he does fully know it? — [Nevertheless,] he does not believe him. Wherein lies the difference, that the debtor believes the creditor, but not vice versa? — The debtor applies to the creditor, <i>The integrity of the upright shall guide them</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XI, 3; i.e., he assumes that the creditor's prosperity proves his trustworthiness. ');">⁵</span>

ההוא גברא דאפקיד כיפי גביה חבריה אמר ליה הב לי כיפי אמר ליה לא ידענא היכא אותבינהו אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה כל לא ידענא פשיעותא היא זיל שלים לא שילם אזל רב נחמן אגביה לאפדניה מיניה לסוף אישתכח כיפי ואיקור אמר רב נחמן הדרי כיפי למרייהו והדרא אפדנא למרה

whereas the creditor applies to the debtor,<i> but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This is a natural reasoning when the belief in material reward and punishment is strong. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא הוה יתיבנא קמיה דרב נחמן ופרקין המפקיד הוה ואמרי ליה שילם ולא רצה לישבע ולא אהדר לי

A man once deposited jewels with his neighbour. When he demanded, 'Give me my jewels,' he replied, 'I do not know where I put them.' So he came before R. Nahman, Who said to him: Every [plea of] 'I do not know' is negligence; go and pay. Yet he did not pay, so R. Nahman went and had his house seized. Subsequently the jewels were found, [by which time] they had appreciated. Said R. Nahman: Let the jewels be returned to their [first] owner, and the house to its owner. Raba observed: I was sitting [then] before R. Nahman and it [the subject of our study] was the chapter, 'IF ONE ENTRUSTS [etc.];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., we were then studying the present chapter. ');">⁷</span>

ושפיר עבד דלא אהדר לי מאי טעמא התם לא אטרחיה לבי דינא הכא אטרחיה לבי דינא

so I quoted to him, IF HE [THE BAILEE] PAYS, DECLINING TO SWEAR [etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah proceeds to state that the double repayment belongs to the bailee, thus proving that once he pays he is entitled to all rights therein. So here too, since he had paid, albeit against his will, the increased value of the jewels should be his. ');">⁸</span>

למימרא דסבר רב נחמן דשומא הדר שאני התם דשומא בטעות הוה דקא הוה כיפי מעיקרא

but he did not answer me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Disdaining to reply. ');">⁹</span>

אמרי נהרדעי שומא הדר עד תריסר ירחי שתא ואמר אמימר אנא מנהרדעא אנא וסבירא לי שומא הדר לעולם והלכתא שומא הדר לעולם משום שנאמר (דברים ו, יח) ועשית הישר והטוב

And he did well not to answer me. Why? — There he did not trouble him to go to court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he willingly gives over his rights to the bailee, in consideration of having received payment. ');">¹⁰</span>

פשיטא שמו ליה לבעל חוב ואזל איהו ושמה לבעל חוב דידיה אמרינן ליה לא עדיף את מגברא דאתית מיניה זבנה אורתא ויהבה במתנה ודאי הני מעיקרא אדעתא דארעא נחות ולאו אדעתא דזוזי נחות

whereas here he troubled him.

שמו לה לאשה ואינסיבא או שמו מינה דאשה ואינסיבא ומתה בעל בנכסי אשתו לוקח הוי לא מיהדר ולא מהדרינן ליה

Shall we say that in R. Nahman's opinion a valuation is returnable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 99. ');">¹¹</span>

דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא באושא התקינו האשה שמכרה בנכסי מלוג בחיי בעלה ומתה הבעל מוציא מיד הלקוחות

— [No.] There it is different, because it was a valuation made in error, since the jewels were in existence from the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if an article is distrained because a debtor cannot repay, it may be that it is not returnable even if he subsequently acquires money. ');">¹²</span> The Nehardeans said: A valuation is returnable until twelve months. Amemar said: Though I am of Nehardea, I hold that a valuation is always returnable. None the less, the law is that a valuation is always returnable, because it is said, <i>And thou shalt do that which is right and good</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. VI, 18. ');">¹³</span> Now it is obvious,if a valuation was made on behalf of a creditor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the debtor's goods were assessed, distrained, and given to the creditor. ');">¹⁴</span> and he went and valued it for his own creditor: we say to him [the second creditor], You are no better than the man in whose power you come.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as he would have had to return the goods if the debtor could repay the loan, so must you too. ');">¹⁵</span> If he sold, bequeathed or gifted it, these [the recipients] certainly entered it [the distrained estate] originally with the intention of [possessing] the land, not the money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore it is not returnable to the debtor. The creditor himself would have had to return it on account of the verse quoted, for it is applicable to him, since in the first place he demanded money, not land. But it is inapplicable to these recipients, seeing that their thought was land, not money. ');">¹⁶</span> If it was appraised in favour of a woman [creditor], and she married:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this seized estate became either the husband's, as 'property of iron flock,' or remained the wife's, the husband enjoying its usufruct, as 'property of plucking.' ');">¹⁷</span> or if a valuation was made of a woman's [estate] and she married, and then died: the husband ranks as a purchaser in respect to a wife's property: he neither returns [the estate to the debtor], nor is it returned to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he wishes to settle his wife's debts. ');">¹⁸</span> For R. Jose b. Hanina said: In Usha it was enacted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 558, n. 2. ');">¹⁹</span> If a woman sells of her 'property of plucking' in her husband's lifetime and then dies, her husband [as heir] can claim it from the purchasers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he ranks as a previous purchaser. ');">²⁰</span>