Bava Metzia 13a — the Talmud in English

Rav Asi said: What we learned, that they write for the borrower even though the lender is not with him, refers to

deeds of acquisition.

That is, he acquires and the borrower encumbers his properties to the lender from the time written in the deed, whether in the end he borrows from him or not, in every case the lender will collect from them at the time written in the deed,

for he has encumbered himself

from today, and the lender collects from him by law.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that ordinary deeds are written only when they see the loan actually being given,

our Mishna

here,

which teaches: If they contain responsibility for properties, he shall not return them, and we established

[and established] that it refers to

when the debtor admits,

and he shall not return it

because

they are concerned

perhaps he wrote it in order to borrow in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei, and he will come to collect from purchasers unlawfully; why should he not return it?

Let us see

[let us examine] what kind of deed this refers to:

If

it refers to

a deed of acquisition—

then he has encumbered to him

the borrower

himself

to the lender from the time the deed was written, so why should he not return it to him? After all, there is no concern here!

And

if it is a deed without acquisition,

but an ordinary loan deed—

there is no reason for concern

[there is no place for concern],

for you said that

[when]

there is no lender with him

the borrower, meaning that he is not giving him the loan in our presence—

we do not write it!

And what we learned, that they write for the borrower, refers specifically to a deed of acquisition!

Rav Asi could say to you: Even though with deeds without acquisition, when there is no lender with him—

we do not write them,

nevertheless, in

our Mishna, since it fell

the deed—

it has become defective

[a defect has arisen in it],

and we are concerned that perhaps it happened and it was written

[perhaps the circumstance occurred and they wrote a deed for the borrower without the lender being present].

And now the Gemara returns to answer the question that we asked: How do they write a deed for the borrower even though the lender is not with him?

Abaye said: Its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures.

That is, from the time the witnesses sign the deed, the lender has acquired the encumbrance of the properties, even though the actual loan took place later .

And

if so, it is possible to say that what we learned, that they write a deed for the borrower even though the lender is not with him, refers

even

to

deeds without acquisition,

for even with ordinary loan deeds, the encumbrance takes effect from the time of writing.

And Abaye did not wish to answer as Rav Asi,

because it was difficult for him

since you said

that

with deeds without acquisition, when the lender is not with him—

we do not write them,

if so, even when he finds a promissory note,

there is no reason for concern that it happened and it was written

[there is no concern that it happened to be written without the lender being present].

And if so, it still remains difficult: Why did we learn in our Mishna that he should not return the deed?

Therefore Abaye said that its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures, and if so, they write a deed for the borrower even though the lender is not with him. Therefore, in our Mishna, where a deed is found, we are concerned that perhaps he wrote it in order to borrow in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei, and he will collect from purchasers unlawfully.

And below the Gemara asks: Since its witnesses acquired for him through their signatures, he is collecting from the purchasers lawfully from the time of the signing, so what is the concern?! And we challenge this:

But this that we learned: He found

one of these deeds:

divorce documents of women, and

deeds of

manumission of slaves, a dayteki,

[a deed containing the will of a shikhiv mera ], deeds of

gifts, and receipts

[deeds attesting to the repayment of debts],

he shall not return it,

because they are concerned

perhaps they had been written

for use at a later time,

and

in the end

he reconsidered concerning them and decided not to give them

[that is, in the end their owner decided not to use them].

And

now, according to Abaye,

when he reconsidered concerning them—

what of it? Did you not say that its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures,

and the properties became encumbered from the time of writing?!

And we answer:

This applies

what we say, that its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures, only

where

in the end

it reaches his hand

[the deed reaches the lender’s hand], meaning that the loan was ultimately made; then we say that the encumbrance takes effect from the time the witnesses signed .

But where it does not reach

the deed

his hand

of the lender, since the loan was not made at all—

we do not say that its witnesses acquired for him through their signatures.

And we challenge this:

But our Mishna

[our Mishna],

which teaches: He found promissory notes; if they contain responsibility for properties—

he shall not return them, and we established it

[and established it] as referring to

when the debtor

[the borrower]

admits

that he borrowed,

and

nevertheless he shall not return it,

because

they are concerned

perhaps he wrote in order to borrow in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei,

Granted, according to Rav Asi, who said

that the Mishna in which we learned that they write for the borrower even though the lender is not with him refers

to deeds of acquisition, he establishes it

[he establishes our Mishna]

with deeds without acquisition, as we said,

that this is why he should not return it: since they are concerned that the circumstance occurred and they wrote for the borrower not at the time of the loan, and he will collect from purchasers unlawfully.

But according to Abaye, who said that its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures, what can be said?

Why should the finder not return the deeds to the lender? The borrower admits that he borrowed from him, and if he collects from purchasers from the time of writing, he will collect lawfully?!

Abaye could say to you:

In

our Mishna, this is the reason

that he should not return it: because

he is concerned about repayment and collusion.

That is, they are concerned that perhaps the borrower already repaid his debt and received the deed from the lender, and the deed fell from him. And what he admits and says, that he did not repay the debt, is a fraudulent collusion between him and the lender, so that the lender will collect lands from purchasers who bought from the borrower without responsibility, and they will divide them between themselves.

And we challenge this:

And according to Shmuel, who said

that

we are not concerned about repayment and collusion,

for so Shmuel said below [16b]: One who finds a deed of acquisition in the marketplace shall return it to its owners, and we are not concerned about repayment.

And the reason is that when the borrower repays his debt to the lender, as soon as he receives the deed from the lender, he tears it up; therefore there is no concern that the deed fell from him,

what can be said,

how will the words of our Mishna be explained?

This works out if he holds

Shmuel

like Rav Asi, who said

that only

with deeds of acquisition

do they write a deed for the borrower without the lender,

he establishes our Mishna with deeds without acquisition.

And even though they do not write a deed for the borrower without the lender, we are concerned that perhaps it nevertheless happened that he wrote in order to borrow in Nisan, but did not borrow until Tishrei.

But if he holds like Abaye, who said that its witnesses acquire for him through their signatures, what can be said?

Why should the finder not return the deed to the lender?

And we answer:

Shmuel establishes our Mishna as referring to when there is no

the

debtor’s admission.

That is, the borrower claims that the deed is forged and that he did not write it . Therefore its finder should not return it to the lender.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that it refers to a case where the borrower does not admit to the loan,

when they do not contain

the deeds

responsibility for properties—

why should he return

them to the lender?

Even though

when they do not contain responsibility for properties

he does not collect from encumbered property,

nevertheless

he does collect from free property

[from property that is free, that is, what remains in the borrower’s possession], and yet the borrower claims that he did not borrow at all!

And we explain:

Shmuel follows his own position

[his position elsewhere].

For Shmuel said: Rabbi Meir would say: With a promissory note that does not contain responsibility for properties, he does not collect

anything at all through it.

Not from encumbered property—

and not from free property.

For such a deed has no status of a deed at all, and it is like a loan by oral agreement without witnesses . Therefore the finder may return it to the lender, since he cannot collect anything at all on its basis.

And we wonder:

But since he does not collect

through it anything at all,

why should he return

the deed? What will the lender do with it?

Rabbi Natan bar Oshaya said:

Indeed, the lender cannot use the deed as a promissory note, but nevertheless the finder returns it to him merely as a piece of paper, in order

to wrap

it

around the mouth of his flask

[his bottle]

of the lender.

And we challenge this:

And let us return it to them

[let us return the deed]

to the borrower,

in order

to wrap it around the mouth of the borrower’s flask!