Bava Metzia 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

And we say: Indeed,

he is the borrower!

For he said: “That never happened!”

And if so, certainly the document does not belong to him.

Rabbi Elazar said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in our Mishna

concerns

a case

in which

the debtor

admits his obligation.

For Rabbi Meir holds: With regard to a document that contains no lien on property, one cannot collect with it, neither from encumbered property—

nor from unencumbered property.

For such a document, which contains no lien on property, is not considered a document at all; and this loan is therefore like an oral loan without witnesses.

Therefore, the finder returns the document, even though the borrower does not admit the loan, since the lender cannot collect anything by means of a document that contains no lien on property.

And the Rabbis hold:

Although the document contains no lien on property, nevertheless the document is effective in making the loan an oral loan attested by witnesses, and therefore

he can collect

from unencumbered property.

And since this is so, it follows that if the finder returns the document to the lender, he will be able to collect with it from unencumbered property. But the borrower does not admit the loan! Therefore, the Rabbis say that the document should not be returned.

But when the debtor admits his obligation—

everyone agrees

that

the finder returns

the document to the lender,

and we are not concerned

about repayment and collusion.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The dispute is when the debtor admits his obligation.

For Rabbi Meir holds: With regard to a document that contains no lien on property, it is only from encumbered property that one cannot collect with it; but from unencumbered property, he can collect.

Therefore, the document should be returned to the lender, because there is no concern that the lender will unlawfully seize property from purchasers, since it is impossible to collect with it from encumbered property. And he will collect from unencumbered property lawfully, since the borrower admits the loan.

And the Rabbis hold: One can also collect from encumbered property

by means of a document that contains no lien on property, because they hold that the mention of liability is a scribal error, as will be explained below. Therefore, the document should not be returned, since the lender may unlawfully seize property from purchasers by means of the document.

But when the debtor does not admit his obligation,

even if he admits that he borrowed, but claims that he has already repaid his debt—

everyone agrees

that

it should not be returned,

because

we are concerned about repayment

and collusion.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan [

we learned in a beraita in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yohanan].

And

from that beraita there is

a refutation

of

Rabbi Elazar on one point [

in one matter],

and a refutation of Shmuel—

on two points [

in two matters]:

This is what we learned in the beraita:

If

a person finds

debt documents, and they contain a lien on property, even though both of them,

the two of them,

the borrower and the lender,

admit

that there was indeed a loan,

he should not return

the document

to either one [

neither to the borrower nor to the lender], because we are concerned about collusion.

But if

they do not contain

the documents

a lien on property,

then the law is as follows:

When the borrower admits

that he borrowed and has not yet repaid his debt—

he returns

the document to the lender. There is no concern about collusion here, because he cannot collect with this document from encumbered property, since no lien is written in it.

But if

the borrower does not admit—

he should return it neither to this one nor to that one,

since the borrower claims that he never borrowed at all.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Debt documents that contain a lien on property—

one can collect from encumbered property.

And

documents

that do not contain a lien on property,

although one cannot collect from encumbered property with them, nevertheless

one can collect from unencumbered property.

And the Sages say: Both this and that,

whether they contain a lien on property or whether they do not contain one,

one can collect from encumbered property.

A refutation of Rabbi Elazar

from this beraita

on one point:

For

indeed,

Rabbi Elazar said that

according to

the

approach of

Rabbi Meir, a document that contains no lien on property cannot be used to collect

either

from encumbered property or from unencumbered property, and

he further

said that

both according to Rabbi Meir

and

the Rabbis,

we are not concerned about collusion.

And

if the

beraita had taught:

according to Rabbi Meir,

a document that contains no lien on property—

it is only from encumbered property that one cannot collect; but from unencumbered property—

one can collect!

And

it further

taught

that

both according to Rabbi Meir

and

according to the Rabbis—

we are concerned about collusion!

The proof of this is

that it teaches: “Even though both of them admit”—

“he should return it neither to this one nor to that one.” Apparently,

it is clear from here that both of them hold that

we are concerned about collusion,

and therefore he should not return it.

And we raise a difficulty:

But these,

the difficulties that we raised from this beraita against Rabbi Elazar,

are two [

two difficulties]:

a. Rabbi Elazar said that according to Rabbi Meir, a document that contains no lien on property cannot be used for collection at all, whereas the beraita makes clear that one can collect from unencumbered property.

b. Rabbi Elazar said that we are not concerned about collusion, whereas we learned in the beraita that we are concerned about it.

And if so, why did the Gemara say, “A refutation of Rabbi Elazar on one point”?