Bava Metzia 13b — the Talmud in English

And we say: But

he is a borrower! ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

For he said: “It 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

is in

a case

where there is no

the

debtor’s admission.

For Rabbi Meir holds: A document in which there is no lien on property does not collect, neither from encumbered assets —

nor from free assets.

For such a document, in which there is no lien on property, is not considered a document at all; and this loan is therefore like an oral loan, for which there are no witnesses.

And 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 in which there is no lien on property.

And the Rabbis hold:

Even though there is no lien on property in the document, nevertheless the document is effective so that the loan is considered an oral loan with witnesses, and therefore

he collects

from free assets.

And since this is so, it follows that if the finder returns the document to the lender, he will be able to collect by means of it from free assets. But the borrower does not admit the loan! Therefore the Rabbis say that he should not return the document.

But when the debtor admits —

everyone agrees

that

he should return

the finder the document to the lender,

and we do not suspect

repayment and collusion.

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

For Rabbi Meir holds: It is only from encumbered assets that it does not collect, but from free assets it does collect.

And therefore he returns the document to the lender, because there is no concern that the lender will unlawfully seize from purchasers, since it is impossible to collect by means of it from encumbered assets. And from free assets he will collect lawfully, since the borrower admits.

And the Rabbis hold: It also collects from encumbered assets

by means of a document in which there is no lien on property, because they hold that the lien is a scribal error, as will be stated below. And therefore he should not return it, since the lender may seize from purchasers by means of the document unlawfully.

But when there is no debtor’s admission,

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

everyone agrees

that he

should not return it,

because

we suspect repayment

and collusion.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan [

We learned in a beraita in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan].

And

from that beraita there is

a refutation

of

Rabbi Elazar in one respect [

in one matter],

and a refutation of Shmuel —

in two respects [

in two matters]:

For 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,

debt documents, and there is a lien on property in them, even though both of them

— both the borrower and the lender —

admit

that there indeed was a loan,

he should not return

the document

neither to this one nor to that one [

not to the borrower and not to the lender], because we are concerned about collusion.

And if

there is none in them,

in 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 should return

the document to the lender. For there is no concern about collusion here, because he cannot collect with this document from encumbered assets, 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 did not borrow at all.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

For Rabbi Meir would say: Debt documents in which there is a lien on property —

collect from encumbered assets.

And

documents

in which there is no lien on property,

although he does not collect with them from encumbered assets, nevertheless

he collects from free assets.

And the Sages say: Whether this one or that one,

whether there is a lien on property in them or whether there is none in them,

he collects from encumbered assets.

A refutation of Rabbi Elazar

from this beraita

in one respect:

For

behold,

Rabbi Elazar said that

for

the

approach of

Rabbi Meir, a document in which there is no lien on property does not collect

either

from encumbered assets or from free assets, and

further

he said

Rabbi Elazar that

both according to Rabbi Meir,

and

according to the Rabbis, we do not suspect collusion,

and

if in the

beraita it is taught:

according to the approach of Rabbi Meir,

a document in which there is no lien on property —

it is only from encumbered assets that it does not collect; but from free assets —

it does collect!

And

further

it is taught,

that

both according to Rabbi Meir

and

according to the Rabbis —

we do suspect collusion!

And the proof of this is

that it is taught: Even though both of them admit —

he should not return it neither to this one nor to that one. Thus,

it is proven from here that both of them hold that

we do suspect 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 [

there are two difficulties]:

A. Rabbi Elazar said that according to Rabbi Meir, a document in which there is no lien does not collect at all, whereas in the beraita it is explained that it collects from free assets.

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

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