Bava Metzia 20b — the Talmud in English

Because

we are concerned

that

there may be two cities called Shavrei,

as perhaps there is another city named Shavrei of which we are unaware, and this document fell here from another agent who came from there.

Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Go and examine this matter,

go and investigate this halakhic ruling,

as Rav Huna will ask you about it this evening,

because Rav Huna will ask you about this case in the evening.

He went out, examined the matter, and found

that Rav Ḥisda found a proof from the Mishna

as we learned

in our Mishna:

Any document produced by a court must be returned.

This implies that if no other city and no other person with the same name as the one appearing in the document are known, there is no concern about this possibility, and the document is returned.

Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master derive a ruling concerning a prohibition from a ruling concerning money?

How did Rabba prove a ruling concerning a document involving a prohibition from a Mishna dealing with a monetary document? In a matter of prohibition, perhaps one must be more stringent than in a monetary matter.

He said to him

—Rabba said to Rav Amram—:

Bored one!

You are an idler [a lazy person]!

Indeed,

we learned about documents of ḥalitza and mi’un

in our Mishna. These are documents concerning prohibitions, and from the fact that the Mishna says that these documents too must be returned, it can be proved that documents involving prohibitions are also returned.

The cedar of the house of study broke,

the pillar on which the house of study rested broke, and the house of study in which this halakhic matter was being discussed collapsed.

The Master

—Rabba—

said: It broke because of my fortune,

because the house of study collapsed on account of my fortune, in response to your having insulted me.

And the other

—Rav Amram—

said: It broke because of my fortune,

because the house of study collapsed on account of my fortune, since you answered my words and embarrassed me in the house of study.

We learned in the Mishna:

If one found

documents

in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema,

and there are identifying features in these containers, he must return them to whoever states the identifying features of the ḥafisa or the deluskema.

What is a ḥafisa?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: A small wineskin,

a small leather flask made for wine.

What is a deluskema?

Rabba bar Shmuel said: An old person’s pouch,

a purse in which elderly people conceal their personal items, so that they will not need to search for them.

We learned in the Mishna: If one found

a bundle of documents

—documents wrapped together—

or a tied group of documents

—documents placed one on top of another and tied together, with an identifying feature in the way they were wrapped or in their number in the group—he must return them to whoever provides an identifying feature.

The Sages taught

in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

How many

documents must there be, wrapped together, for them to be considered

a bundle of documents

with an identifying feature?

Three

documents

wrapped together.

This is the identifying feature that the owner provides. The finder announces: “I found documents,” and the person providing the identifying feature says: “They are mine, and my identifying feature is that three documents were wrapped together.”

This is an identifying feature because people do not ordinarily wrap documents together. Therefore, this indicates that the documents belong to the person who lost that number of documents, wrapped in the manner in which the finder found them.

And how many

documents must be tied together for them to be considered

a tied group of documents

with an identifying feature?

Three

documents

tied together.

If a person provides this identifying feature, saying that he lost three documents that were tied together, it is considered an identifying feature, and the documents are returned to him.

Learn from this

that this can be proved from the beraita:

a knot

is considered

an identifying feature,

even though everyone ordinarily ties documents together. Nevertheless, knots are not all identical, and when a person states how the knot was made, that is an identifying feature indicating that the documents were lost by him.

If so, the matter can be resolved from here with regard to a lost item: The form of the knot constitutes an identifying feature.

And we reject this proof: It cannot be resolved from here, since

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught

that the beraita should be read as follows: How is a tied group of documents with an identifying feature defined? Namely,

three

documents

wrapped together!

The wrapping is considered an identifying feature, because people ordinarily wrap each document separately and then tie them all together, whereas in this case all three were wrapped together.

And we object:

If so,

if “a tied group of documents” refers to documents wrapped together rather than tied together, then

that is a bundle

of documents. What is the difference between a bundle and a tied group?

And we answer:

A bundle

means that

each one

of the documents was wrapped

around the head of the next one,

meaning that one document was rolled up, another document was rolled over it, and the third was rolled over both of them.

Whereas

a tied group

means

that they were placed one upon another,

with the documents lying in a pile,

and wrapped

—rolled together in this manner.

What does he announce,

the finder? If he announces

a number,

saying that he found three documents, and the person who claims them says that the identifying feature is that they were wrapped together,

if so,

why specifically three?

Why must there be at least three documents? Since the person providing the identifying feature need not state the number of documents, but only that they were wrapped together,

even two as well

—two documents—could provide this identifying feature by saying that they were wrapped together.

Rather,

one must say that the finder announces them

as Ravina said

below, in the chapter “These Are Lost Items” [25a]:

He announces: Coins,

meaning, “I found coins,” and the owner must state their number.

Here too,

one can say in our case:

He announces: Documents,

meaning, he announces: “I found documents,” without stating their number, because the number is part of the identifying feature. Therefore, only when he found three documents is the number an identifying feature. If he found only two, the number is not considered an identifying feature, because the minimum number referred to by a plural is two, and everyone knows that he found at least two.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one person borrowed from three

—meaning, if one found three documents belonging to one borrower, who borrowed from three different lenders, each document being from a different lender—

he must return

the documents

to the borrower,

as they certainly fell from him.

If it enters your mind that they belonged to the lenders,

for if you were to say that the documents had been in the possession of the lenders, it would be difficult:

Why were they together?

How did documents belonging to different lenders happen to be in one place?!

And we object: Why do we not be concerned

that perhaps they went to have them authenticated?

Perhaps the lenders brought the documents to the court scribe who writes the certification that the court examined the document, investigated it, and established that everything written in it is true, for all the documents; and this is how documents belonging to different lenders came to be in one place?

And we answer: The case is one in which the finder found documents

that had already been authenticated

with a court certification.

And we object:

Perhaps it fell from the hand of the scribe?

Perhaps it fell from the court scribe after he authenticated the documents?

And we answer:

A person does not leave his authenticated document in the hand of the scribe;

rather, he immediately takes it from him.

Therefore, if one found three authenticated documents belonging to three different lenders, he returns them to the borrower, because they certainly fell from him.

We learned in the Mishna: If one found three documents of

three people who borrowed from one person, he must return them to the lender.

If it enters your mind that they belonged to the borrowers,

for if you were to say that the documents had been in the possession of the borrowers, it would be difficult:

Why were they together?

How did documents belonging to different borrowers happen to be in one place?! And we object:

Perhaps they went to have them written?

Perhaps the borrowers went to a scribe to have loan documents written, and the documents fell from the scribe, before they had ever borrowed the money?

And we answer: The case is one in which the documents

were written by three different scribes,

each document in the handwriting of a different scribe. Therefore, there is no concern that they fell from the scribe.

And we object:

Perhaps they went to have them authenticated?

Perhaps, after writing the documents but before lending the money, they went to the court scribe who writes the certification for all the documents, and they fell from him?

And we answer:

A lender authenticates his document; a borrower does not authenticate his document,

and therefore, if all the documents were found together, this indicates that they fell from the lender.

If there are debt-cancellation receipts with them,

if a person found a debt-cancellation receipt among his documents—that is, a receipt stating that one of his loan documents had been paid—

he must act in accordance with what is written in the receipts,

he must implement what is written in the receipt, since the debt document is presumed to have been paid. Although this receipt should properly have been in the borrower’s possession rather than the lender’s, nevertheless, we say that perhaps the borrower trusted the lender and said that he would receive the receipt from him the next day, but then forgot.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: A debt-cancellation receipt

—a receipt that nullifies a loan document—

that emerges from the possession of the lender,

meaning that the receipt is in his possession and not in the borrower’s possession,

even if it is written in his own handwriting

—the lender’s—this receipt

is merely a sham and is invalid.

It is not necessary

to teach that the receipt is invalid if it is

written in a scribe’s handwriting, since it can be said that a scribe happened to be available and wrote it,

as one can say that the scribe prepared the receipt before repayment, so that if the debtor came to repay the loan document at a time when the lender did not have the document with him, the lender could give him a receipt and the debtor could repay the debt.

Rather, even if

the receipt is

written in his own handwriting

of the lender,

it is invalid

if it is found in the lender’s possession. One cannot say that, since he knew how to write, he would have had no reason to hurry to write a receipt before repayment.

For one can say that the lender

thought:

the lender thought:

Perhaps he will happen to come and arrive at twilight, and repay me,

perhaps the debtor will happen to find an opportunity and come to repay his debt at twilight,

because if I do not give him the receipt, he will not give me the money.

Since, if I do not give him a receipt, he will not give me the money owed. Therefore,

I will write it myself;

I will write the receipt now,

so that when he brings me the money

I will give it to him,

so that when he brings me the money owed, I can immediately give him the receipt.

And we object to Rav’s statement that a receipt found in the lender’s possession is worthless. For

we learned

in our Mishna:

If there are debt-cancellation receipts with them

—if a person found a debt-cancellation receipt among his documents; this refers to a lender, since loan documents are in the lender’s possession—

he must act in accordance with what is written in the receipts

—he must implement what is written in the receipt, since the debt document is presumed to have been paid. If so, it is clear from the Mishna that the receipt is valid even when it is found in the lender’s possession.

And we answer: In our Mishna, the case is

as Rav Safra said

below:

the document was found

among

torn documents; here too,

one can say that our Mishna is referring to a case in which

he found

the document to which the receipt referred

among torn documents,

but that particular document was not torn.

Therefore, we rely on the receipt, because the location of the document proves that the receipt is genuine: If the document had not yet been paid, he would not have placed it among the torn documents. Therefore, we say that the debt was paid, and the receipt should indeed have been in the borrower’s possession rather than the lender’s. However, the borrower forgot it in the lender’s possession, and the lender placed it among the documents he no longer needed.

For if it enters your mind to say that the lender wrote the receipt so that it would be ready when the borrower wished to repay the debt, then he would not have placed it with these documents, which he no longer needed.

Come and hear a proof

that challenges Rav, who holds that a receipt found in the lender’s possession is invalid, from what we learned in Bava Batra [172a]:

A person found among his documents a paid document belonging to Yosef ben Shimon

—a person who lent money to two men named Yosef ben Shimon and has two loan documents, and found in his possession a receipt stating that the document belonging to Yosef ben Shimon had been paid, but he does not know which document it refers to.

The ruling is:

Both documents are considered paid!

Each of the borrowers can say: “The receipt was written concerning my debt.” [This refers to a case in which the grandfather’s name was written in the document, thereby clarifying for which Yosef ben Shimon the document was written; without the receipt, the lender could collect the debt. However, the grandfather’s name was not written in the receipt, and therefore it is impossible to know which document it concerned. ]

If so, it is proven from the Mishna there that a receipt emerging from the lender's hand is valid, and this is difficult for Rav's words.

And we answer:

As Rav Safra said

below:

when

the document is found

among torn documents, here too

it can be said concerning the Mishna there that it is speaking of

when

the two documents were found

among torn documents,

and those two documents were not torn. Therefore, they rely upon the receipt, because the location of the documents proves concerning the receipt that it is genuine: for if the document upon which the receipt was written had not yet been paid, he would not have placed it there among the torn documents.

And each one of the borrowers claims that the receipt was written for his document, and since the lender cannot prove for which of them the receipt was written, he cannot collect the debt from either of them.

Ta shma:

We learned in Shevuot [45a]: Orphans who come to collect from orphans—for example, when the orphans who are being sued to repay their father's debt say, “We do not know whether our father paid the debt”—they may collect only with an oath. And how do the orphans swear?

An oath that we were not instructed by Father,

that our father did not command us at the time of his death,

and that Father did not tell us

before that, during his lifetime,

and that we did not find among Father's documents

a receipt

that this document was paid!

It follows that if they found a receipt among their father's documents [who had been the lender], they rely upon the receipt, and this is difficult for Rav, who said that one does not rely upon a receipt found in the lender's possession.

Rav Safra said:

It is speaking there

when

the debt document

was found among torn documents,

and that document was not torn. Therefore, if they found a receipt for this document, they rely upon the receipt, because the location of the document proves concerning the receipt that it is genuine.

Ta shma:

We learned in the Tosefta [B.M. 1:13]:

A simpon

a receipt

that has witnesses upon it

and the lender denies it and says, “I was not paid,” and proves that it has not yet been paid, since the receipt is found in his possession.

The law is:

The receipt shall be established

by

its signatories!

For if the signatories testify that they signed the receipt, the lender is not believed; but as long as he does not establish the receipt, the lender is believed, since he is the one who produces the receipt, and he claims that the receipt is invalid.

It is proven from there that an authenticated receipt, even if it is in the lender's possession, is valid. And this is difficult for Rav, who said that a receipt found in the lender's possession is invalid.