Bava Metzia 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

For

we are concerned

that

there are two 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 Hisda said to Rabba: Go out and examine this,

go and investigate this halakha,

as Rav Huna will ask you about it tonight,

for Rav Huna will ask you about this matter in the evening.

He went out, examined it, and found,

Rav Hisda went out, searched, and found proof from the Mishna,

as we learned

in our Mishna:

Any document executed by a court must be returned.

It follows from the Mishna that if no other city and no additional person bearing the name written in the document are known, we are not concerned about this possibility, and the document is returned.

Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve a matter of prohibition from a matter of monetary law?

How did Rabba establish a halakha concerning a document involving prohibition from a Mishna dealing with a monetary document? Surely, with regard to prohibition, it is possible that one must be more stringent than with regard to monetary matters.

He said to him,

Rabba said to Rav Amram:

Tarda!

Bored person [or: fool]!

After all,

we learned: Documents of halitza and mi'un

our Mishna teaches this, and these are documents involving prohibition. Since the Mishna states that these documents too must be returned, it proves that documents involving prohibition are also returned.

The cedar of the house of study broke,

the pillar upon which the house of study rested broke, and the house of study in which they were discussing this halakha collapsed.

The Master,

Rabba,

said: It broke because of my fortune,

because of my bad fortune the house of study collapsed, since he had insulted me.

And the Master,

Rav Amram,

said: It broke because of my fortune,

because of my bad fortune the house of study collapsed, since you answered my words in order to humiliate me in the house of study.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who finds

documents

in a pouch or in a deluskema,

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

What is a pouch?

Rabba bar bar Hana said: A small wineskin,

a small leather flask made for wine.

What is a deluskema?

Rabba bar Shmuel said: The elders’ purse,

a purse in which the elderly conceal the implements they use, so that they will not need to search for them.

We learned in the Mishna: If one found

a bundle of documents—

documents rolled together—

or a packet of documents—

documents placed one atop the other and tied together, with an identifying feature in the manner in which they were rolled or in their number in the packet—he must return them to one who provides an identifying feature.

The Sages taught

in a baraita:

How many

documents must be rolled together for them to be considered

a bundle of documents

with an identifying feature?

Three

documents

rolled together.

This is the identifying feature supplied by the owner. The finder announces: “I found documents,” and the one giving the identifying feature says: “They are mine, and my identifying feature is that three documents were rolled together.”

People do not ordinarily roll documents together, and therefore this is considered an identifying feature: the documents belong to the person who lost this number of documents, which were rolled together in the manner in which the finder found them.

And how many

documents must be tied together for them to be considered

a packet 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.

Infer from it

it is proven from this baraita that

a knot

is considered

an identifying feature,

even though everyone commonly ties their documents together. Nevertheless, knots are not identical to one another, and when one states how the knot was made, this is an identifying feature that the documents were lost by him.

If so, it may be resolved from here, with regard to a lost article, that the form of the knot constitutes an identifying feature.

And we reject this: This cannot be resolved from here, for

Rabbi Hiyya taught

that the baraita should read: How is a packet of documents with an identifying feature defined? Namely,

three

documents

rolled together!

Rolling is considered an identifying feature, because people ordinarily roll each document separately and then tie them all together, whereas in this case he rolled all three together.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if “a packet of documents” means documents rolled together rather than tied together, then

that is a bundle

of documents; what is the difference between a bundle and a packet?

And we answer:

A bundle—

means that

each one

of the documents was rolled

around the head of the other,

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

Whereas

a packet

means

that they were placed one upon the other

in a pile,

and rolled together

in this manner.

What does he announce?

What does the finder announce? If he announces

the number,

that he found three documents, and the person who comes says that the identifying feature is that they were rolled together—

If so,

why specifically three?

Why must there be at least three documents? Since the owner need not state the number of documents, but only that they were rolled together,

even two would also

suffice; he could provide as an identifying feature that the two documents were rolled together.

Rather,

one must say that the finder announces

as Ravina says

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

He announces, “Coins,”

meaning: “I found coins,” and the person providing the identifying feature must state their number.

Here too,

we should say in our case:

He announces, “Documents,”

he announces: “I found documents,” without stating their number, since that is part of the identifying feature. Therefore, specifically when he found three documents is the number an identifying feature; but if he found only two, the number is not considered an identifying feature, since the minimum of 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 borrower borrowed from three

—one who 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.

For if it enters your mind that they belong to the lenders,

if you should think that the documents were in the possession of the lenders, this is difficult:

Why were they together?

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

And we challenge this: Why are we not concerned

perhaps they went to have them authenticated?

Perhaps the lenders brought the documents to the court clerk who writes “authentication” on each document, certifying that the court examined the document, investigated it, and established the truth of everything written in it; this would explain how documents belonging to different lenders came to be together.

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

already authenticated,

having already been authenticated with “authentication.”

And we challenge this:

Perhaps it fell from the clerk’s hand?

Perhaps it fell from the court clerk after he authenticated them?

And we answer:

A person does not leave his authentication in the clerk’s possession;

a person does not leave an authenticated document with the clerk, but immediately takes it from him.

Therefore, if one finds 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 belonging to

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

For if it enters your mind that they belong to the borrowers,

if you should think that the documents were in the possession of the borrowers, this is difficult:

Why were they together?

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

Perhaps they went to have them written?

Perhaps the borrowers went to the clerk to have loan documents written, and the documents fell from the clerk, and they had never borrowed at all?

And we answer: The case is one in which

they were written by three different scribes,

each document being written in the handwriting of a different scribe; therefore, there is no concern that they fell from the clerk.

And we challenge this:

Perhaps they went to have them authenticated?

Perhaps, after they wrote the documents but before lending the money, they went to the court clerk who writes authentication on all the documents, and the documents 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 is an indication that they fell from the lender.

If there are promissory receipts with them

if a person finds a receipt among his documents—that is, a receipt stating that one of his documents has been paid—

he shall act according to what is written in the receipts,

he shall implement what is written in the receipt, since the debt document has the status of one that has 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 when he said that he would receive the receipt from him the following day, and then forgot.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: A receipt

that nullifies a document,

that emerges from the possession of the lender,

the receipt being in his possession and not in the borrower’s—

Even though it is written in his own handwriting

of the lender, this receipt

is nothing but a sham, and it is invalid.

Penei Yehoshua asked: What novelty did Rav teach us? This is already stated in the Mishna [18a]: “If one finds receipts, he must not return them, as I say that they were written but he reconsidered and decided not to give them.” He answers that from the Mishna one might have said that once the receipt was lost, its status deteriorated, and therefore we are concerned that the lender reconsidered; but when it is found in the lender’s possession, it remains valid. Rav teaches that even when it is in the lender’s possession, it is nothing but a sham and is invalid.

It is not necessary

to teach that the receipt is invalid if

it is written in the handwriting of a scribe, as one may say that a scribe happened to be available to him and wrote it,

for one may say that the scribe prepared the receipt before repayment, so that if the debtor came to pay the document while the lender did not have the document with him, he could give him a receipt, enabling the debtor to pay him.

Rather, even

if the receipt is

written in his own handwriting,

the lender’s—

it is invalid

if it is found in the lender’s possession. One cannot say that, since he knew how to write, there was no reason for him to hasten to write a receipt before repayment.

For one may say that

the lender thought:

the lender said:

Perhaps he will happen to come during twilight and pay me,

perhaps the debtor will happen to come and pay his debt during twilight;

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

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 for the debt, I can immediately give him the receipt.

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

we learned

in our Mishna:

If there are promissory receipts with them—

if a person finds a receipt among his documents [and the case is one involving a lender, since loan documents are found in the lender’s possession]—

he shall act according to what is written in the receipts—

he shall implement what is written in the receipt, since the document has the status of one that has been paid. If so, it is explicit in the Mishna that the receipt is valid even when it is found in the lender’s possession.

And we answer: Our Mishna is speaking

as Rav Safra said

below:

when the document was found

among

torn documents; here too,

we should say that our Mishna is speaking of a case in which

the document

on which the receipt was written was found

among torn documents,

but that document itself was not torn.

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

For if it enters your mind that the lender wrote it so that it would be ready when the borrower wished to repay him, he would not have placed it together with documents that he no longer needed.

Come and hear

a challenge to 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 of Yosef ben Shimon—

one who lent money to two men named Yosef ben Shimon and had two documents, and found in his possession a receipt stating that the document of Yosef ben Shimon had been paid, but he did not know which document was meant.

The law is:

Both documents are considered paid!

Each borrower can say: “The receipt was written concerning my debt.” [The case is one in which the grandfather’s name was written in the document, clearly establishing for which Yosef ben Shimon it was written; therefore, without the receipt he could collect the debt, but the receipt did not state the grandfather’s name, and it is consequently unknown concerning which document it was written.]

If so, it is proven from the Mishna there that a release document found in the lender’s possession is valid, and this is difficult for Rav’s statement.

And we resolve this:

as Rav Safra will say

below:

when it was found

the promissory note

among torn promissory notes, so here too

it can be said that the Mishna there is referring to a case

when

the two promissory notes were found

among torn promissory notes,

but those two promissory notes were not torn. Therefore, we rely on the release document, because the location of the promissory notes proves that the release document is genuine: had the promissory note for which the release document was written not yet been paid, he would not have placed it among the torn promissory notes.

Each of the borrowers claims that the release document was written for his promissory note. Since the lender cannot prove for which of them the release document 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 being sued to repay their father’s debt say, “We do not know whether our father repaid the debt”—may collect only upon taking an oath. And how do the orphans swear?

An oath that our father did not charge us,

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

and that our father did not tell us

before that, during his lifetime,

and that we did not find among our father’s documents

a release document

stating that this promissory note had been paid!

It follows that if they found a release document among their father’s documents—he having been the lender—we rely on the release document. This is difficult for Rav, who said that one does not rely on a release document found in the lender’s possession.

Rav Safra said:

The case there is

when

the promissory note

was found among torn promissory notes,

but that promissory note itself was not torn. Therefore, if they found a release document for this promissory note, we rely on the release document, because the location of the promissory note proves that the release document is genuine.

Ta shma:

We learned in the Tosefta [Bava Metzia 1:13:

A simpon

a release document

that has witnesses

while the lender denies it and says, “I have not been repaid,” and proves that the debt has not yet been repaid, since the release document is found in his possession.

The ruling is:

the release document shall be validated

by

its signatories!

For if the signatories testify that they signed the release document, the lender is not believed. However, as long as the release document has not been validated, the lender is believed, since he is the one producing the release document, and he claims that the release document is invalid.

It is proven from there that even a validated release document is valid when it is in the lender’s possession. This is difficult for Rav, who said that a release document found in the lender’s possession is invalid.