Bava Metzia 7b — the Talmud in English

What is different

if it fell

into the hand of a judge,

from what was found by another person?

Rava said: This is what it is saying: And

a person

who found a document that “fell into the hand of a judge”—and what are the circumstances of a fall into the hand of a judge?

A fall into the hand of a judge is

that there was an hanepek written in it [an authorization by the court of the signatures],

meaning that it contained a court’s confirmation of the signatures],

they shall never bring it out.

And

so the tanna said:

It is not necessary to say that if an hanepek was not written in it,

that the court had not confirmed the validity of the signature,

for it may be said

perhaps the borrower

wrote

the document in order

to borrow

with it,

but did not borrow,

and therefore it is obvious that it is not to be returned to the lender.

Rather, even if an hanepek was written in it, meaning that it is authenticated,

and he certainly borrowed, for they authenticate the document only after the loan, nevertheless, here, when the document fell and this person found it,

he shall not return it, for we are concerned that it was repaid.

For if the document had not been repaid, it is reasonable that the lender would have guarded it so that it would not be lost from him; therefore, there is concern that the borrower repaid it, and immediately after the loan it fell from him.

And Rabbi Yosei says: It is in its presumptive status, and we are not concerned that it was repaid.

Since there is contrary evidence: the document did not fall from the lender but from the borrower, because the borrower does not keep the document after repaying it, but immediately tears it up. And here, since the document was found, it is proven that it is valid and was not repaid; rather, it fell from the lender.

And the Gemara wonders:

And is Rabbi Yosei not concerned that it was repaid!?

And it was taught in a beraita: If one found a marriage document in the marketplace, when the husband admits

that he has still not repaid her marriage settlement,

he shall return it to the woman.

If the husband does not admit, he shall return it neither to this one nor to that one.

Rabbi Yosei says:

if the woman

is still under her husband,

that she has not yet been divorced or widowed, and the obligation to pay the marriage settlement has not taken effect,

he shall return it to the woman,

because it is not the husband’s way to repay her the debt of her marriage settlement before the obligation to pay has arisen.

But if she

was widowed or divorced,

that the time for payment of the marriage settlement has arrived,

he shall return it neither to this one nor to that one.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yosei is concerned that it was repaid!

And the Gemara answers:

Reverse it!

Reverse the opinions in the earlier beraita, and this is how it should be taught:

If it fell into the hand of a judge, they shall never bring it out—these are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Since they are concerned that it was repaid.

And the Sages say: It is in its presumptive status.

Because they are not concerned that it was repaid.

But the Gemara wonders:

If so,

since you taught in the beraita that, according to the Rabbis, they are not concerned that it was repaid,

there is a difficulty from the Rabbis to the Rabbis,

for according to your words, in the first beraita they are not concerned that it was repaid, whereas in the second beraita they are concerned that it was repaid!

And we answer: The later beraita, concerning

a marriage document, is entirely Rabbi Yosei

and the view of the Rabbis is not mentioned in it at all,

and it is deficient

in it,

and this is what it teaches:

If the husband does not admit, he shall return it neither to this one nor to that one,

because they are concerned that it was repaid, as Rabbi Yosei holds in the first beraita, after we reversed its opinions.

In what case are these words stated,

that there is concern that it was repaid?

When she was widowed or divorced; but if she is still under her husband, he shall return it to the woman,

since it is not the way to repay it then, and therefore there is no concern then that it was repaid.

For Rabbi Yosei says: If she is still under her husband, he shall return it to the woman. If she was widowed or divorced, he shall return it neither to this one nor to that one.

And the view of the Rabbis was not mentioned at all in this beraita, so it is impossible to raise a contradiction from this beraita against the earlier one.

Rav Pappa said: In truth, do not reverse

the opinions in the first beraita, and Rabbi Yosei indeed is not concerned that it was repaid; nevertheless, there will not be a contradiction from Rabbi Yosei’s words in the later beraita.

For

Rabbi Yosei stated it according to the words of the Rabbis:

According to me, even if she was widowed or divorced, we are also not concerned that it was repaid,

because the woman immediately tears up her marriage document from the time that she is repaid.

According to you, at least concede to me that while she is under her husband, he should return it to the woman, since she is not subject to repayment.

And the Rabbis said to him:

Nevertheless, we have to be concerned that it was repaid, because

perhaps bundles of money

—bundled money—

he handed over to her,

he placed it in her possession as collateral for collecting her marriage settlement, so that she would not have to trouble herself to collect it from the heirs.

But

Ravina said: In truth, reverse the first one,

and it is the Rabbis who hold that there is no concern that it was repaid.

Nevertheless, there is no contradiction from the words of the Rabbis here, who are concerned that it was repaid, since

the reason of the Rabbis here

is

because we are concerned about two marriage documents.

For the case here is not that the husband claims, “I repaid her marriage settlement,” in which case he would not be believed, because there is no concern that it was repaid. Rather, he claims that she indeed lost her marriage document [since she was not repaid], and therefore he wrote her another marriage document. Now the first marriage document was found, and if the woman takes it into her possession, she can collect payment for two marriage documents from him—for example, she could collect once from his heirs and afterward produce the second document and collect from them again.

And Rabbi Yosei is not concerned about two marriage documents.

And now the Gemara comes to discuss the words of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the beraita [on the previous page], that if two were holding a document, they shall divide it.

Rabbi Elazar said: “The dispute”

—when do they divide the amount written in the document between them?—

is when both are grasping the tofes and both are grasping the toref.

But if one is grasping the tofes and one is grasping the toref, this one takes the tofes and that one takes the toref.

And later the Gemara will explain the meaning of this division with regard to the monetary value that each of them has in the document.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They always divide,

And the Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yohanan:

And

for

even if one is grasping the tofes and one is grasping the toref,

Rabbi Yohanan said that they divide it equally between them!?

And it was taught

above, that when two are holding a cloak in such a manner,

this one takes up to the place that his hand reaches!?

And the Gemara answers:

It is necessary, for the toref stands in the middle,

in the middle of the document, and therefore they divide it equally.

And the Gemara wonders:

If so, what is it teaching us!?

And the Gemara answers:

It is necessary, for the toref is nearer

the toref

to one

of them.

Lest you say, he said to him: Divide it in this manner!

Across the width of the document, and the toref will be in the hand of the one who is nearer to it,

It teaches us that he said to him: What have you seen that you divided it in this manner? Divide it in this manner!

Divide the document along its length, and the two of us are equal partners in the entire document.

Rav Aha of Difti said to Ravina: According to Rabbi Elazar, who says, “This one takes the tofes and that one takes the toref,” why does he need it?

What value does each of them have by himself!?

And does

paper

serve him to cover the mouth of his flask!?

He said to him:

He needs it

for the value of

the document.

For he says as follows: A document that has a date in it [which appears in the toref]

which appears in the essential-information section]

how much is it worth, and one that does not have a date in it, how much is it worth [but the other details appearing in the toref are written again at the end of the tofes].

although the other details appearing in the essential-information section are repeated at the end of the standard-form section].

And behold,

with a document that has a date in it, one collects from liened property. But the other does not collect from liened property.

And therefore,

he gives him,

the one who prevails with the tofes gives the one who prevails with the toref

the amount,

the difference in value

that is between them,

between a document that has a date in it and a document that does not have a date in it; and they divide the rest of the value of the document between them.

And Rav Aha added and said:

And “they shall divide” as well, which we stated,

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said concerning two who were grasping the document together,

is for the value,

that they divide between them the market value of the document, and not the amount written in it.

For if you do not say so,

but they divide the amount in the document itself, then, with regard to

two holding a cloak,

would you also say that

so too they divide,

that they divide the cloak itself, just as here they divide the amount written in the document itself!?

But with a cloak it is impossible that they should divide it in this manner, because if they divide the cloak itself,

they have ruined it!

And the Gemara rejects the proof from the cloak:

This is not difficult.