Bava Metzia 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

What is different

when it fell

into the hands of a judge,

from a document found by someone else?

Rava said: This is what it is saying: And

a person

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

A document falling into the hands of a judge is one

in which an hanepek was written,

that is, it contained the court’s certification of the signatures;

it may never be produced.

And

this is what the tanna said:

It is not necessary to state this with regard to a document in which an hanepek was not written,

meaning that the court had not certified the validity of the signature,

as it can be said

that perhaps the borrower

wrote

the document in order

to borrow

with it,

but did not borrow,

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

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

and he certainly borrowed, since a document is authenticated only after the loan, nevertheless, here, where the document fell and this person found it,

he may not return it, as we are concerned that the debt was repaid.

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

And Rabbi Yosei says: It retains its presumptive status, and we are not concerned that the debt was repaid.

There is counterevidence indicating that the document did not fall from the lender but from the borrower, since a borrower does not retain the document after repaying the debt; rather, he tears it up immediately. And here, since the document was found intact, it is evident that it remains valid and was not paid, but rather fell from the lender.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But is Rabbi Yosei not concerned that the debt was repaid!?

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

that he has not yet paid the amount of her marriage contract,

he must return it to the woman.

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

Rabbi Yosei says:

If the woman

is still married to her husband,

meaning that she has neither been divorced nor widowed and the obligation to pay the marriage contract has not yet taken effect,

he must return it to the woman,

since it is not the husband’s practice to pay her the debt of her marriage contract before the obligation to pay it has arisen.

But if she

was widowed or divorced,

meaning that the time for payment of the marriage contract has arrived,

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

And it is thereby demonstrated that Rabbi Yosei is concerned that the debt was repaid!

The Gemara answers:

Reverse

the opinions in the earlier beraita, and it should be taught as follows:

If it fell into the hands of a judge, it may never be produced; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

Since he is concerned that the debt was repaid.

And the Sages say: It retains its presumptive status.

As they are not concerned that the debt was repaid.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

as you taught in the beraita that, according to the Rabbis, there is no concern that the debt was repaid,

there is a difficulty between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis,

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

And we answer: The latter beraita, concerning

a marriage contract, is entirely the opinion of Rabbi Yosei

and the opinion of the Rabbis is not mentioned in it at all.

And it is incomplete,

and

this is what it teaches:

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

because there is concern that the debt was repaid, as Rabbi Yosei maintains in the first beraita, after reversing its opinions.

When is this statement

that there is concern that the debt was repaid applicable?

When she was widowed or divorced. But if she is still married to her husband, he must return it to the woman,

since it is not customary to pay the debt at that point, and therefore there is no concern then that it was repaid.

As Rabbi Yosei says: If she is still married to her husband, he must return it to the woman. If she was widowed or divorced, he may return it neither to this one nor to that one.

The opinion 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: Actually, do not reverse

the opinions in the first beraita. Rabbi Yosei is indeed not concerned that the debt was repaid, and nevertheless there is no contradiction from Rabbi Yosei’s statement in the latter beraita.

For

Rabbi Yosei stated his position in accordance with the position of the Rabbis:

According to my position, even if she was widowed or divorced, we are also not concerned that the debt was repaid,

since the woman tears up her marriage contract immediately once she has been paid.

According to your position, at least concede to me that while she is still married to her husband, it should be returned to the woman, since she is not yet subject to payment.

And the Rabbis said to him:

Nevertheless, we must be concerned that the debt was repaid, because

perhaps he gave her a bundle of money,

money tied up in a bundle,

he handed over to her,

as security toward collection of her marriage contract, so that she would not have to trouble herself to collect the money from the heirs.

Whereas

Ravina said: Actually, reverse the first

beraita, and it is the Rabbis who maintain that there is no concern that the debt was repaid.

Nevertheless, there is no contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis here, who are concerned that the debt was repaid, and their statement there, since

the reason of the Rabbis here

is

because we are concerned about two marriage contracts.

The case is not one in which the husband claims, “I paid her marriage contract,” in which case he would not be believed, since there is no concern that the debt was repaid. Rather, he claims that she indeed lost her marriage contract [because it had not been paid], and therefore he wrote her another marriage contract. Now the first marriage contract was found, and if the woman takes possession of it, she will be able to collect payment of two marriage contracts from him—for example, she could collect once from his heirs and then produce the second document and collect from them again.

And Rabbi Yosei is not concerned about two marriage contracts.

The Gemara now comes to discuss the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the beraita [on the previous page], that if two people are holding a document, they divide it.

Rabbi Elazar said: “The dispute”

is when they divide the sum written in the document,

when both are holding the tofes and both are holding the toref.

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

The Gemara will later explain the monetary significance of this division, in terms of the value each of them has in the document.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They always divide it,

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan:

And

if

even one is holding the tofes and one is holding the toref,

did Rabbi Yohanan say that they divide it equally between them!?

And it was taught

above that when two people are holding a garment in such a manner,

this one takes the portion extending as far as his hand reaches!?

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, what is the point of stating it!?

The Gemara answers:

No, it is necessary

that the toref is

closer to one

of them.

Lest you say that he said to him: “Divide it in this manner!”

across the width of the document, so that the toref would belong to the one closer to it,

it teaches us that he says to him: “What makes you see that you should divide it in this manner? Divide it in this manner!”

Divide the document lengthwise, so that both of us are equal partners in the entire document.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: According to Rabbi Elazar, who says that this one takes the tofes and that one takes the toref, what use is it to him?

What value does each of them have on its own?

Does

he need

paper to cover the opening of his flask!?

He said to him:

He needs it

for the value of

the document.

For he says as follows: A document that contains a date

which appears in the toref,

how much is it worth, and one that does not contain a date, how much is it worth

while the other details appearing in the toref are repeated and written at the end of the tofes?

And indeed,

with a document that contains a date, one can collect from liened property. But with the other one, one cannot collect from liened property.

And therefore,

he gives him

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

that much,

the difference in value

between them,

between a document containing a date and a document without a date, and they divide the remainder of the document’s value between them.

And Rav Aḥa added and said:

And “they divide,” as we likewise said,

the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel concerning two who were holding a document together,

refers to its value,

meaning that they divide the market value of the document, and not the sum written in it.

For if you do not say so,

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

two holding a garment,

would you say that

here too they divide it,

meaning that they divide the garment itself, just as here they divide the sum written in the document itself!?

But it is impossible for them to divide the garment in that manner, because if they divide the garment itself,

they will have ruined it!

The Gemara rejects the proof from the garment:

This is not difficult.