Bava Metzia 13bבבא מציעא י״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Bava Metzia 13b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
13bי״ג ב

דאמר לא היו דברים מעולם

the one who says that these matters, the loan, never happened and that the promissory note is forged. Therefore, he has no claim to the paper on which the promissory note is written.

אמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת בשאין חייב מודה דרבי מאיר סבר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים אינו גובה לא ממשעבדי ולא מבני חרי ורבנן סברי (ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי מבני הרי) מגבא גבי אבל כשחייב מודה דברי הכל יחזיר ולא חיישינן לפרעון ולקנוניא

§ Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis is in a case when the purported liable party does not admit to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using this promissory note but that one does collect a debt from unsold property. But in a case when the liable party admits to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder must return the promissory note, and we do not suspect the creditor and the debtor of engaging in repayment and collusion [veliknuneya] to the detriment of one who purchased land from the debtor.

ורבי יוחנן אמר מחלוקת כשחייב מודה דרבי מאיר סבר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי אבל מבני חרי מגבא גבי ורבנן סברי ממשעבדי נמי גבי אבל כשאין חייב מודה דברי הכל לא יחזיר דחיישינן לפרעון

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The dispute is in a case when the liable party admits to the debt. As, Rabbi Meir holds that it is only from liened property that one cannot collect a debt using a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee, but one does collect a debt from unsold property. And the Rabbis hold that one collects a debt from liened property too. But in a case when the liable party does not admit to the debt, everyone agrees that the finder may not return the promissory note, as we suspect that perhaps there was repayment.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ותיובתא דרבי אלעזר בחדא ותיובתא דשמואל בתרתי

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and from it there is also a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel.

מצא שטרי חוב ויש בהם אחריות נכסים אף על פי ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אין בהן אחריות נכסים בזמן שהלוה מודה יחזיר למלוה אין הלוה מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה דברי רבי מאיר

The baraita teaches: In a case where one found promissory notes and they include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. If they do not include a property guarantee, then in a case when the debtor admits to the debt, one should return the promissory note to the creditor. But if the debtor does not admit to the debt, one should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

שהיה רבי מאיר אומר שטרי שיש בהם אחריות נכסים גובה מנכסים משועבדים ושאין בהם אחריות נכסים גובה מנכסים בני חורין וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה גובה מנכסים משועבדים

The baraita continues: As Rabbi Meir would say: With promissory notes that include a property guarantee, one can collect the debt from liened property; but with those that do not include a property guarantee, one collects the debt only from unsold property. And the Rabbis say: With both this type and that type of promissory note, one can collect the debt from liened property.

תיובתא דרבי אלעזר בחדא דאמר לרבי מאיר שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים אינו גובה מנכסים משועבדים ולא מנכסים בני חורין וקאמר בין לר' מאיר בין לרבנן לא חיישינן לקנוניא

This is a conclusive refutation of one element of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that according to Rabbi Meir, with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee one can collect a debt neither from liened property that has been sold nor from unsold property. And Rabbi Elazar also says that according to both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we do not suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor.

וברייתא קתני שטר שאין בו אחריות נכסים ממשעבדי הוא דלא גבי הא מבני חורין מגבא גבי וקתני בין לר"מ בין לרבנן חיישינן לקנוניא דקתני אע"פ ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אלמא חיישינן לקנוניא

And the baraita teaches that with a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee the creditor cannot collect a debt from liened property, but he can collect it from unsold property. And the baraita also teaches that according to the opinions of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, we suspect that there is collusion between the debtor and the creditor, as it is taught that if one found promissory notes that include a property guarantee, even if both the creditor and the debtor agree about the existence of the debt, the finder should not return it to this creditor or to that debtor. Apparently, we suspect collusion. This refutes Rabbi Elazar’s opinion that there is no suspicion of collusion.

והא הני תרתי הוא

The Gemara asks: But aren’t these two elements of Rabbi Elazar’s statement that are refuted by the baraita? Why was it stated above that only one element is refuted?