## Bava Metzia Daf 13a

###### Bava Metzia 13a:1
[Bava Metzia 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:1)

בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה, דְּהָא שַׁעְבֵּיד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This mishna is referring not to one who finds an ordinary promissory note but **to** one who finds **deeds of transfer.** This refers to a promissory note that establishes a lien on the debtor’s property from the date the note is written, regardless of when he borrows the money. **Because** the debtor **obligated himself** from that date, the creditor has the legal right to repossess his land from any subsequent purchasers.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:2
[Bava Metzia 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:2)

אִי הָכִי, מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים לֹא יַחֲזִיר״, וְאוֹקֵימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין, אַמַּאי לֹא יַחֲזִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** the following difficulty arises: How will one account for the ruling of **the mishna** here, **which teaches** that **if** the promissory notes **include a property guarantee,** the finder **should not return** them to the creditor; **and we established** that the reference is to a case **when** the **debtor admits** that he still owes the debt **and** that the promissory note should not be returned **due to** suspicion that **perhaps** the debtor **wrote** it with the intention **to borrow** the money **in Nisan but did not** actually **borrow** it **until Tishrei, and** therefore, if the promissory note is returned to the creditor **he will come to repossess** the land from the **purchasers unlawfully.** If Rav Asi’s explanation is correct, **why shouldn’t** the finder **return** the document?


###### Bava Metzia 13a:3
[Bava Metzia 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:3)

נֶחְזֵי אִי בִּשְׁטַר הַקְנָאָה – הָא שַׁעְבֵּיד לֵיהּ נַפְשֵׁיהּ! אִי בִּשְׁטָר דְּלָא הַקְנָאָה – לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ, דְּהָא אָמְרַתְּ כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Let us see** what the possibilities are. **If** the reference is **to a deed of transfer, didn’t** the debtor **obligate himself** that his property can be collected for payment of the loan from the date that the deed of transfer was written? Conversely, **if** the reference is **to** a promissory **note that is not** a deed of **transfer, there is no** room for **concern, as you said** that in such a case, **when the lender is not** present **together with** the borrower, **we do not write** such a document.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:4
[Bava Metzia 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:4)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה, כִּי לֵיכָּא מַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, מַתְנִיתִין כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַל אִתְּרַע לֵיהּ, וְחָיְישִׁינַן דִּלְמָא אִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Asi** could have **said to you: Although we do not write** promissory **notes that are not** deeds of **transfer when the lender is not** present **together with** the borrower, with regard to the case in **the mishna** it can be explained that **since** the promissory note **was dropped,** its credibility **was compromised, and** consequently **we are concerned** that **perhaps it happened to have been written** in the absence of the lender, deviating from the standard procedure.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:5
[Bava Metzia 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:5)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye stated** an alternative explanation of the mishna that allows one to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender: The document’s **witnesses, with their signatures, acquire** the lender’s lien on the borrower’s land **on** the lender’s **behalf,** despite the fact that the loan did not occur yet. **And** this applies **even** with regard to promissory **notes that are not** deeds of **transfer.**


###### Bava Metzia 13a:6
[Bava Metzia 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:6)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה כִּי לֵיתֵיהּ לְמַלְוֶה בַּהֲדֵיהּ לָא כָּתְבִינַן, לֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ דְּאִקְּרִי וּכְתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye offered this explanation **because** Rav Asi’s explanation was **difficult for him; since you said with regard to** promissory **notes that are not** deeds of **transfer** that **we do not write** them **when the lender is not** present **together with** the borrower, **there is no** reason for **concern** that **perhaps** in the case of a found promissory note **it happened to be written** in the lender’s absence.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:7
[Bava Metzia 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:7)

אֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנָה וְשׁוֹבָרִים – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחְזִיר, שֶׁמָּא כְּתוּבִים הָיוּ וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא לִיתְּנָם. וְכִי נִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** how can Abaye’s opinion be reconciled with **that which we learned** in a mishna (18a): If one **found bills of divorce, or** bills **of manumission of slaves,** or **wills [*deyaitiki*],** or deeds of **gift, or receipts, he may not return** them to the people who are presumed to have lost them. The reason is that **perhaps they were** only **written and** not delivered, because the one who wrote them subsequently **reconsidered about them** and decided **not to deliver them.** The Gemara asks: **If he reconsidered** and decided not to deliver **them, what of it? Didn’t you say** that a document’s **witnesses, with their signatures, acquire** it **on behalf of** the recipient? If so, why shouldn’t it be returned to him?


###### Bava Metzia 13a:8
[Bava Metzia 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:8)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא מָטוּ לִידֵיהּ לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This statement,** that a creditor acquires the lien on the debtor’s land immediately when the witnesses sign the document, applies only in a case **where** the document **came into** the creditor’s **possession; but** in a case **where** the document **did not come into his possession,** as it was never given to him, **we do not say** that.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:9
[Bava Metzia 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:9)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר. וְאוֹקִימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather,** how can **the mishna** be reconciled with Abaye’s opinion? **As it teaches:** With regard to one who **found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee, he may not return** them to the creditor. **And we established** that the mishna is referring to a case **when** the **liable party,** i.e., the debtor, **admits** to the debts, **and** nevertheless the finder may not return the note **due to** the suspicion that **perhaps he wrote** the promissory note with the intention **to borrow** the money **in Nisan but he did not** actually **borrow** it **until Tishrei.**


###### Bava Metzia 13a:10
[Bava Metzia 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי אַקְנְיָיתָא – מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו אַקְנְיָיתָא, וְכִדְאָמְרִינַן. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Granted, according to Rav Asi, who says** that the *halakha* that a promissory note may be written for a borrower in the absence of the lender applies only **with regard to deeds of transfer,** the mishna can be **established** as referring **to** promissory **notes that are not** deeds of **transfer, and** it is **as we stated** above. **But according to Abaye, who says** that a document’s **witnesses, with their signatures, acquire** the lien **on** the lender’s **behalf, what is there to say?** Why shouldn’t one return the promissory notes even if they include a property guarantee for the loan?


###### Bava Metzia 13a:11
[Bava Metzia 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:11)

אָמַר לָךְ אַבָּיֵי, מַתְנִיתִין הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דְּחָיְישִׁ[ינַן] לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **Abaye** could have **said to you** that **this is the reason** for the ruling in **the mishna:** It is **that** the *tanna* **suspects** that there was **repayment and collusion.** Although the debtor admits his debt, he is suspected to be lying, as after he repaid the debt he might have colluded with the creditor to repossess land that he sold during the period of the loan, and the debtor and creditor would split the money between them.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:12
[Bava Metzia 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:12)

וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָנִיחָא אִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב אַסִּי דְּאָמַר בִּשְׁטָרֵי הַקְנָאָה – מוֹקֵי מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁטָרֵי דְּלָאו הַקְנָאָה. אֶלָּא אִי סָבַר כְּאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Shmuel, who says** that **we do not suspect repayment and collusion, what is there to say?** How can the mishna be explained? **This works out well if** Shmuel **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Asi, who says** that only **in** the case of **deeds of transfer** is it permitted to write a promissory note for a borrower in the absence of the lender. Accordingly, Shmuel **can establish** the mishna as referring **to** promissory **notes that are not** deeds of **transfer. But if** Shmuel **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Abaye, who says** that a document’s **witnesses, with their signatures, acquire** the lien **on** the creditor’s **behalf, what is there to say?**


###### Bava Metzia 13a:13
[Bava Metzia 13a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:13)

שְׁמוּאֵל מוֹקֵי לְמַתְנִיתִין כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel can establish the mishna** as referring to a case **when the** purported **liable party does not admit** to the debt, and therefore the finder may not return the promissory notes to the creditor.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:14
[Bava Metzia 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:14)

אִי הָכִי, כִּי אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? נְהִי דְּלָא גָּבֵי מִן מְשַׁעְבְּדֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי מִגְבֵּי גָּבֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** in a case **when** the promissory notes **do not include a property guarantee, why must** the finder **return** them to the purported creditor? **Granted,** the creditor **cannot collect** the debt **from liened** property that had been sold, but **he can collect** it **from** the debtor’s **unsold** property, even though the debtor claims to be exempt.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:15
[Bava Metzia 13a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:15)

שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵין גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as Shmuel says** that **Rabbi Meir would say:** In the case of **a promissory note that does not include a property guarantee,** the creditor **collects neither from liened** property that has been sold **nor from unsold** property. Therefore, there is no harm in the finder returning the promissory note to the creditor.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:16
[Bava Metzia 13a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:16)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אַמַּאי יַחְזִיר? אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן בַּר אוֹשַׁעְיָא: לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל מַלְוֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But since** the creditor **cannot collect** the debt, **why should** the finder **return** the promissory note? For what purpose can the creditor use it? **Rabbi Natan bar Oshaya says:** The **creditor** can use it **to cover the opening of his flask.** Its only value is as a piece of paper.


###### Bava Metzia 13a:17
[Bava Metzia 13a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/13a:17)

וְנַהְדְּרֵיהּ (לְהוּ) לְלֹוֶה לָצוֹר עַל פִּי צְלוֹחִיתוֹ שֶׁל לֹוֶה! לֹוֶה הוּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the document has only the value of the paper, **let** the finder **return it to the debtor, to cover the opening of** the **debtor’s flask.** The Gemara answers: **The debtor is**