## Bava Metzia Daf 16b

###### Bava Metzia 16b:1
[Bava Metzia 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:1)

מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the Sages instituted an ordinance that the sale is effective **because** of their concern **for his** immediate **livelihood.**


###### Bava Metzia 16b:2
[Bava Metzia 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:2)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֲנִי לוֹקֵחַ, לִכְשֶׁאֶקָּחֶנָּה, קְנוּיָה לָךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו – קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the matter of selling property that one does not yet own. **Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** With regard to **one who says to another:** With regard to the **field that I** am about to **buy, when I buy it,** it will be retroactively **transferred to your ownership from now,** the stipulation takes effect, and once he buys it, the second party has **acquired** the field.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:3
[Bava Metzia 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִלְּתֵאּ דְרַב בְּשָׂדֶה סְתָם. אֲבָל בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ – לָא. מִי יֵימַר דִּמְזַבֵּין לַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The statement of Rav is reasonable** only **with regard to an unspecified field,** as one is capable of buying a field. **But with regard to** a case where one says to another that he is selling him **this** specific **field** that is not yet in his possession, the transaction does **not** take effect, as **who is to say that** the current owner will **sell it to him?** Since it is not in his power alone to purchase the field, it is tantamount to an entity that has not yet come into being, and therefore he cannot sell it to anyone.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:4
[Bava Metzia 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:4)

וְהָאֱלֹהִים! אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ בְּ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ״ מִכְּדֵי רַב כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ – כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara emphatically rejects Rava’s qualification of Rav’s statement in the form of an oath: **By God! Rav said** his statement **even in** a case where the seller said: **This field. After all, in accordance with whose** opinion **did Rav state his *halakha*?** It was **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **a person can transfer ownership of an entity that has not** yet **come into the world.**


###### Bava Metzia 16b:5
[Bava Metzia 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לִי לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶתְגַּיֵּיר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּתְגַּיְּירִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁאֶשְׁתַּחְרֵר״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתִּשְׁתַּחְרְרִי״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּמוּת בַּעְלִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁיַּחְלוֹץ לָךְ יְבָמִיךְ״, ״לְאַחַר שֶׁתָּמוּת אֲחוֹתִיךְ״ – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says to a woman: Be betrothed to me after I convert,** or: **After you convert,** or if he is a slave and says: **After I am freed,** or if she is a maidservant and he says: **After you are freed,** or if he says to a married woman: **After your husband dies,** or if he says to a widow waiting for her *yavam* to perform the ritual through which he frees her from her levirate bonds [*ḥalitza*]: **After your *yavam* performs *ḥalitza* with you,** or if he says to his wife’s sister: **After your sister dies** (see Leviticus 18:18), in all these cases **she is not betrothed.** Since he cannot betroth her at the present moment, his attempt at betrothal is ineffective.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:6
[Bava Metzia 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:6)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: She is betrothed.** Rabbi Meir holds that one can acquire that which is not yet available, and the acquisition will take effect once the item is available. In this case as well, the betrothal will take effect once it becomes possible for her to become betrothed to him.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:7
[Bava Metzia 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:7)

וְהָא אִשָּׁה כְּ״שָׂדֶה זוֹ״ דָּמְיָא, וְאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And isn’t** the case of betrothing a specific **woman comparable to** the case of selling **this** specific **field? And** yet, **Rabbi Meir says** that **she is betrothed.** It is therefore clear that Rav, who accepts the opinion of Rabbi Meir, holds that the sale is effective even if the seller specified a particular field.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:8
[Bava Metzia 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:8)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטַר הַקְנָאָה בַּשּׁוּק – יַחְזִירוֹ לַבְּעָלִים. דְּאִי מִשּׁוּם דְּכָתַב לִלְוֹת וְלֹא לָוָה – הָא שַׁעְבֵּד נַפְשֵׁיהּ. וְאִי מִשּׁוּם פֵּרָעוֹן – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן, דְּאִם אִיתָא דְּפַרְעֵיהּ – מִקְרָע הֲוָה קָרַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says:** With regard to **one who finds a deed of transfer,** i.e., a promissory note that establishes a lien on the debtor’s property from the date it is written, regardless of whether or not he borrows the money at that time, **in the marketplace, he must return it to** its **owner,** i.e., the creditor, **as, if** one were to be concerned **because** of the possibility **that** the debtor **wrote** the note intending **to borrow** money, **but did not borrow** it in the end, he is nevertheless liable, since **he committed himself** to pay at the time it was written. **And if** one were to be concerned **because of** the possibility that **repayment** had already taken place, this is not a justified concern, as in general **we are not concerned** that there was **repayment, as, if it were so that** the debtor had **repaid it, he** certainly **would have torn up** the note.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:9
[Bava Metzia 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַבָּא מִן סָפְרֵי דַּיָּינֵי דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל הֲוָה, וַהֲוֵינָא כְּבַר שֵׁיתָא כְּבַר שְׁבַע, וּדְכִירְנָא דַּהֲווֹ מַכְרְזִי וְאָמְרִי: הָנֵי שְׁטָרֵי אַקְנְיָיתָא דְּמִשְׁתַּכְחִי בְּשׁוּקָא, נַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: My father was** one **of the scribes of the judges of Mar Shmuel, and I was about six** or **seven years old, and I remember that they made an announcement, saying: Those deeds of transfer that are found in the marketplace should be returned to their owners,** the creditors, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:10
[Bava Metzia 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:10)

אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם: אַף אֲנַן תְּנֵינָא. כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר, אַלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁטָרֵי חַלְטָאתָא וְאַדְרַכְתָּא, דְּלָאו בְּנֵי פֵרָעוֹן נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Amram said: We, too, learn** similarly in a mishna (20a): **One must return any court enactment,** i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. **Apparently, we are not concerned** that there may have been **repayment. Rabbi Zeira said to him: The mishna** is not proof for Shmuel’s ruling, as it is stated not with regard to all court enactments but **with regard to bills of foreclosure,** which award property to a creditor as payment for the debt owed to him, **and** bills of **authorization** to locate and seize property from the debtor, both of **which are not subject to repayment.**


###### Bava Metzia 16b:11
[Bava Metzia 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:11)

אָמַר רָבָא: וְהָנֵי לָאו בְּנֵי פֵרָעוֹן נִינְהוּ? וְהָא אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: שׁוּמָא הָדַר עַד תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא. וְאָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אֲנָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אֲנָא, וּסְבִירָא לִי דְּשׁוּמָא הָדַר לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** to him: **And are these** bills **not subject to repayment? But didn’t** the Sages **of Neharde’a say** that after property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the court’s **appraisal** of its value, the property is **returned** if the debtor pays the debt **until twelve months** of **the year** have passed after the repossession? **And** furthermore, **Ameimar said: I am from Neharde’a, and** nevertheless, **I hold that** property repossessed based on **an appraisal** of an article’s value can **always** be **returned.** If the debtor pays his debt, he can reclaim his property at any point. Consequently, even bills of foreclosure or authorization might be obsolete, and nevertheless the mishna states that one who finds them must return them to the creditor.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:12
[Bava Metzia 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: דַּאֲמַרִי אִיהוּ הוּא דְּאַפְסֵיד אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ, דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּפַרְעֵיהּ אִבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִקְרְעֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ, אִי נָמֵי לְמִכְתַּב שְׁטָרָא אַחֲרִינָא עִילָּוֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said** that the mishna is not proof for the ruling of Shmuel for a different reason: **There, this is the reason** that the documents are returned: **As I can say** that if the debtor has already repaid his debt, **it is he who caused the loss to himself, as at the time he repaid** his debt **he should have** either **ripped** up the **document,** or **alternatively,** he should have demanded of the creditor **to write another document for** the debtor’s redeemed property, returning it to him.


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

דְּמִדִּינָא אַרְעָא לָא בָּעֲיָא לְמֶיהְדַּר, וּמִשּׁוּם ״וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵי ה׳״ הוּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן תֶּהְדַּר. הִלְכָּךְ מֵרֵישָׁא הוּא דְּקָא זָבֵין, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב שְׁטַר זְבִינֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason for a new document to be written is **that according to the** letter of the **law, the land need not be returned** by the creditor to the debtor, **and it is due to** the principle: **“You shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord”** (Deuteronomy 6:18), **that the Sages said** that the land **should be returned. Therefore,** it is as though the debtor **is purchasing it anew,** and the creditor **must write a bill of sale.**


###### Bava Metzia 16b:14
[Bava Metzia 16b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:14)

גַּבֵּי שְׁטַר חוֹב מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אִם אִיתָא דְּפַרְעֵיהּ, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיקְרְעֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ. אֵימוֹר אִשְׁתְּמוֹטֵי קָא מִשְׁתְּמִיט לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לִמְחַר יָהֵבְנָא לָךְ דְּהַשְׁתָּא לֵיתֵיהּ גַּבַּאי, אִי נָמֵי אַפְּשִׁיטֵי דְסָפְרָא זָיֵיר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why this reasoning is not applicable to deeds of transfer or other promissory notes. **With regard to** a found **promissory note, what is there to say** to justify returning it to the creditor? That **if it is so that** the debtor **repaid** the debt, **he should have ripped up** the promissory **note?** This is not so, as one could **say** that the creditor **avoided** returning the note, **as he said to him: Tomorrow I will give you** the note, **as it is not with me now. Alternatively,** the creditor may have **held back** the note as security **for** the debtor’s payment of **the fee of the scribe** who wrote the promissory note. Consequently, it is possible that the debtor was never given back the note and was unable to rip it up, through no fault of his own.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:15
[Bava Metzia 16b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטַר חוֹב בַּשּׁוּק, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הֶנְפֵּק – לֹא יַחְזִירוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who finds a promissory note in the marketplace, even if a ratification** of the court **is written in it, he may not return it to the owner,** i.e., the creditor.


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

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא הֵיכָא דְּלֹא כָּתוּב בּוֹ הֶנְפֵּק, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כָּתַב לִלְוֹת וְלֹא לָוָה. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כָּתוּב בּוֹ הֶנְפֵּק, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? דִּמְקוּיָּם – לֹא יַחְזִיר, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **It is not necessary** to say that one should not return the promissory note in a case **where a ratification is not written in it, as** in that case **there is** room **to say** that the debtor **wrote** it intending **to borrow** money, **but he did not** end up **borrowing** it, and therefore the creditor has no rights to the promissory note. **But even if a ratification is written in it,** one should not return it. **And what is** this authorization? It is an approval **that** the promissory note has been **ratified** by the court, which examined the note and the signatures of the witnesses and found everything to be in order. The reason **one may not return** the promissory note to the creditor is **that we are concerned** that **repayment** has already taken place.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:17
[Bava Metzia 16b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:17)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ יִרְמְיָה בְּרִי: לֹא כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין שָׁוִים, אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Abbahu** from the mishna that states (20a): **One must return any court enactment,** i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. Apparently there is no concern about repayment. Rabbi Abbahu **said to him: Yirmeya, my son, not all court enactments are equal. Rather,** the ruling that one must return such a document applies only in a case **where** the debtor **has the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts, and therefore, if he claims the debt was repaid, his claim is not accepted.


###### Bava Metzia 16b:18
[Bava Metzia 16b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:18)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִשּׁוּם דְּהוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן חֲדָא זִמְנָא תּוּ לָא פָּרַע כְּלָל?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין בִּשְׁטַר חַלְטָאתָא וְאַדְרַכְתָּא, וְכִדְרַבִּי זֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this explanation of that mishna, **Rava said: But** does it necessarily follow that just **because** a debtor **assumed the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts after **one time** that he did so, he will **never again repay** a debt that he owes, and therefore the promissory note should be returned to his creditor? **Rather, Rava said: The mishna** is referring **to a bill of foreclosure, or** a bill of **authorization,** which are not subject to repayment, **in accordance with** the explanation **of Rabbi Zeira.**


###### Bava Metzia 16b:19
[Bava Metzia 16b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/16b:19)

וְכַפְרָן, הוֹאִיל וַאֲתָא לִידַן נֵימָא בֵיהּ מִלְּתָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״צֵא תֵּן לוֹ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** with regard to the topic of **one who denies** his debts, **since it came to us, let us say something about it. As Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said** that **Rav Naḥman said:** If the court **said to** the litigant against whom they ruled: **Go** and **give** the other litigant what you owe **him,**