## Bava Metzia Daf 17a

###### Bava Metzia 17a:1
[Bava Metzia 17a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:1)

וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן. בָּא מַלְוֶה לִכְתּוֹב – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** later on the debtor **said: I repaid** him, his claim is **deemed credible.** He must take an oath and is exempt from payment. Therefore, if the **creditor comes** and asks the court **to write** an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, **they do not write** an authorization **and give** the document **to him.**


###### Bava Metzia 17a:2
[Bava Metzia 17a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:2)

״חַיָּיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ״ וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. בָּא מַלְוֶה לִכְתּוֹב – כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if the court merely said: **You are liable to give him** what you owe him, but did not complete the process by saying: Go and give it to him, **and** later on the debtor **said: I repaid** the debt, his claim **is not deemed credible.** The assumption is that since he did not pay on his own without the need for litigation, he does not intend to pay until the court finalizes its verdict against him. Therefore, since the debtor is suspected of lying, the creditor takes an oath and collects what he is owed. In this case, if the **creditor comes** and asks the court **to write** an authorization for him to appropriate the property of the debtor, **they write** the document **and give** it **to him.**


###### Bava Metzia 17a:3
[Bava Metzia 17a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:3)

רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: בֵּין ״צֵא תֵּן לוֹ״, בֵּין ״חַיָּיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ״, וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – נֶאֱמָן. בָּא מַלְוֶה לִכְתּוֹב – אֵין כּוֹתְבִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid says in the name of Rabbi Naḥman: Both** in the case where the court said: **Go** and **give him** what you owe him, **and** in the case where the court said: **You are liable to give him,** if the debtor subsequently **said: I repaid** the debt, his claim is **deemed credible.** Therefore, if the **creditor comes** and asks the court **to write** an authorization, **they do not write** the document **and give** it **to him.**


###### Bava Metzia 17a:4
[Bava Metzia 17a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:4)

אֶלָּא אִי אִיכָּא לְפַלּוֹגֵי – הָכִי הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְפַלּוֹגֵי: אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״צֵא תֵּן לוֹ״, וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פְּרָעוֹ, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if there is** room **to make a distinction** between different cases, **this is how there is** room **to distinguish** between them: If the court **said to** the debtor: **Go** and **give him** what you owe him, **and** subsequently the debtor **said: I repaid** the debt, **and the witnesses testify** concerning **him that he did not repay it** when the debt was demanded in their presence, **and** later the debtor **said again: I repaid** the debt, in such a case, the debtor **has assumed the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts with regard **to that money,** and he is no longer believed when he claims that he repaid the debt unless witnesses substantiate his claim.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:5
[Bava Metzia 17a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:5)

״חַיָּיב אַתָּה לִיתֵּן לוֹ״, וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַע, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – לֹא הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if the court said: **You are liable to give him** what you owe him, **and** subsequently the debtor **said: I repaid** the debt, **and the witnesses testify** concerning **him that he did not repay** the debt when it was demanded in their presence, **and** later the debtor **said again: I repaid,** in this case, the debtor **does not assume the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts **with regard to that money.** His claim that he repaid the debt in the absence of witnesses is accepted after he takes an oath to that effect.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:6
[Bava Metzia 17a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:6)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִשְׁתְּמוֹטֵי הוּא קָא מִשְׁתְּמִיט מִינֵּיהּ, סָבַר עַד דִּמְעַיְּינוּ בִּי רַבָּנַן בְּדִינִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that he is not presumed to be lying? It is because before the court verdict was finalized, the debtor was merely trying to **evade** the creditor, **thinking** to himself: Since the court has not yet finalized the verdict, I can delay payment **until the Sages** in the court **investigate my case** further, as I am not actually liable to pay until the verdict is finalized.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:7
[Bava Metzia 17a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:7)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי כְּלוּם״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר: ״פָּרַעְתִּי״ – הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתוֹ מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar bar Ḥanna says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession** that you borrowed from me, **and the other says** in response: **Nothing** of **yours** is **in my possession, and the witnesses testify** concerning **him that,** in fact, **he does have** such a debt, **and subsequently** the debtor **said: I repaid** the debt, in that case the debtor **assumes the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts **with regard to that money.**


###### Bava Metzia 17a:8
[Bava Metzia 17a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:8)

כִּי הָא דְּשַׁבְּתַאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מָרִינוּס כְּתַב לַהּ לְכַלְּתֵיהּ אִיצְטְלָא דְמֵילָתָא בִּכְתוּבְּתַהּ, וְקַבְּלַהּ עֲלֵיהּ. אִירְכַס כְּתוּבְּתַהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: ״לָא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם״. אֲתוֹ סָהֲדֵי וְאָמְרִי: אִין כְּתַב לַהּ. לְסוֹף אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיהָ״. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוּחְזַקְתָּ כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתָהּ אִיצְטְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is **like** the ruling in **this** case, **where Shabbtai, son of Rabbi Marinus, wrote** a pledge **to** give **his daughter-in-law a cloak [*itztela*] of fine wool [*demileta*] in her marriage contract, and** he **accepted upon himself** the status of a guarantor for the contract. **Her marriage contract was lost,** and there was a disagreement between the parties as to its content. Shabbtai **said to her: These matters never occurred;** I never wrote that I would give you such a cloak. **Witnesses** then **came and said: Yes, he did write her** this pledge. **Ultimately, he said to them: I paid it,** i.e., I gave her the cloak. This case **came before Rabbi Ḥiyya.** He **said to** Shabbtai: **You have assumed the presumptive status of one who denies** his debts **with regard to that cloak.** His claim was therefore not accepted, even by means of an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:9
[Bava Metzia 17a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָיָה חַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ שְׁבוּעָה, וְאָמַר ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״, וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״ – הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Avin says** that **Rabbi Ela says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **was obligated** to take **an oath to** counter **another** person’s claim brought against him, **and** later **he said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify** against **him that he did not take an oath** when it was demanded of him in their presence, **and** the defendant subsequently **said again: I took the oath, he assumes the status of one who denies** his obligations **with regard to that oath.**


###### Bava Metzia 17a:10
[Bava Metzia 17a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:10)

אַמְרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִלְּתָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין, אֲבָל חִיֵּיב עַצְמוֹ שְׁבוּעָה – [נֶאֱמָן]. עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דְּמִקְּרֵי וְאָמַר. אַהְדְּרוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין, אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא נָמֵי בְּבֵית דִּין אֲמַרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis stated** this ruling **before Rabbi Abbahu. He said to them: Rabbi Avin’s statement is reasonable** in a case **where** one **was obligated by a court to take an oath. But** if one voluntarily **obligated himself** to take **an oath,** and he later claims that he took the oath, he is **deemed credible.** This is because **a person is prone to say incidentally** that he will take an oath and then change his mind; this does not render him a liar. The Rabbis then **brought** Rabbi Abbahu’s analysis **back** to **Rabbi Avin** and presented it **before** him. Rabbi Avin **said to them: I also said** this *halakha* specifically with regard to one who was obligated **by a court** to take an oath, as Rabbi Abbahu explained.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:11
[Bava Metzia 17a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:11)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָיָה חַיָּיב לַחֲבֵירוֹ שְׁבוּעָה בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״ וְהָעֵדִים מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבַּע, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי״ – הוּחְזַק כַּפְרָן לְאוֹתָהּ שְׁבוּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** that **Rabbi Avin says** that **Rabbi Ela says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **was obligated by a court** to take **an oath to** counter the claim of **another** person, **and** he subsequently **said: I took the oath, and the witnesses testify** against **him that he did not take an oath** when it was demanded of him in their presence, **and** later the defendant **said again: I took the oath, he has assumed that status of one who denies** his obligations **with regard to that oath.** This wording is explicitly in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu’s explanation.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:12
[Bava Metzia 17a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטַר חוֹב בַּשּׁוּק, וְכָתוּב בּוֹ הֶנְפֵּק, וְכָתוּב בּוֹ זְמַנּוֹ בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם – יַחְזִירוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who finds a promissory note in the marketplace, and a ratification is written in it, and the date of** the loan **is written in it,** and evidently it was written **on that same day, he must return it to the owner,** i.e., the creditor.


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

אִי מִשּׁוּם כָּתַב לִלְוֹת וְלֹא לָוָה – הָא כָּתוּב בּוֹ הֶנְפֵּק. אִי מִשּׁוּם פֵּרָעוֹן – לִפְרִיעָה בַּת יוֹמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why there is no concern that perhaps the debtor does not owe the money: **If** one were to be concerned **because** perhaps the debtor **wrote** the promissory note intending **to borrow** money, **but** he ultimately **did not borrow** it, this is not a concern, as **a ratification is written in** the promissory note. Since only the creditor would have brought the note for ratification, it is clear that the loan occurred. And **if** one were to be concerned **because** perhaps there was **repayment,** this is not a concern, as **we are not concerned** that there was **repayment on the** same **day** that the loan was taken, since normally one would not take a loan for less than one day.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:14
[Bava Metzia 17a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? הָא אַתְּ הוּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁטָר שֶׁלָּוָה בּוֹ וּפְרָעוֹ – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְלֹוֶה בּוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְחַל שִׁיעְבּוּדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Does Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this? Isn’t it you who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan** that one **who borrowed** money and wrote a promissory **note for** the loan, **and** subsequently **repaid** the debt, **may not reuse it to borrow** another time, **as its lien is already forgiven** by virtue of the repayment? A promissory note is valid only for the debt for which it was written.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:15
[Bava Metzia 17a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:15)

אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא לִמְחַר וּלְיוֹמָא חָרָא, מַאי אִרְיָא שֶׁכְּבָר נִמְחַל שִׁעְבּוּדוֹ? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מוּקְדָּם, וּתְנַן: שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין – פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira explains: **When** did the debtor take the second loan? **If we say** that it was **the day after** the first loan, when the promissory note was written, **or another** later **date,** then Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is difficult. **Why** does he **specifically** give as the reason for the promissory note’s disqualification: **As its lien is already forgiven?** Instead, he should **derive** the disqualification of the promissory note from the fact **that it is antedated,** i.e., dated prior to the actual loan, **and we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 10:5): **Antedated promissory notes are invalid.** Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan could not have been referring to a case where the second loan took place after the date of the first loan.


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

אֶלָּא לָאו בְּיוֹמֵיהּ. אַלְמָא פָּרְעִי אִינָשֵׁי בְּיוֹמֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is** Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement **not** referring to a case where the second loan took place **on the** same **day** as the first loan? **Evidently, people do** occasionally **repay** their loans **on the** same **day** as they take the loan.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי קָא אָמֵינָא דְּלָא פָּרְעִי כְּלָל, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּפָרְעִי בְּיוֹמֵיהּ קָא אָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Asi **said to him: Did I say that** people **do not repay** their loans on the same day **at all?** Rather, **I said that** it is **uncommon** for **people to repay** their loans **on the same day.** Therefore, if a note is found on the same day it was written, it is reasonable to assume that it has not yet been repaid, even though there is a remote possibility that it has.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:18
[Bava Metzia 17a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:18)

רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana says** an alternative explanation: Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to a case **when** the **liable party,** i.e., the debtor, **admits** to the debt. The Gemara asks: **If that is so, what** is the purpose **of stating** that the note may be returned? This is obvious.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:19
[Bava Metzia 17a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:19)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הַאי מִפְרָע פַּרְעֵיהּ, וְהַאי דְּקָא אָמַר לָא פְּרַעְתֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָבָעֵי מֶהְדַּר לְמֵזְפָא בֵּיהּ זִמְנָא אַחֲרִיתִי, וְלִפְשִׁיטֵי דְסָפְרָא חָיֵישׁ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִם כֵּן מַלְוֶה גּוּפֵיהּ לָא שָׁבֵק. סָבַר: שָׁמְעִי בֵּי רַבָּנַן וּמַפְסְדִי לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that even if **this** debtor admits to the debt, perhaps he actually **repaid** it, **and** the fact **that** the debtor **says: I did not repay it, is because he wants to go back** and use the promissory note **to borrow** money **again. And** the reason he prefers to claim that he did not repay the first debt is that he is **concerned about** saving **the scribe’s fee** that he would have to pay for another promissory note. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan **teaches us** that this possibility need not be taken into account, **as, if that were so,** the **creditor himself would not allow** such a scheme. He would be afraid to act in such a manner, **thinking: The Sages will hear about me** that I reused the note, **and will cause me to lose** the payment owed to me.


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

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחֲזִיר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In **what** way **is** this case **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who **found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee** for a loan, **he may not return** them to the creditor.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:21
[Bava Metzia 17a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:21)

וְאוֹקִימְנָא, כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְוֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וְאָתֵי לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת מִנִּיסָן וְעַד תִּשְׁרֵי שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we interpreted** this mishna as referring to a case **when the liable party admits** to the debt. **And** the reason the promissory notes may not be returned is **due to** the concern that **perhaps** the debtor **wrote** the note in order **to borrow** the money **in Nisan, but** he ultimately **did not borrow** it **until Tishrei, and** the creditor will **come to unlawfully repossess** land from **purchasers** who bought the debtor’s land **between Nisan and Tishrei.** He is entitled to collect land only from those who bought land from the debtor after the loan took place, causing the lien on the debtor’s land to take effect.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:22
[Bava Metzia 17a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:22)

וְלָא אָמְרִינַן דְּאִם כֵּן מַלְוֶה גּוּפֵיהּ לָא שָׁבֵיק. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: כְּתוֹב שְׁטָרָא אַחֲרִינָא בְּתִשְׁרִי, דְּדִלְמָא שָׁמְעִי רַבָּנַן וּמַפְסְדִי לִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out the contradiction between this mishna and Rabbi Kahana’s explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: **And** this indicates that **we do not say that if that were so,** if the promissory note were antedated, the **creditor himself would not allow** the debtor to use it, **as he would say to him: Write another note** dated properly **in Tishrei, lest the Sages hear** about the fact that the date is incorrect **and** disqualify the promissory note, **causing me to lose** the money.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:23
[Bava Metzia 17a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:23)

אָמְרִי: הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית לֵיהּ רַוְוחָא דְּקָא טָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת מִנִּיסָן וְעַד תִּשְׁרֵי, מֵינָח נִיחָא לֵיהּ וְלָא אָמַר וְלָא מִידֵּי. הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ רַוְוחָא, דְּסוֹף סוֹף שְׁטָרָא הָאִידָּנָא כְּתִיב, מַאי אִיכָּא – דְּקָטָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת? בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁנִּמְחַל שִׁיעְבּוּדוֹ לָא שָׁבֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The Sages **say** that **there,** in the case of the mishna, **since** the creditor **benefits** by using this promissory note, **as** he can **repossess** land from **purchasers** who bought from the debtor **between Nisan and Tishrei, it is satisfactory to him, and he does not say anything** to the debtor about using this promissory note. By contrast, **here,** in the case to which Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring, **since** the creditor **does not benefit** from reusing the promissory note, **as ultimately, the note is written** for the **current** date, **what is there** for him **to repossess** from **purchasers** by means of the note that he cannot repossess by means of a new promissory note? Therefore, **he would not allow** the debtor to borrow more money from him **with** a promissory **note whose lien was forgiven,** as this would result only in risk and have no potential benefit.


###### Bava Metzia 17a:24
[Bava Metzia 17a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17a:24)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן אַחַר מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **one who claims** to have repaid a debt that has **already** been established by **a court enactment,** i.e., a rabbinic ordinance obligating one to pay a debt, e.g., the main sum in a marriage contract, but he has no witnesses,