## Bava Metzia Daf 19a

###### Bava Metzia 19a:1
[Bava Metzia 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:1)

אִירְכַס לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. אֲמַר: אִי סִימָנָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, אִי טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ. אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלִי, וְקָא סָבְרִי סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. אִי מִשּׁוּם טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלִי, וְדַוְקָא צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן. אֲבָל אִינִישׁ דְּעָלְמָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**lost a bill of divorce,** which had been given to him to deliver, **in the study hall.** When it was found, **he said: If** they request **a distinguishing mark, I have** one **for it. If** it depends on **visual recognition, I have** methods of recognition **for it. They returned** the bill of divorce **to him. He said** afterward: **I do not know if they returned it to me due to the distinguishing mark** that I supplied, **and they hold** that **distinguishing marks** are used to return lost items **by Torah law,** or **if they returned it to me due to** my **visual recognition, and** it was **specifically** because I am **a Torah scholar,** as Torah scholars are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, **but an ordinary person** would **not** be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:2
[Bava Metzia 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:2)

גּוּפָא: מָצָא גֵּט אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לְאִשָּׁה. אֵין הַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself** cited above: If one **found a woman’s bill of divorce in the marketplace,** in a case **when the husband admits** that he wrote and gave it, the finder **must return** it **to the wife.** If **the husband does not admit** to this, the finder **may neither return** it **to this one,** the husband, **nor to that one,** the wife.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:3
[Bava Metzia 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:3)

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה מִיהָא יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה. וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִיתֵּן בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא נָתַן לָהּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וַאֲזַל בַּעַל זַבֵּין פֵּירֵי מִנִּיסָן וְעַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וּמַפְּקָא לְגִיטָּא דִּכְתִיב בְּנִיסָן, וְאָתְיָא לְמִטְרַף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the *baraita* states that **when the husband admits** that he wrote and gave it, the finder **must return** it **to the wife.** The Gemara challenges: **But let us suspect** that **perhaps he wrote** the bill of divorce intending **to give** it **in Nisan, but did not give** it **to her until Tishrei, and** the **husband went** and **sold** the **produce** of his wife’s property in the interim, **between Nisan and Tishrei,** since the divorce had not yet taken effect. **And** the wife might then **produce the bill of divorce, which he wrote in Nisan, and come to repossess** the produce from the **purchasers unlawfully.**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:4
[Bava Metzia 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:4)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו לְגָרְשָׁהּ שׁוּב אֵין לַבַּעַל פֵּירוֹת – שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ לַבַּעַל פֵּירוֹת עַד שְׁעַת נְתִינָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This works out well according to the one who says** that **once he has decided to divorce her, the husband no longer has** the rights to his wife’s **produce.** Since the husband had no right to sell the produce, the wife repossessed it rightfully. **But according to the one who says** that **the husband has** rights to his wife’s **produce until the** actual **time of giving** the bill of divorce, **what is there to say?**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:5
[Bava Metzia 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:5)

כִּי אָתְיָא לְמִטְרַף אָמְרִינַן לַהּ: אַיְיתַי רְאָיָה אֵימַת מְטָא גִּיטָּא לְיָדְךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When she comes to repossess** the produce, **we say to her:** First **bring proof** as to **when the bill of divorce came into your possession,** and then we will allow you to repossess the sold produce.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:6
[Bava Metzia 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:6)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִשְּׁטָרֵי חוֹב? דִּתְנַן: מָצָא שְׁטָרֵי חוֹב, אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר. וְאוֹקֵימְנָא כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִלְווֹת בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא לָוָה עַד תִּשְׁרֵי וְקָא טָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** in **what** way **is** it **different from promissory notes? As we learned** in a mishna (12b): With regard to one who **found promissory notes, if they include a property guarantee** for the loan, **he may not return** them to the creditor. **And we interpreted** the mishna as referring to a case **where the liable party admits** that he has not yet repaid the debt, **and** the reason the promissory note cannot be returned is **due to** the possibility that **perhaps he wrote** it intending **to borrow** money **in Nisan, but** ultimately **did not borrow** it **until Tishrei, and** the creditor might therefore use the promissory note to **unlawfully repossess** property that the debtor sold between Nisan and Tishrei from the **purchasers.**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:7
[Bava Metzia 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:7)

הָתָם נָמֵי לִיהְדַּר, וְכִי אָתֵי לְמִטְרַף נֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה אֵימַת מְטָא שְׁטַר חוֹב לְיָדָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to the Gemara’s suggestion with regard to a bill of divorce, **there,** in the case of a promissory note, it **should also be returned, and when** the creditor **comes to repossess** the debtor’s property that was sold in the interim, **let** the court **say to him:** First **bring proof** as to **when** the **promissory note came into your possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:8
[Bava Metzia 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:8)

אָמְרִי, הָכָא גַּבֵּי גֵּט אִשָּׁה אָתֵי לוֹקֵחַ וְתָבַעה, אָמַר: הַאי דְּ[אַ]הְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלַהּ רַבָּנַן לְגִיטָּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא תִּעֲגִין וְתֵיתִיב. הַשְׁתָּא דְּקָא אָתְיָא לְמִטְרַף – תֵּיזִל וְתַיְתֵי רְאָיָה אֵימַת מְטָא גִּיטָּא לִידַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** that it is not comparable. **Here, with regard to a woman’s bill of divorce,** the **purchaser** will **come and demand** that the wife prove when it was given to her, as he will **say** to himself: The fact **that the Sages returned the bill of divorce to her** was only **so that she would not dwell** alone as **a deserted wife** and not be able to remarry for lack of a bill of divorce. **Now that she is coming to repossess** the property her husband sold me, **she should go and bring proof** as to **when the bill of divorce came into her possession.**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:9
[Bava Metzia 19a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:9)

הָכָא גַּבֵּי שְׁטַר חוֹב לָא אָתֵי לוֹקֵחַ וְתָבַע, [אָמַר] מִדְּאַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לִשְׁטַר חוֹב, פְּשִׁיטָא לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ – לְמִטְרַף הוּא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קָמוּ רַבָּנַן בְּמִילְּתָא, וּמִקַּמֵּי דִּידִי מְטָא שְׁטָרָא לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **here, with regard to a promissory note, the purchaser will not come and demand** proof, because he will infer **from** the fact **that the Sages returned** the **promissory note to him** that it is **obviously** valid from the date written in it. After all, **for what *halakha* did** the court **return it to him? It** was clearly in order **to repossess** property with it. Therefore, he will **conclude from it: The Sages clarified the matter and** determined that, in fact, this promissory **note came into the possession of** the creditor **prior to my** purchase of property from the debtor.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:10
[Bava Metzia 19a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:10)

שִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָצָא שְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר בְּשׁוּק, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָרַב מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לָעֶבֶד, אֵין הָרַב מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: Bills of **manumission of slaves** that are found should not to be returned. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If one **found a bill of manumission in the marketplace,** in a case **when the master admits** that he gave the bill to the slave, **one should return** it **to the slave.** If **the master does not admit** to it, **one should neither return** it **to this** person, the master, **nor to that** person, the slave.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:11
[Bava Metzia 19a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:11)

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָרַב מוֹדֶה מִיהָא יַחְזִיר לָעֶבֶד, וְאַמַּאי? נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא כָּתַב לִיתֵּן לוֹ בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וַאֲזַל עַבְדָּא וּקְנָה נִכְסִין מִנִּיסָן וְעַד תִּשְׁרֵי, וַאֲזַיל הָרַב וְזַבְּנִינְהוּ וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְשִׁחְרוּר דִּכְתִב בְּנִיסָן, וְקָא טָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In any event,** the *baraita* states that **when the master admits** that he gave the bill of manumission to the slave, the one who found it **should return** it **to the slave. But why** should he return it? **Let us suspect** that **perhaps he wrote** the bill of manumission intending **to give** it **to him in Nisan, but** he **did not give** it **to him until Tishrei, and the slave went and bought property** in the interim, **between Nisan and Tishrei,** at which time he was still a slave, in which case the property belongs to his master, **and the master** then **went and sold** that property. **And** if the bill of manumission is returned to the slave, he might **produce** the bill of **manumission, which** his master **wrote in Nisan,** in order to claim that the property was not his master’s to sell, **and repossess** the property from the **purchasers unlawfully.**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:12
[Bava Metzia 19a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:12)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זְכוּת הוּא לָעֶבֶד שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת רַבּוֹ לְחֵירוּת, וּכְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר: עֵדָיו בַּחֲתוּמָיו זָכִין לֵיהּ, שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר חוֹב הוּא לָעֶבֶד שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת רַבּוֹ לְחֵירוּת, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This works out well according to the one who says** that **it is in a slave’s interest to leave his master’s authority and attain freedom and in accordance with** the opinion of **Abaye, who says** that when a document serves the interests of its intended recipient, **its witnesses, with their signatures, acquire** it **on his behalf.** Accordingly, a slave attains freedom at the moment his bill of manumission is signed, even if it is given to him at a later date. Therefore, the *halakha* in the *baraita* works out **well. But according to the one who says** that **it is against a slave’s interests to leave his master’s authority and attain freedom, what is there to say?**


###### Bava Metzia 19a:13
[Bava Metzia 19a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:13)

דְּכִי אָתֵי לְמִטְרַף אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה אֵימַת מְטָא שִׁחְרוּר לְיָדָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers **that when** the slave **comes to repossess** the property, **we say to him: Bring proof** as to **when** the bill of **manumission reached your possession** and you were freed.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:14
[Bava Metzia 19a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:14)

דְּיָיתֵיקֵי מַתָּנָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹ הִיא דְּיָיתֵיקֵי – דָּא תְּהֵא לְמֵיקַם וְלִהְיוֹת שֶׁאִם מֵת נְכָסָיו לִפְלוֹנִי. מַתָּנָה – כֹּל שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one found **wills [*deyaytiki*]** or deeds of **gift,** he should not return them. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **What is** considered **a *deyaytiki*** and is collected by the designated recipient after the death of the giver? It is a deed that states: **This deed will be to stand [*da tehe lemeikam*] and exist as** proof that **if** this person **dies, his property** is to be given **to so-and-so.** An ordinary deed of **gift,** by contrast, is **any** deed **in which it is written:** This gift is given **from today and after** the **death** of the giver.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:15
[Bava Metzia 19a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:15)

אַלְמָא אִי כְּתִיבָא ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ הוּא דְּקָנֵי, וְאִי לָא – לָא קָנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Apparently, only if it is written** in the deed: **From today and after** the **death** of the giver, the recipient **acquires** the gift, **and otherwise, he does not acquire** the gift. Is there no deed of gift that is effective even without the clause: And after my death?


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַתְּנַת בָּרִיא שֶׁהִיא כְּמַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע, דְּלָא קָנֵי אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה, כֹּל שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: What** deed of **gift of a healthy person is** considered **like** the deed of **gift of a person on his deathbed,** in **that** the recipient **acquires** it **only after** the **death** of the giver? It is **any** deed **in which it is written:** This gift is given **from today and after** the giver’s **death.**


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

טַעְמָא דְּלָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״. הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that these documents may not be returned to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as perhaps the one who wrote them reconsidered and decided not to deliver them. The Gemara infers: **The reason** that these deeds may not be returned is **that** the one who wrote them **doesn’t say** to the finder: **Give** them to their intended recipient. **But** if **he says: Give** them, the finder **must give** them.


###### Bava Metzia 19a:18
[Bava Metzia 19a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/19a:18)

וּרְמִינְהוּ: מָצָא דְּיָיתֵקָאוֹת, אַפּוֹתֵיקָאוֹת וּמַתָּנוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִין – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to that inference from a *baraita* that states that if one **found wills,** or deeds of **designated repayment, or** deeds of **gift, even if both** the one who wrote the deed and its intended recipient **agree** that it is valid, **he should return** it **neither to this** person **nor to that** person.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: לָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba bar Memel said:** This is **not difficult.**