## Bava Metzia Daf 35a

###### Bava Metzia 35a:1
[Bava Metzia 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:1)

אִיתָא לִדְרַב הוּנָא כֵּיוָן דְּמִשְׁתְּבַע מִלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַפֵּיק לַהּ? אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּשְׂרְפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the statement of **Rav Huna is so, once** the **creditor takes an oath that** the collateral **is not in his possession, how can he produce it** thereafter? **Rava said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where there are witnesses that** the collateral **was burned.** Therefore, the creditor need not take an oath that it is not in his possession.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:2
[Bava Metzia 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:2)

אִי הָכִי, מֵהֵיכָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁנִּגְנְבָה. סוֹף סוֹף מֵהֵיכָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? דְּטָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the question remains: Why is the obligation to take the oath transferred from the debtor to the creditor? There is no concern that the creditor will produce the collateral. **From where will he bring it** if it was burned? **Rather, Rav Yosef said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where there are witnesses that** the collateral **was stolen.** The Gemara asks: **Ultimately,** in that case too, **from where will** the creditor **bring** the collateral if it was stolen? The Gemara answers: Although the collateral had been stolen, it is possible the creditor will **exert** himself to locate the thief **and bring** the collateral, thereby proving that the debtor took a false oath.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:3
[Bava Metzia 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:3)

אִי הָכִי, כִּי מִשְׁתְּבַע מַלְוֶה נָמֵי, לִטְרַח לֹוֶה וְלַיְתֵי! בִּשְׁלָמָא מַלְוֶה יָדַע מַאן קָא עָיֵיל וְנָפֵק בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וְאָזֵיל וְטָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ. אֶלָּא לֹוֶה, מִי יָדַע מַאן עָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק בְּבֵיתֵיהּ דְּמַלְוֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** in a case **where** the **creditor takes an oath as well, let** the **debtor exert** himself **and bring** the collateral, thereby proving that the creditor took a false oath. The Gemara answers: This is unlikely. **Granted,** there is concern that the **creditor** will recover the stolen collateral, as he **knows who enters and exits his house,** so he may have some inkling of the identity of the thief. **And** therefore, **he goes and exerts** himself **and brings** the collateral. **But** with regard to the **debtor, does he know who enters and exits the creditor’s house?** He has no inkling who the thief might be.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:4
[Bava Metzia 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:4)

אַבָּיֵי אוֹמֵר: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְעוֹן וְיֹאמַר לוֹ: אַחַר שְׁבוּעָה מְצָאתִיהָ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְזֶה נִשְׁבָּע, זֶה נִשְׁבָּע שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, וְזֶה נִשְׁבָּע כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה. וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: מִי נִשְׁבָּע תְּחִילָּה? מַלְוֶה נִשְׁבָּע תְּחִילָּה, שֶׁמָּא יִשָּׁבַע זֶה וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** Although the creditor takes an oath that the collateral is not in his possession, the obligation to take an oath for partial admission is transferred from the debtor to the creditor, as the Sages issued **a decree lest** the debtor take the oath for his partial admission and the creditor **claim and say to him: I found** the collateral **after** you took the **oath. Rav Ashi says: This** party, the creditor, **takes an oath and that** party, the debtor, **takes an oath. This** party, the creditor, **takes an oath that** the collateral **is not in his possession. And that** party, the debtor, **takes an oath** as to **how much** the collateral **was worth. And this** is what the mishna **is saying: Who takes an oath first? The creditor takes an oath first** that the collateral is not in his possession, **lest this** party, i.e., the debtor, **take an oath and the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **produce the deposit.**


###### Bava Metzia 35a:5
[Bava Metzia 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:5)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: רֵישָׁא דְסֵיפָא תְּיוּבְתָּא לְרַב הוּנָא, סֶלַע הִלְוִיתַנִי עָלָיו, שְׁתַּיִם הָיָה שָׁוֶה. וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא סֶלַע הִלְוִיתִיךָ עָלָיו, סֶלַע הָיָה שָׁוֶה – פָּטוּר. וְאִם אִיתָא לִדְרַב הוּנָא מִגּוֹ דְּמִשְׁתְּבַע מַלְוֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לִישְׁתְּבַע נָמֵי אַגִּילְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה כַּמָּה הָיָה שָׁוֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rava: The first** part **of the latter clause** of the mishna is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Huna,** who said that the creditor is obligated to take an oath that the collateral is not in his possession. In that clause, the debtor said: **You loaned me a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral, and the collateral **was worth two** *sela*, so now you owe me a *sela*. **And the other** party, i.e., the creditor, **said: That is not** the case, **rather, I loaned you a *sela* on** the basis of that collateral and the collateral **was worth a *sela*.** In this case, the creditor is **exempt. And if** the statement of **Rav Huna is so,** once **the creditor takes an oath that** the collateral **is not in his possession, let him also take an oath by means of extension of an oath** as to **how much** the collateral **was worth,** as one obligated to take an oath can be forced to take other oaths as well.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:6
[Bava Metzia 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:6)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא וְאָמַר לִי: תְּהֵא בְּמַאֲמִינוֹ. וּנְהֵמְנֵיהּ לֹוֶה לְמַלְוֶה נָמֵי בְּהָא כַּמָּה הֲוָה שָׁוֶה? לָא קִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ. וּנְהֵמְנֵיהּ מַלְוֶה לְלֹוֶה, דְּקִים לֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּיהּ? לָא מְהֵימַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: I stated** this ***halakha* before Rav Kahana, and he said to me: Let** the *halakha* in the mishna **be** understood **with regard to** a case where the debtor **trusts** the creditor that the collateral is no longer in his possession. The Gemara challenges: **But** if so, **let the debtor trust the creditor with regard to this** matter of **how much** the collateral **was worth.** The Gemara explains: The creditor is **not certain about** the value of the collateral, as the item did not belong to him, which is why the debtor does not rely upon him to take an oath concerning its value. The Gemara challenges: **But let the creditor trust the debtor, as** the debtor is **certain about** the value of the collateral, as it is his. The Gemara answers: The creditor **does not trust** the debtor.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:7
[Bava Metzia 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:7)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא לֹוֶה דִּמְהֵימַן לֵיהּ לְמַלְוֶה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא מַלְוֶה דְּלָא מְהֵימַן לֵיהּ לְלֹוֶה? לֹוֶה מְקַיֵּים בֵּיהּ בְּמַלְוֶה ״תֻּמַּת יְשָׁרִים תַּנְחֵם״, מַלְוֶה מְקַיֵּים בֵּיהּ בְּלֹוֶה ״וְסֶלֶף בּוֹגְדִים יְשָׁדֵּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** so that the **debtor trusts the creditor** that the collateral is not in his possession, **and what is different** that the **creditor does not trust the debtor** to accurately assess the value of the collateral? The Gemara answers: The **debtor** sees **in the creditor fulfillment** of the verse: **“The integrity of the upright shall guide them”** (Proverbs 11:3). He believes that God blesses the creditor with wealth to lend because he is an upright person. The **creditor** sees **in the debtor fulfillment** of the end of that verse: **“But the perverseness of the faithless shall destroy them”** (Proverbs 11:3). The creditor believes that God made the debtor poor because he is a deceitful person.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:8
[Bava Metzia 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:8)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַפְקֵיד כִּיפֵּי גַּבֵּי חַבְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי כִּיפַּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא יָדַעְנָא הֵיכָא אוֹתְבִי[תִי]נְהוּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כֹּל לָא יָדַעְנָא פְּשִׁיעוּתָא הִיא, זִיל שַׁלֵּים! לָא שַׁילֵּם. אֲזַל רַב נַחְמָן אַגַּבְּיֵהּ לְאַפַּדְנֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, לְסוֹף אִישְׁתְּכֻח כִּיפֵּי וְאִיַּקּוּר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָדְרִי כִּיפֵּי לְמָרַיְיהוּ. וְהָדְרָא אַפַּדְנָא לְמָרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **A certain man deposited jewels [*keifei*] with another.** When the period of the deposit was complete, the owner of the jewels **said to** the bailee: **Give me** the **jewels.** The bailee **said to him** in response: **I do not know where I placed them.** The matter **came before Rav Naḥman,** who **said to** the bailee: **Every** circumstance where a bailee claims: **I do not know** where I placed them, **is** in and of itself **negligence. Go pay** him for the jewels. The bailee **did not pay. Rav Naḥman went** and gave instructions to **repossess his palace** and sell it to pay for the jewels. **Ultimately,** not only **were the jewels found, but** they had also **increased** in value. **Rav Naḥman said: The jewels return to their** initial **owner, and the palace returns to its owner,** and the bailee does not profit from the increase in the value of the jewels.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:9
[Bava Metzia 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:9)

אָמַר רָבָא: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, וּפִרְקִין ״הַמַּפְקִיד״ הֲוָה, וַאֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: שִׁילֵּם וְלֹא רָצָה לִישָּׁבַע. וְלָא אַהְדַּר לִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: I was sitting** at that time studying **before Rav Naḥman, and our chapter** of study **was** this chapter: **One who deposits,** which is relevant to this case. **And I said to** Rav Naḥman: Isn’t this the case of a bailee who **paid** the owner **and did not wish to take an oath?** And it is the bailee **who** receives the double payment, ostensibly because once he paid, the owner transfers ownership of the item to him. **And** Rav Naḥman **did not answer me, and he did well that he did not answer me,** as the question was not worthy of an answer.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:10
[Bava Metzia 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:10)

וְשַׁפִּיר עֲבַד דְּלָא אַהְדַּר לִי. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם לָא אַטְרְחֵיהּ לְבֵי דִינָא, הָכָא אַטְרְחֵיהּ לְבֵי דִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **What is the reason** he did not answer me? The reason is that the cases cannot be compared. **There,** in the case of the mishna, the bailee paid at his own initiative. **He did not inconvenience** the owner by compelling him **to go to court.** Therefore, the owner transfers ownership of the deposit to the bailee. **Here,** in the case involving the jewels, the bailee **inconvenienced** the owner and compelled him **to go to court.** Consequently, the owner does not transfer ownership of the deposit to the bailee.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:11
[Bava Metzia 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:11)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר רַב נַחְמָן דְּשׁוּמָא הָדַר? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּשׁוּמָא בְּטָעוּת הֲוָה, (דְּקָא) [דְּהָא] הֲוָה כִּיפֵּי מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Rav Naḥman holds that** after property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the court’s **appraisal** of the article’s value, it is **returned** if the debtor pays the debt? The Gemara rejects that conclusion: In general, the item is not returned. But **it is different there,** in the case of the jewels, **as it was an erroneous appraisal,** in **that the jewels were** in the possession of the bailee **from the outset** and he was merely unable to locate them.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:12
[Bava Metzia 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:12)

אָמְרִי נְהַרְדָּעֵי: שׁוּמָא הָדַר עַד תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא. וְאָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אֲנָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אֲנָא, וּסְבִירָא לִי שׁוּמָא הָדַר לְעוֹלָם. וְהִלְכְתָא: שׁוּמָא הָדַר לְעוֹלָם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the reversal of an appraisal, the Sages **of Neharde’a say:** After property is repossessed in order to pay an unpaid debt based on the court’s **appraisal** of the article’s value, it is **returned** to the debtor, provided he repays the debt from the time of the appraisal **until the twelve months** of **the year** have passed. **And Ameimar said: I am from Neharde’a, and** nevertheless, **I hold that** repossession 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. The Gemara rules: **And the *halakha*** is that repossession based on **an appraisal** can **always** be **returned, due to** the fact **that it is stated: “And you shall do that which is right and good”** (Deuteronomy 6:18). The owner of property appreciates his property more than another person would. Therefore, once the debtor repays his debt to the creditor, legal formalism should not prevent return of the debtor’s property.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:13
[Bava Metzia 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:13)

פְּשִׁיטָא: שָׁמוּ לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְשָׁמַהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב דִּידֵיהּ, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: לָא עֲדִיף אַתְּ מִגַּבְרָא דַּאֲתֵית מִינֵּיהּ. זַבְּנַהּ, אוֹרְתַאּ, וְיַהֲבַהּ בְּמַתָּנָה, וַדַּאי הָנֵי מֵעִיקָּרָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּאַרְעָא נְחוּת וְלָאו אַדַּעְתָּא דְּזוּזֵי נְחוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara clarifies related matters. It is **obvious** that if the court **appraised** property to repay a debt to **a creditor, and** this creditor **went and** had the property **appraised** and repaid his debt **to his creditor, we say to** the second creditor: **Your** rights **are not superior** to those **of the man through whom you came** to possess the property. Just as the first debtor can repay the debt and reclaim his property from his creditor, he can also reclaim the property from the creditor of his creditor. If a creditor who received appraised land **sold it** or **bequeathed it** to his heirs or **gave it as a gift,** the debtor cannot reclaim the land from those who acquired their land. It is **certain** that **from the outset,** when **those** people acquired the land, it was **with the intent** to acquire **the land** itself that **they descended** to it, **and** it was **not with the intent** to receive money that **they descended** to the land.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:14
[Bava Metzia 35a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:14)

שָׁמוּ לַהּ לְאִשָּׁה וְאִינְּסִיבָא, אוֹ שָׁמוּ מִינַּהּ דְּאִשָּׁה וְאִינְּסִיבָא וּמֵתָה בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ לוֹקֵחַ הָוֵי – לָא מַיהְדַּר וְלָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the court **appraised** property to repay a debt **to a woman and she** then **married, or** if the court **appraised** property **from a woman** to repay her debt **and she** then **married and died,** since the legal status of **a husband with regard to his wife’s property is** that of **a buyer, he does not return** property that was appraised and repossessed to pay his wife’s debt. **And we do not return to him** property that was repossessed from his wife if he pays her debt.


###### Bava Metzia 35a:15
[Bava Metzia 35a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/35a:15)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: בְּאוּשָׁא הִתְקִינוּ – הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמָּכְרָה בְּנִכְסֵי מְלוֹג בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ וָמֵתָה – הַבַּעַל מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: In Usha** the Sages **instituted** that in the case of **a woman who sold** part **of her usufruct property during the life of her husband and she died, the husband repossesses** the property **from the purchasers.** The property belongs to the wife, while the profits accrued after marriage belong to the husband. Therefore, the woman does not have the right to sell the property as long as they are married. If she sold the property and died, and her husband is her heir, the Sages instituted that his legal status is that of a buyer and not an heir. His rights to the land precede those of the subsequent buyers. He repossesses the land and reimburses them the sale price of the property.