POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 17
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
1) ONE ESTABLISHED AS A LIAR
(a) (R. Avahu): One who finds a loan document - even though
it has a Henpek, he should not return it.
2) A DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REUSED
1. Not only if it has no Henpek, we are concerned that
the loan was never given - but even if it has a
Henpek, we are concerned that it was paid.
(b) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): All documents of
actions of Beis Din should be returned.
i. Question: What is a document with a Henpek?
ii. Answer: It was validated by Beis Din.
(c) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): That does not apply to all actions
of Beis Din, only when the borrower was established as a
liar (then he is not believed to say that he paid).
(d) Objection (Rava): Because a man was once established as a
liar, will he never pay?
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah speaks of documents of
Chaltasa or Adrachta (as R. Zeira said above).
(f) (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi citing Rav Nachman): Beis Din told
Reuven 'go give Shimon'; later, Reuven claims that he
paid him - he is believed;
1. If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we do not give him.
(g) If Beis Din told Reuven 'you are obligated to give
Shimon', and Reuven later claims that he paid him - he is
1. If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we write one for
(h) (Rav Zvid citing Rav Nachman): Whether Beis Din said 'go
give' or 'you are obligated to give', Reuven is believed
to say that he paid, we do not write an Adrachta for
1. The following difference does apply between the 2
languages: by 'go give', if Reuven claims that he
paid and witnesses say that they once saw him refuse
to pay, he is established as a liar on that debt.
(i) (Rabah bar bar Chana): Levi claimed 100 from Yehudah; he
denied it all, and witnesses testified that he has it.
Yehudah then said that he paid - he is established as a
liar on this money, he is not believed.
2. By 'you are obligated to give', if Reuven claims
that he paid, and witnesses say that he once refused
to pay, he is not established as a liar on that
3. Question: Why is this?
4. Answer: By 'you are obligated to give', Reuven was
merely stalling - he thinks that Beis Din may change
1. Shabtai wrote in his daughter-in-law's Kesuvah that
he would give her a silk garment; she lost her
Kesuvah, he denied the matter. Witnesses testified
that he had written it; he said that he gave it to
(j) (R. Avin): Reuven was obligated to swear to Shimon; he
claims that he swore, and witnesses testified that he
refused to swear - he is established as a liar regarding
2. R. Chiya: He is established as a liar on that
(k) (R. Avahu): Presumably, that is only when Beis Din
obligated him to swear - but if he accepted on himself to
swear, he is believed - people often say 'I will not
fulfill what I accepted to do'.
1. R. Avin explicitly said as R. Avahu.
2. That indeed was my intention.
(a) (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): One who finds in the market
a validated document for a loan given that same day,
should return it to the lender.
3) STIPULATIONS OF BEIS DIN
1. We are not concerned that the loan was never given,
for it was validated;
(b) Question (R. Zeira): But you cited R. Yochanan as saying
that if a loan was paid, the document cannot be used for
another loan (of the same amount between the same
parties), because the power of the document to obligate
the borrower has been pardoned!
2. We are not concerned that it was paid - people do
not pay loans on the same day.
1. Question: When does R. Yochanan teach that the
document may not be used again?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Asi): I did not say that people never pay
loans on the same day, just that it is rare, we are not
concerned for it.
i. If on a later day - why must he say that the
problem is the power was pardoned - it may not
be used because the date precedes the loan!
2. Answer: Rather, R. Yochanan teaches that the
document may not be used the same day - we see,
people sometimes pay a loan the same day!
ii. (Mishnah): Predated loan documents are invalid!
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): R. Yochanan says that we return a
document on the same day if the borrower admits that he
did not pay.
(e) Question: If so, of course it may be returned!
(f) Answer: One might have thought, perhaps it was paid; he
claims that it was not, in order to use it again to
borrow money, thereby saving the cost of another
1. We hear, we are not concerned for this - the lender
fears that Chachamim would hear about this and he
would be unable to collect from sold property.
(g) Question: What is the difference between R. Yochanan's
law and the Mishnah?
1. (Mishnah): One who finds loan documents - if they
have Acharayos, he should not return them.
(h) Answer: There, the lender stands to gain from the early
date, he can collect from buyers who bought before the
2. We established this when the borrower admits; we are
concerned that the loan was given after the date on
the document, and the document will be used to
collect from buyers illegitimately!
3. We do not say that the lender fears to use such a
document, and demands a new document with the proper
1. Here, since only the borrower gains (he saves the
cost of another document), the lender demands a
(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba): One who claims that he paid an
obligation which Chachamim enacted - he is not believed.
(b) Question: Why is this?
(c) Answer: By such enactments, we consider it as if a
document was written.
(d) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): A Mishnah teaches this!
1. (Mishnah): A woman showed her Get; she did not have
a Kesuvah document - she collects her Kesuvah.
(e) (R. Yochanan): Because of my teaching, you understood the
(f) Question (Abaye): Perhaps the Mishnah speaks of a place
where they do not write Kesuvos, the Get serves as the
Kesuvah - but where they write Kesuvos, she does not
collect without a Kesuvah.
(g) Retraction (Abaye): What I said is wrong - if where they
write Kesuvos, she does not collect without a Kesuvah - a
widow from Kedushin would only collect with witnesses of
death - but his heirs could claim that she was already
(h) Question: Perhaps that is indeed true!
(i) Rejection: If so, there was no point in enacting a
Kesuvah for widows from Kedushin!