(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 13

BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.


(a) Rav Asi just concluded that it is forbidden to write a Sh'tar without the creditor being present, unless it is a Sh'tar Hakna'ah. What problem do we have with this, based on our Mishnah, which we just established when the debtor admits that the Sh'tar is valid and that he owes the money, yet if it contains Acharayus, it may not be returned to the creditor, because we are afraid that the Sh'tar was written before the loan took place?

(b) How does Rav Asi resolve this problem? Why, in our Mishnah, do we nevertheless suspect that it was written before the loan took place?

(c) Abaye disagrees. According to him, if writing a Sh'tar for the debtor without the creditor being present were prohibited, we would not suspect the Sofer of contravening the prohibition (even though the Sh'tar was lost). In that case, why does Abaye permit writing such a Sh'tar, even when the creditor is not present. Why is the Sh'tar not then 'Mukdam' and therefore Pasul?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Gitin say about a case where someone found Gitei Nashim, Shichrurei Avadim, Dayteki, Matanah or Shovrin?

(b) What is ...

  1. ... 'Dayteki'?
  2. ... 'Shovrin'?
(c) According to Abaye, why do we not return them, on the basis of 'Eidav ba'Chasumav Zachin Lo'?

(d) According to Abaye, in which cases is a Sh'tar 'Mukdam' and Pasul?

(a) According to Rav Asi, we established our Mishnah 'Matza Sh'tarei-Chov Im Yesh Bahen Acharayos Nechasim, Lo Yachzir' by Sh'taros that are not Sh'tarei Hakna'ah.
Why may the finder not return them, according to Abaye?

(b) Why do the Rabbanan then prohibit even the return of Sh'taros which do not contain Acharayus (see Tosfos DH 'Haynu')?

(a) Why does Shmuel not suspect that a Sh'tar-Chov has been paid? Does he differentiate between a case where the debtor admits that he is Chayav and one where he doesn't?

(b) Shmuel might hold like Rav Asi, and establish our Mishnah by Sh'taros that are not Sh'tarei Hakna'ah.
How will he explain the Mishnah, assuming he holds like Abaye?

(c) Why do we not permit the return of the Sh'tar, and substantiate it through its signatories?

(d) If Shmuel holds like Abaye, as we just suggested, why does he confine the return of found Sh'taros to Sh'tarei Hakna'ah (see 14a), seeing as Abaye does not differentiate between the two types of Sh'tar?

(a) If our Mishnah is speaking when the debtor claims that the Sh'tar is forged, as we just explained according to Shmuel, why does Rebbi Meir permit the return of a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus? Why is he not afraid that, even though the creditor cannot claim from Meshubadim, he will claim from B'nei Chorin?

(b) What is then the point of returning the Sh'tar to the creditor? Is it to use as a bottle-stopper?

(c) Then why return it to the creditor and not to the debtor?

(d) And why do the Rabbanan forbid returning the Sh'tar?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim will agree that once the debtor concedes the vaidity of the Sh'tar, the finder is obligated to return the Sh'tar, and we are not worried about collusion. Bearing in mind then, that they are arguing over a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus, what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) This conforms with the opinion of Shmuel (assuming that he holds like Abaye).
According to Rebbi Elazar and Shmuel, what status would this Sh'tar have had, had it not got lost, according to ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... the Chachamim?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim when the debtor admits that the Sh'tar is valid.
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes? Why does Rebbi Meir say 'Yachzir', and the Rabbanan 'Lo Yachzir'?

(b) And why will even Rebbi Meir concede 'Lo Yachzir', if the debtor objects?

(c) We cite a Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the debtor admits that the Sh'tar is valid, like Rebbi Yochanan, leaving us with a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar.
What does the Tana say concerning ...

  1. ... a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus according to Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... a found Sh'tar which contains Acharayus which the debtor himself validates, according to both Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim?
(d) Seeing as Rebbi Elazar holds a. that Rebbi Meir completely invalidates a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus, and b. that neither Tana suspects collusion (clashing with the Beraisa in both issues), why does the Tana consider this to be only one Kashya and not two?
Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,