Bava Metzia - Daf 17
- הוחזק כפרן
Rebbe Yochanan said that if a creditor tells a debtor, “You owe me a maneh,” which the debtor completely denies, and then witnesses testify that he did borrow, וחזר ואמר פרעתי – and he subsequently said, “I paid the debt afterwards,” הוחזק כפרן לאותו ממון – he is established as a liar regarding that money, since he was caught lying about it, and is not believed that he paid without presenting witnesses. Rebbe Yochanan also said that if someone was obligated to swear a shevuah to his fellow, and claims he already swore, but witnesses testify that he refused to swear when the claimant demanded he swear, הוחזק כפרן לאותה שבועה – he is established as a liar regarding this shevuah and is not believed. The Gemara adds that this is only for a shevuah obligated by Beis Din, but if one committed to swear to someone, and later refused, he would be believed to later say he swore, because a person occasionally refuses to do what Beis Din did not require him to do, and it does not indicate a retraction of his commitment.
- Returning a שטר dated that day
Rebbe Yochanan said that if someone finds a שטר which is certified, וכתוב בו זמנו בו ביום – and the date written in it is that very day, he should return it to the owner. The loan was definitely issued since it is certified. As far as possible payment, לפריעה בת יומא לא חיישינן – we are not concerned about payment on the very day the debt was issued, which is very unlikely. Rebbe Zeira asked that this contradicts Rebbe Yochanan’s ruling that a שטר whose loan was repaid cannot be used for another loan, because the lien in the שטר ended. The date of the שטר must be that day (otherwise, it would be invalid anyway as מוקדם – predated). This case of a paid שטר proves that a loan is sometimes paid on the first day!? Rebbe Assi replied that it is very rare, but Rebbe Yochanan discussed a case where it occurred. Rav Kahana said that Rebbe Yochanan only allowed returning a שטר dated that day, כשחייב מודה – where the debtor admits it was not paid (otherwise, we would consider the possibility of payment). Although one might have thought he falsely admitted in order to (illegally) reuse the שטר, the admission is assumed to be authentic, as the Gemara explains.
- הטוען אחר מעשה בית דין לא אמר כלום
Rebbe Yochanan said: הטוען אחר מעשה בית דין – If someone claims he paid an obligation imposed by an act of Beis Din (such as kesubah, and feeding one’s wife and daughters), לא אמר כלום – he has said nothing and is not believed. He explains that anyone claiming an obligation imposed by Beis Din is כמאן דנקיט שטרא בידיה דמי – like one holding a document recording the obligation in his hand. Rebbe Chiya bar Abba asked Rebbe Yochanan that his ruling was unnecessary, because it can be demonstrated from a Mishnah, which teaches that a divorced woman who presents her get, but not her kesubah, can collect her kesubah (and the husband cannot claim he paid it). Rebbe Yochanan replied: אי לאו דדלאי לך חספא – If I had not lifted up the shard, לא משכחת מרגניתא תותה – you would not have discovered the pearl underneath it. Although Abaye attempted to deflect the proof, suggesting that the Mishnah’s case is a locale which does not write kesubos (but elsewhere, he can claim it was paid if the kesubah is not presented), but he later retracted.
