Bava Metzia - Daf 20
- Returning the שובר of a kesubah
A Baraisa teaches that if one found the שובר – receipt (indicating payment of a kesubah), and the woman admits she was paid, the שובר is returned to the husband. The Gemara asks that we should be concerned the שובר was written in Nissan but not given until Tishrei (when the kesubah was actually paid). Since the woman may have sold her kesubah to someone in the interim, returning the שובר to the husband enables him to unlawfully avoid paying it to this buyer!? Rava answers that this Baraisa proves Shmuel’s opinion, that המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול – one who sells a document of debt to his fellow, and later forgives the debt, [the debt] is forgiven. Since she can forgive the debt to her husband, we are not concerned that returning the שובר may defraud the kesubah’s buyer. Abaye argues that even if Shmuel were not correct, the Baraisa may be a case where the kesubah is in her possession, and she has not sold it. Although Rava objects that we should be concerned that there may be a second kesubah document, which she sold, Abaye counters that we are not concerned about a second kesubah.
Alternatively, Abaye answers that the שובר takes effect retroactively from its date, even if it is given later, in line with his opinion on Daf 13a.
- כל מעשה בית דין הרי זה יחזיר
The next Mishnah states that if one found documents which are written by Beis Din, such as documents of assessment (of a debtor’s property for collection), documents of a husband’s agreement to support his stepdaughters, certificates of חליצה or מיאון, documents of בירורין – clarification, וכל מעשה בית דין – or any act of Beis Din, הרי זה יחזיר – he should return them to the one named in the documents. There is no concern that these were written in advance, because Beis Din only writes these documents when they are needed. The Gemara explains that שטרי בירורין either mean the records of the litigants’ arguments, or the litigants’ choosing of judges for a court case. The Mishnah then discusses returning documents based on what they were found in, their being bundled with other documents, or a common lender or borrower in three documents together. The Mishnah concludes with what to do with documents one finds among his own documents and does not know their status.
- סמפון היוצא מתחת ידי מלוה
Rav said: סמפון היוצא מתחת ידי מלוה – Regarding a receipt found in the lender’s possession, even if it is written in his own handwriting, אינו אלא כמשחק ופסול – it merely mocks the borrower and is invalid. Although the lender himself wrote it, it is possible he wrote it in advance, reasoning that the borrower may come late on Friday afternoon to make payment and will only pay if the lender gives him a receipt.
This is challenged by the Mishnah, which taught that if one finds receipts among his documents, he should follow what is written in them!? The Gemara answers that the Mishnah’s case may be שמצאו בין שטרות קרועין – that [the lender] found [the receipt] among his ripped documents, which indicates that the debt was already paid, and the lender no longer needed it.
