Daf 13b: A Found Debt Document: Liability, Repayment, and Collusion

Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.

1. 01·TerutzBava Metzia 13b

   דְּאָמַר לֹא הָיוּ דְבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם.

   The page opens with the end of an answer to the preceding discussion: the borrower says, “It never happened.” This denies the loan itself, rather than claiming that a loan was made and later repaid. The qualification narrows the case and prevents us from treating every refusal to admit a debt identically. As matters of evidence, outright denial and a repayment claim raise different questions about the document’s role. This is a foundation for what follows: first identify the borrower’s claim, then examine what returning the document would enable.

2. 02·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 13b

   אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לָא מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי וְלָא מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַחְזִיר, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן וְלִקְנוּנְיָא.

   Rabbi Elazar places the Mishnah’s dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages in a case where the debtor does not admit the debt. On his reading, Rabbi Meir holds that a document without liability permits no collection, even from assets still held by the borrower. Returning it therefore gives the lender no collection instrument, which explains the Mishnah’s permission to return it. The Sages, by contrast, allow collection from unalienated assets, so returning it could harm a borrower who does not admit the debt. When the debtor admits, Rabbi Elazar says everyone permits return, even of a document containing liability. The basis is that we do not suspect here that the debt was repaid and that both parties are colluding to collect from purchasers.

3. 03·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 13b

   וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, אֲבָל מִבְּנֵי חָרֵי – מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי נָמֵי גָּבֵי. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁאֵין חַיָּיב מוֹדֶה – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא יַחְזִיר, דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְפֵרָעוֹן.

   Rabbi Yohanan offers a different blueprint: the Mishnah’s dispute concerns a debtor who admits the debt. According to Rabbi Meir, a document without liability collects from unalienated assets but not from property held by purchasers. The borrower’s admission therefore permits its return without giving the lender power to harm purchasers through this document. According to the Sages, even a document lacking the liability clause collects from encumbered property, so admission does not remove the risk to purchasers. When the debtor does not admit, everyone agrees not to return it, because the debt may already have been repaid. Unlike Rabbi Elazar’s reading, even the weakest document here remains a collection instrument, so returning it is not neutral. This continues a central issue in Bava Metzia’s treatment of found documents: restoring an object can confer legal power against another person.

4. 04·RayaBava Metzia 13b

   תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דִשְׁמוּאֵל בְּתַרְתֵּי.

   The Gemara announces that a baraita supports Rabbi Yohanan. The same baraita also refutes Rabbi Elazar “on one point” and Shmuel “on two.” At this stage, we receive a map of the proof before seeing the source and its analysis. The count concerns points of contradiction between the source and the amoraic positions, not the number of sources. Shmuel’s position belongs to the earlier discussion, and the two contradictions to it are not detailed in the supplied passages. The rest of this page primarily examines why the refutation of Rabbi Elazar is counted as one.

5. 05·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 13b

   מָצָא שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אֵין בָּהֶן אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה, אֵין הַלֹּוֶה מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

   The baraita states Rabbi Meir’s rules for returning the document. A document containing liability is returned to neither borrower nor lender, even when both admit the debt. Their agreement is insufficient because the document may be used against purchasers who are not parties to that admission. For a document without liability, the borrower’s admission permits return to the lender. If the borrower does not admit, it is returned to neither party, because it can still support collection from the borrower. This structure matches Rabbi Yohanan: it distinguishes a risk to the borrower, which admission can remove, from a risk to purchasers, which admission does not remove.

6. 06·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 13b

   שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: שְׁטָרי שֶׁיֵּשׁ (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. וְשֶׁאֵין (בָּהֶם) [בּוֹ] אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים, גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.

   The baraita now explains the collection power underlying the return rules. Rabbi Meir says that a document with liability collects from encumbered property, while one without liability collects from unalienated assets. The missing clause thus limits the scope of collection without eliminating the document’s force. The Sages say that both types collect even from encumbered property. On their view, the clause’s absence does not establish that the lender waived collection from purchasers. This is the conceptual basis of the discussion of liability as a scribal omission: a gap in the wording need not mean a gap in the right. Here the baraita explicitly states the collection rules, confirming Rabbi Yohanan’s reading of both positions.

7. 07·KushyaBava Metzia 13b

   תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּחֲדָא, דְּאָמַר: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וְקָאָמַר: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא. וּבָרָיְיתָא קָתָנֵי: שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחְרָיוּת נְכָסִים – מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדִי הוּא דְּלָא גָּבֵי, הָא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין מִגְבָּא גָּבֵי. וְקָתָנֵי: בֵּין לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן, חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא. דְּקָתָנֵי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מוֹדִים לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. אַלְמָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִקְנוּנְיָא.

   The Gemara details the contradiction to Rabbi Elazar under the heading “on one point.” Rabbi Elazar attributed to Rabbi Meir a document without liability that cannot collect at all, whereas the baraita says it collects from unalienated assets. In addition, Rabbi Elazar said that neither Rabbi Meir nor the Sages suspects collusion when the debtor admits. The baraita, however, prohibits returning a document with liability even when both admit, and the Gemara infers that collusion is suspected. The concern is that a repaid debt will be presented as outstanding, allowing borrower and lender together to secure improper collection from purchasers. Admission therefore does not answer the concern: it may itself be part of the fraud. The analysis apparently presents two contradictions, preparing the closing question.

8. 08·KushyaBava Metzia 13b

   וְהָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי הוּא?

   The Gemara objects: “But these are two!” The difficulty targets not the proof from the baraita itself, but the count announced earlier. Apparently, there is both a contradiction about the collection power of a document without liability and a contradiction about suspicion of collusion. We must now determine whether these are two independent errors or two expressions of one underlying position, but this passage supplies no answer. Our blueprint stops here: the proof has been presented, while the relationship between the two parts of the refutation still requires clarification.

1. 1What distinguishes the claim “It never happened”? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2According to Rabbi Elazar, what force does a document without liability have for Rabbi Meir? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3How does Rabbi Yohanan frame the tannaitic dispute in the Mishnah? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4Why is both parties’ admission insufficient to return a document with liability in the baraita? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5What remains open at the end of the passage? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.