Daf 21a: Receipts, Confirming Witnesses, and the Trusted Custodian

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 21a

   דְּשָׁיְילִינַן לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי אִי פָּרוּעַ אִי לָא פָּרוּעַ.

   The page opens in the middle of an answer from the preceding discussion of a receipt. The Gemara explains that we ask the witnesses whether the debt was repaid. Their signatures on a document recording repayment are not enough by themselves. The underlying concern is that a document may be prepared for repayment before payment actually occurs. Inquiry of the witnesses distinguishes preparation of the receipt from repayment itself. This resolves the preceding source without concluding that every signed receipt independently proves payment.

2. 02·TerutzBava Metzia 21a

   תָּא שְׁמַע: סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – כָּשֵׁר. מַאי עֵדִים? עֵדֵי קִיּוּם.

   The Gemara introduces another source with “Come and hear”: a receipt bearing witnesses is valid. At first reading, the witnesses’ signatures appear sufficient to validate it. That reading threatens the distinction between writing a document and actual repayment. The answer interprets “witnesses” as “confirming witnesses,” rather than merely the presence of signatures. The emphasis thus shifts from a signed document to its confirmation. The source therefore does not require accepting every signed receipt without further verification.

3. 03·RayaBava Metzia 21a

   הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְשֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים – פָּסוּל. מַאי ״אֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים״? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא עִלָּוֵיהּ עֵדִים כְּלָל, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּפָסוּל?! אֶלָּא לָאו עֵדֵי קִיּוּם.

   The Gemara now supports this interpretation through the latter clause of the same source. That clause states that a receipt without witnesses is invalid. If it means a document with no witnesses at all, the Gemara treats its invalidity as obvious in the case under discussion. Why would the source need to teach that? It therefore concludes that what is missing is confirming witnesses, and the opening clause likewise concerns such witnesses. This is an argument from the source’s structure and the expectation that its latter clause teaches something new, not external evidence that a particular debt was repaid.

4. 04·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 21a

   גּוּפָא. סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. אֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים וְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – כָּשֵׁר.

   The word “gufa” marks a return to a previously cited source; this is a baraita, not a new Mishnah. The baraita states that a receipt bearing witnesses is to be established through its signatories. That wording must be read against the preceding discussion, which distinguished signatures from the necessary inquiry through the signatories. It then validates even an unwitnessed receipt in two situations: when it emerges from a custodian’s possession, or when it appears after the signatures on the debt document. The latter refers to its written placement after the signatures, not merely to the receipt being written at a later date. The baraita thus supplies another foundation for reliability, and the next step explains the force of each situation.

5. 05·TerutzBava Metzia 21a

   יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ, דְּהָא הֵימְנֵיהּ מַלְוֶה לְשָׁלִישׁ. יוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי, דְּאִי לָאו דִּפְרִיעַ לָא הֲוָה מַרַע לֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ.

   The Gemara explains the baraita’s two situations separately. A receipt emerging from a custodian’s possession is reliable because the lender himself trusted that custodian. The premise is not that anyone holding a document is reliable, but that this custodian was entrusted with responsibility in the matter. When the receipt is written after the document’s signatures, the explanation rests on the lender’s conduct: without repayment, he would not have weakened his own document in this way. Unlike a separate receipt that could be prepared in advance, this acknowledgment of payment damages the collection document itself. Both explanations continue an important principle in Bava Metzia’s discussions of returning documents: examine not only what a document says, but also how it reached its location and what its context indicates.

6. 06·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 21a

   הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין

   “Hadran alakh Shnayim Ochazin” is the chapter’s closing formula. It supplies neither another proof nor a new rule about receipts. The formula expresses that we will return to the chapter and study it again. In our learning structure, this is a stopping point for checking the foundations: what does the document prove, and what do testimony and circumstances add? The discussion thus closes without blurring the differences between the various forms of confirmation.

1. 1What is investigated with the witnesses at the beginning of the page? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2How is “it bears witnesses” interpreted in the source in segment 2? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3What drives the proof from the latter clause? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4Why is a receipt emerging from a custodian’s possession reliable? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5What is the reasoning for validating a receipt appearing after the debt document’s signatures? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.