Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 11, scan section 45

the estate to another and already delivered the document to him, and afterwards he decided to give it to the one to whom it was previously assigned by his father, but as the document was already given to the second, and he could not retract it, he de- clared that the father's will was, to deliver it to whom it was first assigned with the intention that the latter should summon the party to whom the son had delivered his document, so that fi- nally the estate should be divided among them. The court, there- fore, may say it will not be returned for the reason explained TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 41 above ; but if you wish that the man in question should get the estate, go and draw up another document and deliver it to him and then the will of your father will be complied with. The rabbis taught : " If one finds a receipt (of a marriage contract), it is to be returned to the husband when the woman rec- ognizes it, but not otherwise." Now then, why should it not be feared the same as above ? Perhaps she wrote it to deliver it in Nissan and she had not delivered it before Tishri, and in the meantime she had assigned to somebody else her marriage con- tract for the benefit of the products in the interim from Nissan to Tishri, and afterwards if the goods would be collected by her re- ceipt, it would be illegal." Said Rabha : " Infer from this, that the Boraitha is in accord with Samuel, who says : * When one sells a note made for a loan and afterwards he relinquishes the debt mentioned in the note, it is relinquished, and even his heir can do so (so that the debtor must pay nothing and the money taken for the note is to be returned).' " Abaye, however, said : " Even if we should say that Samuel's decision is not to be con- sidered, the case in question is to explain when the marriage contract is in her possession and she brought it before the court. According to Rabha's theory, however, the marriage contract is not to be considered, for she may have had two." Abaye, how- ever, rejoined : " First, it is not to be feared that there may be two ; and secondly, the collection on account of the receipt takes place from the date it was signed, no matter when it was deliv- ered." The last statement of Abaye is in accord with his theory elsewhere, that witnesses with their signature give title to whom- ever the document was written. MISHNA VII. : One who found documents in which was as- signed by the court the property of the defendant in benefit for the plaintiff, or obligations of supporting (his step-daughter, or) docu- ments of Haliza or such where the annulment of a marriage of a female minor is expressed, documents of a claim and of arbitra- tion, and other documents made by the court, are to be returned to whomever they belong. When one finds a note in a naipa or bag or a roll or a bunch of notes, it must be returned. What is to be considered a bunch ? Three bound together. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel says : " When three notes of the same debtor and different creditors are found, they should be returned to the debtor; but if three different debtors from one creditor, then to the creditor. If one finds a note among his own notes and he does not know to whom it belongs, it shall be placed in court 42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. until Elijah will come. If there is a ffv/u<pGoyta, he shall act according to it." GEMARA: What is meant, claiming documents? In the college of Babylon they used to explain it as documents of plaintiff and of the defendant. R. Jeremiah, however, said : " Documents of the arbiters taken by the parties." "And all documents made by the court." There was found a divorce which was written in the city of Shev^r^, which was situated on the river Rackth, and it was brought in the court of R. Huna. Said R. Huna: " It is to be feared that there are two cities of such a name (therefore it is doubtful if it may be re- turned)." Said R. Hisda to Rabba : " Look up this matter, for in the evening R. Huna will inquire about it of you." Rabba did so, and found the quotation stated above in our Mishna. Said R. Amram to Rabba : " How can you, master, decide the matter of a legal marriage from a money case?" And he an- swered : " Tardus ! Did not the Mishna state documents of Haliza, etc. (are these not documents of legal marriage) ? " In the meantime the pillar of the college broke, and each of the above sages claimed that this happened as a punishment for the disgrace of his honor (Rabba because he was insulted by the expression of R. Amram, and the latter because he was ashamed of being called Tardus). " A roll or a bunch of notes." The rabbis taught : " What is called a roll ? " If there were no less than three ; and a bunch must contain the same number, but in this case they must be tied together. Shall we infer from this that such a knot is to be considered as a sign of identification ? Said R. Hyya : " It treats of a case where the notes of the bunch were also rolled, one in the other." If it is so, then it is a roll (already mentioned above). A roll means that each of the notes was rolled sep- arately in it ; and a bunch means they were rolled together. What shall be proclaimed: the number? Why, then, no less than three : must he not proclaim it even when there were two ? As Rabbina said elsewhere, that if one finds a number of coins he must proclaim that he found money without mentioning the number and without explaining what kind of money, the same is the case here, he shall proclaim : " I have found documents," without any explanation (and the loser must explain their con- dition and how many). " R. Simeon ben Gamaliel," etc. If they belong to the creditors, how could they be together ? But perhaps they were TRACT BABA METZIA (MIDDLE GATE). 43 lost by the creditors while going to register them. The case was when they were already registered. But perhaps they were lost from the hand of the register. It is not usual for one to leave his registered note with the register. " When three borrowed from," etc. For if they were lost by debtors, how could they be found together? But perhaps they were lost on the way from the scribe's. The case was when three different handwritings were found. Perhaps they were lost on the way to the register's? Usually the creditor registers the note, but not the borrower. " If there is," etc. R. Jeremiah bar Abba said in the name of Rabh : " A sv}x<pGovia that is in the hand of the creditor is invalid even when it was written by himself, as it may be that he prepared it in case the debtor would give him the money at a time when it would not be easy for him to make a receipt, and much less when it was written by a scribe, as it may be that he expected money from the debtor, and while waiting for it, it