Study Bava Metzia folio 14A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: It is actually one element, as both elements have the same one reason; because R' Elazar says that the dispute in the Mishnah is in a case when the liable party does not admit his debt, he explains R' Meir’s opinion in this manner, i.e., that a promissory note that does not incl
The Talmud elaborates on the statement that the baraita serves as a conclusive refutation of two elements of the opinion of Shmuel: One element is like the element of the opinion of R' Elazar that was refuted, as Shmuel also establishes the dispute in the Mishnah as referring to a case when the liab
And the other one is that which Shmuel says: If one found a deed of transfer in the marketplace, in which it is stipulated that the debtor transfers the rights to his property from the date that the document was signed, he must return it to its owner, and we do not suspect that there was repayment
There is a conclusive refutation of that statement as well, as the baraita here teaches: Even if they both agree, he should return it neither to this person nor to that person. Apparently, we suspect that there was repayment. And all the more so here, in the case of a deed of transfer, when the lia
§ Shmuel said: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that one can collect a debt from liened property even if the promissory note does not include a property guarantee? They hold that omission of the property guarantee from the promissory note is a scribal error, as one would c