Study Bava Metzia folio 72B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
In the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt, and he can therefore use the document to collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. In the present case as well, the seller admits
Rava said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the matter detailed in the document may be written, as it is a substantive matter; the document attests to true events and it is therefore possible to use the promissory note to collect the debt. But here, the matter detailed in the document ma
Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar: But if Rava’s answer is accepted, then with regard to that which R' Yoḥanan said concerning an antedated loan document, that there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date, let us say that there
The Talmud further asks: But how does one understand that which is taught in a baraita: What is the case in which one appropriates property for the enhancement of land? It is a case where one robbed another of a field and sold it to another and that buyer enhanced it, and it is appropriated by the
The Talmud refutes this suggestion: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the field purchased from a robber, the deed of sale is meaningful either according to the one who says that it is preferable for the robber not to be called a robber by the buyer, or according to the one who