Study Bava Metzia folio 7B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: What is different about the case where the promissory note fell into the possession of a judge, such that the creditor cannot retrieve it to collect the debt? Rava said this is what the baraita is saying: But in the case of another individual, who is neither the debtor nor the cred
And the reason the baraita refers specifically to these circumstances is that it is not necessary to state that in a case where there is no ratification written in the promissory note that the creditor cannot use it to collect the debt; as it can be said that the debtor wrote the document because he
The Talmud discusses the continuation of the baraita: And R' Yosei says: The promissory note retains its presumptive status. The Talmud explains: And we do not suspect that there was repayment; had the debt been repaid the debtor would have immediately destroyed the promissory note. The Talmud as
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one found a marriage contract in the marketplace, in a case when the husband admits that he has not yet paid the amount written in the contract to his wife, the finder must return the document to the wife. In a case when the husband does not admit this, but ins
R' Yosei says that there is a distinction between different situations: If the wife is still under the auspices of her husband, i.e., she is still married to him, the one who found the marriage contract must return it to the wife because presumably the husband did not pay her the amount specified i