Bava Metzia Chart #1
Chart for Bava Metzia Daf 7a-b
WHEN THE BORROWER AND LENDER ARE DISPUTING A SHTAR, AND THE BORROWER CLAIMS THAT HE PAID IT ALREADY, CAN THE LENDER COLLECT WITH IT?
| (A) THE SHTAR IS NOT "MEKUYAM" |
(B) THE SHTAR IS "MEKUYAM" |
||
| 1 | THE SHTAR IS IN THE HANDS OF THE "MALVEH" | Rebbi: It needs Kiyum (1) RSB"G: He may collect (2) |
He may collect (3) |
| 2 | THE SHTAR IS IN THE HANDS OF BOTH "LOVEH" & "MALVEH" | [REISHA] |
They divide it |
| 3 | THE SHTAR WAS FOUND BY A THIRD PARTY | He may not collect (6) | [SEIFA]
|
| 4 | THE SHTAR IS IN THE HANDS OF THE "LOVEH" | He may not collect | He may not collect |
Bava Metzia Chart #2
Chart for Bava Metzia Daf 7b
WHEN ONE FINDS A WOMAN'S KESUVAH, AND THE HUSBAND CLAIMS
THAT HE PAID IT ALREADY, DO WE GIVE IT BACK TO THE WOMAN
AND LET HER COLLECT THE MONEY WITH IT?
| (A) SHE IS STILL MARRIED |
(B) SHE IS DIVORCED |
||
| 1 | THE GEMARA'S FIRST ANSWER |
She may collect (8) | R. Yosi: She may not collect (9) [Rabanan: She may collect] |
| 2 | RAV PAPA | Rabanan: She may not collect (10) R. Yosi: She may collect (8) |
Rabanan: She may not collect (11) [R. Yosi: She may collect] |
| 3 | RAVINA | Rabanan: She may not collect (12) R. Yosi: She may collect (8) |
She may not collect (9) (12) |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
[The Halachos written in brackets are not mentioned explicitly in the Beraisa.]
(1) Rebbi holds "Modeh b'Shtar she'Kesavo Tzarich l'Kaimo," or in other words, when the Loveh claims that he paid the loan he is believed through a "Migu" since he could have claimed the Shtar was forged.
(2) That is, the Malveh may collect all of the loan written in the Shtar without being Mekayem the Shtar, because of the rule of "Modeh b'Shtar she'Kesavo Ein Tzarich l'Kaimo." (See Tosfos in Kesuvos 19a for the logic as to why the Loveh is not believed with a "Migu" to say that the Shtar is a forgery.) In fact, Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel of our Beraisa could have argued their argument in this case, where the Shtar was in the hands of the Malveh alone (and it never even fell from his hands in the first place). The reason why they discuss a case in which both the Loveh and the Malveh are holding the Shtar is in order to teach a secondary point: When they both are holding the Shtar we divide the sum written in the Shtar (i.e. the amount of the loan) between them (MAHARI KATZ in Shitah Mekubetzes).
(3) When the Shtar is Mekuyam, the Loveh does not have a "Migu" to claim that the Shtar is a forgery, and therefore he is no longer believed to say that he paid it even according to Rebbi.
(4) According to Rebbi, the Malveh may not collect any of the loan until he is Mekayem the Shtar, at which point he may collect half.
(5) That is, he may collect half of the loan without being Mekayem the Shtar.
(6) The reason the loan may not be collected in such a case is because we are concerned that the Loveh may have written the Shtar with intention to borrow money, but then did not borrow money (and it was he who lost the Shtar). (In the first two cases (1 & 2) in the Chart, since the Shtar is at least partially in the hands of the Malveh we are not concerned for this possibility.)
(7) The reasoning of the Tana Kama is that we are concerned that the debt was already paid even though we see that the Shtar was not torn up. (According to some, the opinions of the Tana Kama and of Rebbi Yosi are to be reversed. See Chart #2, footnote 2..
(8) This is because a Kesuvah is not collected during the lifetime of the husband when the marriage is not dissolved, and therefore there is no fear that he already paid it.
(9) Rebbi Yosi's reasoning is that we are afraid that it was paid ("Chaishinan l'Pira'on"). The opinions of the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yosi in the first Beraisa must be reversed; see Chart #1, 3:B.
(10) The Rabanan are concerned that perhaps he left for his wife, during his lifetime, a bundle ("Tzerari") of money from which to collect her Kesuvah when he dies.
(11) The Rabanan's reasoning is that we are afraid that it was paid ("Chaishinan l'Pira'on"), in accordance with their opinion as expressed in the first Beraisa (see Chart #1, 3:B).
(12) The Rabanan's reasoning is that we are afraid that perhaps the husband wrote two Kesuvos for her; after she lost the first one, he wrote her another one to replace it, and now that the first one has been found, we are afraid that she will collect both of them. (The husband's claim in this case is not that he paid the Kesuvah already, but that he wrote her a second one.)