Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TRANSFERRAL OF DOCUMENTS

(a) Question (Beraisa): Just as no one can use a document to claim money from either of them, neither of them can use a document to claim money from someone else.

1. Question: About what do they argue?
2. Answer #1: They argue whether or not a document is acquired by handing it over:

i. The Tana of our Mishnah holds that a document is acquired by handing it over (we are not concerned that one dropped it and his namesake found it; if one gave it to the other, the bearer is entitled to collect);
ii. The Tana of the Beraisa holds that a document is not acquired by handing it over (perhaps the one holding it received it from his namesake, this does not entitle him to collect).

3. Answer #2: All agree that a document is acquired by handing it over;

i. They argue whether or not the bearer must prove that it was given to him: the Tana of our Mishnah holds that he need not bring proof, the Tana of the Beraisa holds that he must bring proof.

(b) (Abaye): A document is acquired by handing it over, the bearer must prove that it was given to him;
(c) (Rava): The bearer need not prove that it was given to him.
(d) Version #1 - Support (Abaye, for himself - Beraisa): Yehudah is holding a loan document, he claims that his brothers gave it to him, they claim that he grabbed it - he must bring proof.

1. Suggestion: The same applies in general, the bearer must bring proof.

(e) Rejection (Rava): No, it only applies to brothers, they often take things from each other.
(f) Version #2 - Support (Rava, for himself - Beraisa): Yehudah is holding a loan document, he claims that his brothers gave it to him, they claim that he grabbed it - he must bring proof.

1. Suggestion: This only applies to brothers, they often take things from each other, normally, the bearer need not bring proof.

(g) Rejection (Abaye): No, it applies to everyone, the Beraisa teaches about brothers because this is a Chidush:

1. Since they often take things from each other, they guard documents from each other, one might have thought that Yehudah need not bring proof - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.

(a) Question (Beraisa): Just as either of them can use a document to claim money from someone else, one of them can use a document to collect from the other;

1. Why does this Tana argue with the Tana of our Mishnah?

(b) Answer: They argue about whether or not we write a document for the borrower in the absence of the lender.

1. The Tana of our Mishnah holds that we write a document for the borrower in the absence of the lender - perhaps the bearer asked a scribe and witnesses to write a document for him to borrow from his namesake, and he now claims that he lent to his namesake.
2. The Tana of the Beraisa holds that we do not write a document for the borrower in the absence of the lender.

(c) (Mishnah): If Levi found among his documents a note saying 'The document of Yosef ben Shimon was paid', he cannot collect a loan from either of them.
(d) Inference: Had he not found this note, he could have collected.
(e) Contradiction (Mishnah): No one can use a document to claim money from either of them.
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): The case is, Levi's documents have the grandfather's name (proving to which one he lent).

1. Question: The grandfather indicates which one paid his loan!
2. Answer (R. Hoshaya): The case is, the loan documents have the grandfather's name, the note does not.

(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): The Mishnah means, if Levi found among his documents a note saying 'The document with which I borrowed from Yosef ben Shimon was paid', neither can collect a loan from him (neither can prove that his document was not paid).
(h) (Mishnah): Documents for them should include the grandfather's name...
(i) (Beraisa): If their grandfathers had the same name, there is no sign to distinguish them, both are Kohanim (or Yisraelim), we write more ancestors (until they are distinguishable).

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven told his son 'One of my documents was paid, I do not know which' - his son cannot collect any of them.

1. If two documents were against the same person, he may collect the smaller, not the larger.

(b) (Gemara - Rava): If Shimon told Levi 'One of my documents (against you) was paid', he may collect the smaller, not the larger;

1. If he said 'Your debt to me was paid', he cannot collect any document against him.

(c) Question (Ravina): If so, if a document said 'My field is sold to you', the larger field is sold; 'The field that I have is sold to you', all his fields are sold?!
(d) Answer (Rava): No - the bearer of a document has the lower hand.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven lent to Shimon, Levi was an Arev (cosigner) - Reuven may not collect from Levi.

1. If Reuven stipulated (at the time of the loan) 'On condition that I can collect from whichever of you I want', he can collect from Levi.
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Shimon has property, in any case Reuven cannot collect from Levi.

(b) Similarly: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Yehudah was an Arev for David (in case he will have) to pay the Kesuvah of David's wife and he is divorcing her, David must vow Al Da'as Rabim (according to the will of many others, so the vow cannot be annulled) that he will not benefit from her, lest the divorce is just a scheme to collect from Yehudah, and David plans to remarry her.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why can't he collect from the Arev?
(d) Answer #1 (Rabah and Rav Yosef): The Arev can say, I only took responsibility in case Shimon will die or flee - he is here!
(e) Objection (Rav Nachman): That is like Persian law!

1. Objection: Just the contrary! The Persians collect from the Arev first!
2. Answer: He means, that is like the Persian law, there is no reason for it.

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): The Mishnah means, he may not collect from Levi *first*.
(g) Support (Beraisa): If Reuven lent to Shimon, and Levi was an Arev, Reuven may not claim from Levi first.

1. If Reuven stipulated 'On condition that I can collect from whichever of you I want', he can claim from Levi first.

(h) Question (Rav Huna): What is the source that an Arev becomes obligated?
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): "Anochi E'ervenu" (Yehudah was an Arev for Binyamin).
(j) Objection (Rav Chisda): This was not regular Arvus, rather Kablanus (a special kind of Arvus, as if he himself received the loan, as Reuven had offered) - "Tenah Oso Al Yadi va'Ani Ashivenu".
(k) Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak): It says "Lekach Bigdo Ki Arev Zar", and "Beni Im Aravta...Nokashta v'Imrei Ficha...Lech Hisrapes u'Rhav Re'echa";

1. If you owe him money (on behalf of the borrower), pay him; if not (rather, you insulted him), bring friends to request his pardon.

(l) (Ameimar): R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argues whether or not an Arev becomes obligated:

1. R. Yosi says that Asmachta (an exaggerated promise) takes effect, also an Arev becomes obligated (he does not benefit, yet he accepts to pay if the borrower will not);
2. R. Yehudah says that Asmachta does not take effect, an Arev does not become obligated.

(m) Objection (Rav Ashi): We rule that Asmachta does not take effect, yet an Arev becomes obligated!
(n) (Rav Ashi): Arvus is not Asmachta, he receives Hana'ah since the lender trusts him (and lends the borrower on account of him), he decides absolutely to accept responsibility as if he himself borrowed.
(o) (Mishnah): If Reuven stipulated 'On condition that I can collect from whichever of you I want'...
(p) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): This is only if Shimon has no property - if he has, Reuven cannot collect from Levi.
(q) Question (end of the Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Shimon has property, in any case Reuven cannot collect from Levi.

1. This implies that the first Tana says even in this case, he can collect from Levi!

(r) Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated, it means as follows: Reuven lent to Shimon, Levi was an Arev - Reuven may not collect from Levi;

1. If Reuven stipulated 'On condition that I can collect from whichever of you I want', he can collect from Levi.
2. This is if Shimon has no property, but if he does, Reuven cannot collect from Levi.
3. If Levi is a Kablan, even if Shimon has property, Reuven can collect from Levi.
4. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Shimon has property, Reuven cannot collect from an Arev nor from a Kablan.

(s) (Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah always follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel in a Mishnah, with three exceptions: our Mishnah of Arev, the case of a conditional Get in Tzidon, and a plaintiff who thought he did not have a proof and later found one.