Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE ESTABLISHED AS A LIAR

(a) (R. Avahu): One who finds a loan document - even though it has a Henpek, he should not return it.

1. Not only if it has no Henpek, we are concerned that the loan was never given - but even if it has a Henpek, we are concerned that it was paid.

i. Question: What is a document with a Henpek?
ii. Answer: It was validated by Beis Din.

(b) Question (R. Yirmeyah - Mishnah): All documents of actions of Beis Din should be returned.
(c) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): That does not apply to all actions of Beis Din, only when the borrower was established as a liar (then he is not believed to say that he paid).
(d) Objection (Rava): Because a man was once established as a liar, will he never pay?
(e) Answer #2 (Rava): The Mishnah speaks of documents of Chaltasa or Adrachta (as R. Zeira said above).
(f) (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi citing Rav Nachman): Beis Din told Reuven 'go give Shimon'; later, Reuven claims that he paid him - he is believed;

1. If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we do not give him.

(g) If Beis Din told Reuven 'you are obligated to give Shimon', and Reuven later claims that he paid him - he is not believed;

1. If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we write one for him.

(h) (Rav Zvid citing Rav Nachman): Whether Beis Din said 'go give' or 'you are obligated to give', Reuven is believed to say that he paid, we do not write an Adrachta for Shimon.

1. The following difference does apply between the 2 languages: by 'go give', if Reuven claims that he paid and witnesses say that they once saw him refuse to pay, he is established as a liar on that debt.
2. By 'you are obligated to give', if Reuven claims that he paid, and witnesses say that he once refused to pay, he is not established as a liar on that debt.
3. Question: Why is this?
4. Answer: By 'you are obligated to give', Reuven was merely stalling - he thinks that Beis Din may change their minds.

(i) (Rabah bar bar Chana): Levi claimed 100 from Yehudah; he denied it all, and witnesses testified that he has it. Yehudah then said that he paid - he is established as a liar on this money, he is not believed.

1. Shabtai wrote in his daughter-in-law's Kesuvah that he would give her a silk garment; she lost her Kesuvah, he denied the matter. Witnesses testified that he had written it; he said that he gave it to her.
2. R. Chiya: He is established as a liar on that garment.

(j) (R. Avin): Reuven was obligated to swear to Shimon; he claims that he swore, and witnesses testified that he refused to swear - he is established as a liar regarding that oath.
(k) (R. Avahu): Presumably, that is only when Beis Din obligated him to swear - but if he accepted on himself to swear, he is believed - people often say 'I will not fulfill what I accepted to do'.

1. R. Avin explicitly said as R. Avahu.
2. That indeed was my intention.

(a) (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): One who finds in the market a validated document for a loan given that same day, should return it to the lender.

1. We are not concerned that the loan was never given, for it was validated;
2. We are not concerned that it was paid - people do not pay loans on the same day.

(b) Question (R. Zeira): But you cited R. Yochanan as saying that if a loan was paid, the document cannot be used for another loan (of the same amount between the same parties), because the power of the document to obligate the borrower has been pardoned!

1. Question: When does R. Yochanan teach that the document may not be used again?

i. If on a later day - why must he say that the problem is the power was pardoned - it may not be used because the date precedes the loan!
ii. (Mishnah): Predated loan documents are invalid!

2. Answer: Rather, R. Yochanan teaches that the document may not be used the same day - we see, people sometimes pay a loan the same day!

(c) Answer #1 (Rav Asi): I did not say that people never pay loans on the same day, just that it is rare, we are not concerned for it.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): R. Yochanan says that we return a document on the same day if the borrower admits that he did not pay.
(e) Question: If so, of course it may be returned!
(f) Answer: One might have thought, perhaps it was paid; he claims that it was not, in order to use it again to borrow money, thereby saving the cost of another document;

1. We hear, we are not concerned for this - the lender fears that Chachamim would hear about this and he would be unable to collect from sold property.

(g) Question: What is the difference between R. Yochanan's law and the Mishnah?

1. (Mishnah): One who finds loan documents - if they have Acharayos, he should not return them.
2. We established this when the borrower admits; we are concerned that the loan was given after the date on the document, and the document will be used to collect from buyers illegitimately!
3. We do not say that the lender fears to use such a document, and demands a new document with the proper date!

(h) Answer: There, the lender stands to gain from the early date, he can collect from buyers who bought before the loan;

1. Here, since only the borrower gains (he saves the cost of another document), the lender demands a proper document.

(a) (R. Chiya bar Aba): One who claims that he paid an obligation which Chachamim enacted - he is not believed.

(b) Question: Why is this?
(c) Answer: By such enactments, we consider it as if a document was written. (d) Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): A Mishnah teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): A woman showed her Get; she did not have a Kesuvah document - she collects her Kesuvah.

(e) (R. Yochanan): Because of my teaching, you understood the Mishnah.
(f) Question (Abaye): Perhaps the Mishnah speaks of a place where they do not write Kesuvos, the Get serves as the Kesuvah - but where they write Kesuvos, she does not collect without a Kesuvah.
(g) Retraction (Abaye): What I said is wrong - if where they write Kesuvos, she does not collect without a Kesuvah - a widow from Kedushin would only collect with witnesses of death - but his heirs could claim that she was already paid!
(h) Question: Perhaps that is indeed true!
(i) Rejection: If so, there was no point in enacting a Kesuvah for widows from Kedushin!