|(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - email@example.com
Bava Metzia Chart #1
THE SHTAR IS NOT "MEKUYAM"
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"||
Rebbi: It needs Kiyum(4)
RSB"G: They divide it(5)
|They divide it|
|3)||THE SHTAR WAS FOUND BY A THIRD PARTY||He may not collect(6)||
T. Kama: He may not collect(7)
R. Yosi: He may collect
|4)||THE SHTAR IS IN THE HANDS OF THE "LOVEH"||He may not collect||He may not collect|
(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).)
Bava Metzia Page
|List of Charts
to the Daf
to the Daf
|Review the Daf
Questions and Answers
|Point by Point