{"id":3702,"date":"2016-10-13T08:24:18","date_gmt":"2016-10-13T06:24:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/?p=3702"},"modified":"2016-10-13T08:24:18","modified_gmt":"2016-10-13T06:24:18","slug":"bava-metzia-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dafyomi4women.org\/daf\/2016\/10\/bava-metzia-17\/","title":{"rendered":"Bava Metzia 17"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether if we find a document in the street that was either ratified by the court or was a shtar hakna’a<\/em> (in which the land is automatically liened from the date of the document regardless of whether the loan happened or not), can we\u00a0assume that it was not yet paid (since if it was, the borrower would have ripped it up) or do we assume that it was paid back (since if it wasn’t the lender never would have lost it)? \u00a0Issues relating to trust are raised – in what cases is one no longer trusted to swear in court that he paid back the loan? \u00a0Is the law different regarding a document found in the street with today’s date on it? \u00a0Why? \u00a0Rabbi Yochanan makes another statement that if something is deemed obligatory by the court (like a ketuba<\/em>) then one is not trusted to say “I already paid it back” (if they can’t bring witnesses to prove it) even if the other side doesn’t provide a document. \u00a0Rabbi Chiya bar Abba questions Rabbi Yochanan by asking isn’t that an explicit mishna? \u00a0Rabbi Yochanan responds by saying that without my statement, it wouldn’t have been clear from the mishna what I said. \u00a0Abaye then proceeds to explain why.<\/p>\n

\n