Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) REPLACING A LOST DOCUMENT

(a) (Beraisa): Shimon claims that he lost his loan document - even though witnesses say that they wrote, signed and gave him the document, we do not write another document for him;

1. This refers to a loan document, but we do write another document of sale, without Acharayos.
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, also regarding a document of sale, we do not write another (perhaps he returned the document, which negates the sale).
3. Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Yehudah received a gift and returned the document, the gift reverts to the giver;
4. Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.

(b) Question: The Beraisa said, we write another document of sale, without Acharayos - what is the reason?
(c) Answer (Rav Safra): Because we do not write two documents on one field;

1. We are concerned lest the field be collected by a creditor (Levi) of the seller (Reuven), and the buyer (Shimon) will take land from someone who bought from Reuven after Shimon (and give him one document);
2. A long time later, Shimon will tell Levi to again claim his loan, and Shimon will take land from someone else who bought from Reuven (and give him the other document).
3. Question: When Shimon takes land the first time, we tear up Levi's document, he cannot take land a second time!

i. Suggestion: Perhaps we do not tear up Levi's document.
ii. Rejection: Rav Nachman taught, a Tirfa (the first document given to one who is entitled to take land from a buyer) is invalid unless it says 'the lender's document was torn up';
iii. An Adrachta (the second document, which authorizes him to take the land from a buyer) is invalid unless it says 'the Tirfa was torn up'.
iv. A Shuma (a document in which Beis Din writes the value of the land he takes) is invalid unless it says 'the Adrachta was torn up'.

4. Answer: Indeed, we are not concerned that Shimon's land will be taken by a creditor, rather, that Levi will bring witnesses that the land used to belong to Levi's fathers, and Reuven stole it (and Shimon will collect twice, as explained above).

(d) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why must Shimon wait before taking the second land? He can take the fields one after the other!
(e) Answer: If he does so, each buyer will hear that he also took from another, and they will discover his trick.
(f) Question: Why does the Beraisa say that we write another document of sale, without Acharayos? (Perhaps Shimon really lost it, why should he lose?) We can write with Acharayos, and give Reuven (the seller) a document saying that Shimon can only collect Acharayos with a document with the date of the replacement document! (This invalidates the original document.)
(g) Answer (Rabanan): This teaches that we do not force someone to accept a Shover (receipt, or any document that negates a different document) to enable someone (who lost his document) to receive what they deserve. (We are concerned that the Shover will be lost or eaten by mice.)

(h) Rejection (Rav Papa or Rav Ashi): Really, we normally force someone to accept a Shover;

1. Here we do not, we are concerned that a creditor will take Shimon's land, and Shimon will collect (with the original document) from later buyers, who do not have the Shover.

(i) Question: But the later buyers will go to Reuven (to be compensated), he will show them the Shover, they will take back their land!
(j) Answer #1: In the meantime, Shimon may consume the produce, and it may be difficult to recover it.
(k) Answer #2: Perhaps the buyers did not have Acharayos, they will not go to Reuven.
(l) Question: If so, for the same reason we should not write a Shover for one who lost a loan document!
(m) Answer: When a creditor comes to collect from buyers, since he is owed money, they suspect that the borrower paid, they will not give up their land before asking the borrower;

1. Here, Shimon's land was taken, he wants back land, they do not think that he would accept money from Reuven in its stead. (They know that Reuven sold all his land.)

(a) (Beraisa): We write another document of sale, without Acharayos.
(b) Question: What do we write?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): 'One may not collect with this document from sold or unsold property, it is only to prove that Shimon bought it'.

1. Inference (Rafram): This teaches that Acharayos Ta'us Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayos, there is Acharayos, we assume that the Sofer neglected to write it).

i. If not for this text, he would have Acharayos, even though it was not mentioned!

2. Rejection (Rav Ashi): Really, Acharayos Lav Ta'us Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayos, there is no Acharayos);

(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The document does not mention Acharayos.
(e) Leah gave Levi money to buy land for her; he bought for her without Acharayos.

1. Rav Nachman: She sent you to help her, not to harm her! You must buy the land without Acharayos, and sell it to her with Acharayos (i.e. if it is taken, you must compensate her).

(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Yehudah received a gift from Moshe and returned the document, the gift reverts to the giver;
(b) Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.
(c) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Asi): It is as if Moshe said 'This gift is yours as long as you have the document'.
(e) Question (Rabah): If so, also if the document was lost or stolen, the gift should go back!
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about whether or not Osiyos (the contents of a document) are acquired through Mesirah;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that Osiyos are acquired through Mesirah (therefore, returning the document is like returning the gift),
2. Chachamim say that Osiyos are not acquired through Mesirah (until he *also* writes another document).