Bava Metzia — Daf 14a

חדא הוא דחד טעם הוא דמשום דקאמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת בשאין חייב מודה הוא מתרץ הכי

תיובתא דשמואל בתרתי חדא כרבי אלעזר דהא מוקי מתניתין בשאין חייב מודה

וחדא דאמר שמואל מצא שטר הקנאה בשוק יחזיר לבעלים ולא חיישינן לפרעון

תיובתא דקתני הכא אע"פ ששניהם מודים לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה אלמא חיישינן לפרעון וכל שכן הכא דלא מודה לוה דחיישינן לפרעון

אמר שמואל מ"ט דרבנן סברי אחריות טעות סופר הוא

א"ל רבא בר איתי לרב אידי בר אבין ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל שבח שפר ושעבוד צריך לימלך

לימא מאן דאמר הא לא אמר הא

לא קשיא כאן בשטר הלואה דלא יהיב אינש זוזי בכדי כאן במקח וממכר דעביד אינש דזבין ארעא ליומיה

כי ההיא דאבוה בר איהי זבין עליתא מאחתיה אתא בעל חוב טרפא מיניה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל אמר ליה כתבה לך אחריות אמר ליה לא אמר ליה אם כן זיל לשלמא א"ל והא מר הוא דאמר אחריות טעות סופר הוא א"ל הני מילי בשטרי הלואה אבל בשטרי מקח וממכר לא דעביד אינש דזבין ארעא ליומיה

אמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון באחריות ובא בעל חוב דראובן וקא טריף ליה מיניה דינא הוא דאזיל ראובן ומשתעי דינא בהדיה ולא מצי א"ל לאו בעל דברים דידי את דא"ל דמפקת מיניה עלי דידי הדר

איכא דאמרי אפי' שלא באחריות נמי דא"ל לא ניחא לי דליהוי לשמעון תרעומת עלי

ואמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות ויצאו עליה עסיקין עד שלא החזיק בה

— They are really one, for there is one reason [for both views]. As it is because R. Eleazar says that the difference of opinion [in our Mishnah] concerns a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness] that he interprets it thus.  The view of Samuel is refuted in two points. The one point [is the same] as [that which applies to] R. Eleazar, for he [also] interprets our Mishnah as referring to a case where the debtor does not admit [his indebtedness]. And the other point is that Samuel says:  If one finds a deed of transfer  in the street one should return it to the owners, and we are not afraid that [the debt] may have been already paid.  The refutation is that here [in the Baraitha] we are taught that even if both parties admit [the genuineness of the documents] one should not return them either to the one or to the other, which shows that we are afraid that [the debt] may have been paid, and it follows with even greater certainty that in a case where  the borrower does not admit [the genuineness of the document] we are afraid that [the debt] may have been paid. Samuel said: What is the reason of the Rabbis [who maintain that a document which contains no clause mortgaging the debtor's property entitles the creditor to exact payment even from encumbered property]? They are of opinion that [the omission of the clause] mortgaging [the debtor's property] is due to an error of the scribe. Said Raba b. Ithi to R. Idi b. Abin: And has Samuel really said thus? Has not Samuel said: '[As regards] improvement [of the field], [the claim to] the best property, and mortgaging [the debtor's property] it is necessary for the scribe to consult [the seller of the field]'?  Shall we say that he who stated the one view [of Samuel] did not state the other?  — There is no contradiction [between the two views]. The first view [was stated] in connection with a note of indebtedness, [in which case it is assumed] that no man will advance money without adequate security.  The second view [was stated] in connection with buying and selling, [in which case it is assumed] that a man may buy land for a day,  as, for instance, Abbuha b. Ihi did, who bought a garret from his sister [and] a creditor came and took it away from him. He appeared before Mar Samuel [who] said to him: 'Did she write you a guarantee?' He answered, 'No.' [Whereupon Samuel] said to him: 'If so, go in peace.'  So he said to him: 'Is it not you, Sir, who said that [the omission of a clause] mortgaging [the debtor's property] is due to an error of the scribe?'  He [Samuel] answered him: 'This applies only to notes of indebtedness, but it does not apply to documents [drawn up in connection with] buying and selling, for a man may buy land for a day.' Abaye said:  If Reuben sold a field to Simeon with a guarantee,  and Reuben's creditor came and took it away from him, the law is that Reuben may go and sue him [the creditor],  and he [the creditor] cannot say to him [Reuben]: 'I have nothing to do with you,'  for he [Reuben] may say to him [the creditor]: 'What you take away from him [Simeon] comes back on me.'  Some say that even [if the field has been sold] without a guarantee the law is the same, for he [Reuben] may say to him [the creditor]: 'I do not wish Simeon to have a grudge against me.' Abaye also said: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without a guarantee, and claimants appeared [contesting Reuben's title to sell the land], he [Simeon]