Bava Metzia

— 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]