Study Bava Batra folio 173A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ואלא הא דתניא: כשם שאין מוציאין שטר חוב זה על זה – כך אין מוציאין על אחרים, במאי קמיפלגי?
The Talmud asks: And what of that which is taught in another baraita: Just as the two men named Yosef ben Shimon cannot produce a promissory note, this one against that one, so they cannot produce promissory notes against others, as those others can claim: I did not borrow from you but from the other Yosef ben Shimon, and somehow the note he was holding is in your possession? This baraita contradicts the Mishnah, from which it was inferred that one of the two men named Yosef ben Shimon can produce promissory notes to collect the debt from others. With regard to what principle do the Mishnah and baraita disagree?
באותיות נקנות במסירה קמיפלגי –
They disagree with regard to whether letters, i.e., the content of a promissory note, are acquired by merely transferring the document to a new owner. In other words, they disagree about whether or not a creditor can transfer his right to collect a debt to another by merely transferring the document to him.
The tanna of our Mishnah maintains that letters are acquired by transferring the document. There is no concern that the promissory note was inadvertently transferred from one Yosef ben Shimon to the other by being lost and then found, as explained earlier. Nevertheless, there is still the possibility that one Yosef ben Shimon deliberately transferred the promissory note to the other, transferring the right of collection to him. According to this tanna, the second Yosef ben Shimon is fully entitled to collect the debt by producing the promissory note. And the tanna of the baraita holds that letters are not acquired by transferring the document, so that even if one Yosef ben Shimon transferred his promissory note to the other, the new holder of the document is not entitled to collect the debt.