The ‘False’ Rumor
‘If One Found Notes of Acquisition’
(Bava Metzia 14a)
Our daf discusses a number of cases concerning complicated documents.
The Helpful Father-in -Law
The following incident took place in Israel: A wholesaler claimed that a shopkeeper owed him 9,000 shekalim while the latter insisted he owed him nothing. The wholesaler subsequently stopped supplying him with goods whereupon the shopkeeper decided to sign a promissory note for the 9,000 shekalim and even secured a guarantor for the amount. A few days later, the shopkeeper absconded and left the country, leaving his business bankrupt. The guarantor, his father-in-law, remained defenseless in face of the assumed responsibility. Nonetheless, he tried arguing that he wasn’t required to pay the amount.
The Careless Son-in-law
“Please understand,” the father-in-law said before beis din, “that my dear son-in-law is careless and negligent and that the conniving wholesaler exploited him. Had I known the truth, not only would I not have signed but I would have taken the necessary steps to invalidate the wholesaler’s claim. Unfortunately, my son-in-law fooled me, telling me nothing. Thus, the document, even though it bears my signature, should be considered an erroneous transaction (mekach ta’os) and as such should have no legal validity.”
‘I’m As Rich As Korach’
The claim of mekach ta’os is commonly heard in cases involving guarantees. In one case, for example, a guarantor claimed that he only agreed to guarantee a loan because the borrower claimed he was enormously wealyth. But does that mean his guarantee of the loan was a mekach ta’os? There is no doubt, after all, that he would not have assumed such a responsibility if he had known the true facts about the borrower’s financial condition.
A Guarantor Is Only Beholden To The Lender
Despite the deception, though, it is not a mekach ta’os. A guarantor obligates himself to the lender. The borrower merely acts as a mediator. In other words, there may have been a regrettable misunderstanding – or even willful deception by the borrower – but there are no grounds to release the guarantor of his obligation to the lender.
Consider the following example: An individual heard that a certain shop was selling porcelain utensils in which diamonds were purported to be hidden. He rushed to the store and bought a huge amount of items from the confounded shopkeeper who failed to understand the customer’s enthusiasm. After a long night of breaking the utensils and poring through them, the disgruntled customer realized they held no diamonds. He was not allowed to return to the shop, however, and demand his money back on the basis that his purchase was a mekach ta’os. A vendor is not supposed to know a customer’s intentions. He may rightfully say, “He wanted porcelain? I sold him porcelain. If he has any claim he should direct it to the rumormongers.”
Similarly, a guarantor cannot claim that the borrower deceived him to avoid keeping his promise to the lender. The guarantor assumed the unconditional responsibility to pay in the borrower’s stead. That is the promise he made to the lender; what the borrower may have told him to get him to sign is irrelevant insofar as his obligation to the lender is concerned (Emek HaMishpat 2:9).
Canceling Of A Guarantee
The link between guarantor and lender is so direct, in fact, that if the former wishes to retract his guarantee, he must inform the lender before the execution of the loan. Informing the borrower does not suffice (Nesivos HaMishpat 122, s.k. 3).