Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 171

If one pays back part of a loan, what should be done? 聽Three opinions are brought and discussed. 聽The connection between whether or not one can write a receipt and whether or not one can post date a contract is discussed.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讬诪讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 砖注砖讜 砖诇讬讞讜转谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

Granted, a court can write a new document, because the court has the power to confiscate money. A creditor has the right to seize any property that the debtor had owned on the day the promissory note was written, even if that property was subsequently sold to others; the earlier the date on the note, the more properties it applies to. By dating the new document on the date of the original document the creditor is once again given the right to seize properties from those who had purchased land from the debtor in between the date of the original loan and the date the new promissory note is actually written. The court has such confiscatory power. But with regard to witnesses, who already performed their agency, i.e., fulfilled their assigned role, the first time they wrote the promissory note, can they return and perform their agency again by writing a second promissory note?

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讚讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And is it so that witnesses are not empowered to do so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Witnesses who were commissioned to write a deed for the transfer of property may write even ten deeds for one field? If the original deed is lost or destroyed, the witnesses may write a replacement deed for the purchaser, even if the deed is lost many times.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛

Rav Yosef says an answer to this question: Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement was concerning a deed of gift, not a bill of sale. A gift of land has no guarantee; if it is repossessed from the recipient by the giver鈥檚 creditor to repay the giver鈥檚 debt, the recipient has no recourse and cannot collect any money from anyone. Therefore, in this case no one is jeopardized by the writing of many replacement deeds, which are intended only to serve as a proof that the recipient is actually entitled to the land.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转

And Rabba says: It is possible to say that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement applied even with regard to a bill of sale that does not have a guarantee in it. In that case as well, there is no potential loss to any purchasers of land. By contrast, in the case of a promissory note, which can be used to repossess property from those who have purchased land from the debtor, witnesses do not have the authority to predate a document and thereby subject more purchasers to possible land seizures due to the predating of the document.

诪讗讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 谞讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜驻专注 诪讛谉 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 注讚讬诐 诪拽专注讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讟专 讝讛 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 砖讜讘专

The Gemara cited an excerpt from a baraita earlier. It now cites it in full: What is the full text of the baraita? As it is taught: If one thousand dinars are owed by a debtor, and the debt is recorded in a promissory note, and the debtor repaid five hundred dinars out of the total, the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for him, dated from the time of the first note. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: This original promissory note shall remain in its place, in the custody of the creditor, and witnesses write a receipt for the five hundred dinars that were repaid. This receipt is given to the debtor to protect himself against a possible attempt by the creditor to use the promissory note to collect the entire one thousand dinars.

讜诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬讻讜祝 诇驻讜专注讜 讜讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yosei continues: And there are two reasons why the Sages said that they write a receipt, as opposed to writing a new promissory note: One reason is so that the creditor can coerce the debtor to repay him, i.e., the psychological pressure for the debtor of knowing that the creditor has a promissory note with a larger amount listed than what he owes him will induce the debtor to repay the remainder promptly. And the other one is so that he, the creditor, should be able to collect liened property from the first date, that of the original document.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讘讞讚讗 讗讬 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讘转专转讬

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 second reason: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda also say that the new document must be dated from the time of the first document? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei did not hear a full explanation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion; he heard only that Rabbi Yehuda prescribed writing a new promissory note recording the new balance. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Yehuda: If you mean to say that the new promissory note is dated from the time of the first document, I disagree with you on one count, as I hold a receipt should be written to pressure the debtor. If you mean to say that the second promissory note is dated from the second date, i.e., from when the second promissory note was written, I disagree with you on two counts.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讟专 砖讝诪谞讜 讻转讜讘 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讘注砖专讛 讘转砖专讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬讱 讘爪驻讜专讬 讜讛讻砖专转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖讛讻砖专转讬 讘讝讛 讛讻砖专转讬

搂 The Gemara discusses a related halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Makkot 1:3): If there is a promissory note whose date is written as a Shabbat or as the tenth of Tishrei, i.e., Yom Kippur, it is assumed to be a postdated promissory note, as writing is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and it is therefore valid. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei deems the promissory note invalid. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: But didn鈥檛 such an incident come before you in Tzippori, and you yourself deemed the promissory note valid? Rabbi Yosei said to him: When I deemed the promissory note valid, it was in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, that I deemed it valid.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讘讝讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 response at the end of the baraita: But Rabbi Yehuda was also speaking in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, and yet Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion was that the promissory note is invalid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽谞讜 诇注讜谞转讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讜谞诪爪讗转 注讜谞转讜 诪讻讜讜谞转 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讘注砖专讛 讘转砖专讬 砖砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专

Rabbi Pedat says: All parties to this dispute agree that if we engaged in an investigation of the date of the document, and its date was found to be exactly on Shabbat or on the tenth of Tishrei, that it is self-evident that it is a postdated promissory note and is valid.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讘注诇诪讗

The two Sages disagree only with regard to a case of a postdated promissory note in general, i.e., one in which the fact that it is postdated is not readily discernible from the dating of the document, as opposed to one dated on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗

As Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One does not write a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt; rather, the original document is torn, and in the case of partial repayment a new document is written, attesting to the balance due. And consequently, no harm can emerge from a postdated document. There is no concern that the date on the postdated document may have been recorded after the writing of a receipt.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗

And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One writes a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt, in lieu of tearing the promissory note. And consequently, harm can emerge from a postdated promissory note. Harm can occur in a case such as the following: The loan was given on the first of Nisan. The debt was paid on the following day and, rather than tearing the promissory note, a receipt was written and dated on the second of Nisan. If the original note had been postdated to the third of Nisan or thereafter, the creditor could use it to collect his debt a second time, arguing that the debtor鈥檚 receipt is irrelevant, as its date is prior to the date in the promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗驻诇讙讗 讗讘诇 讗讻讜诇讬讛 诇讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Even according to the one who says that one writes a receipt for the debtor when he pays, in lieu of tearing the promissory note, this statement applies only with regard to a case where the debtor pays half, i.e., a portion, of the debt. But with regard to a case where the debtor comes to repay all of the debt and the creditor has lost the promissory note and cannot tear it, all agree that one does not write a receipt. Rather, the debtor will not be required to repay the loan unless the creditor can produce the promissory note.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: But it is not so; we write a receipt even in a case where the debtor pays all of the debt.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讗讻转讜讘 诇讱 转讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara proves its assertion: This is like that case where Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came before Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and said to Rabbi Abba: Give me my money. Rabbi Abba said to him: First give me my promissory note, and then take your money. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said to him: I lost your promissory note; instead, I will write a receipt for you. Rabbi Abba said to him: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the halakha is that one does not write a receipt?

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 诪注驻专讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬谞谉 讘注讬讬谞讬谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, the judge, thereupon said: Who will give us some of the dust of Rav and Shmuel, and I will place it on my eyes, so highly do I regard them. Nevertheless, isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, who both say that one writes a receipt?

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ilai says: The halakha is that one writes a receipt.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讘讚 砖讟专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬

The Gemara concludes: And it stands to reason that one writes a receipt. As, if it would enter your mind that one does not write a receipt, then if the promissory note of this creditor is lost, should this debtor eat and rejoice? Is it fair that he should keep money that he knows he owes the creditor?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬谉 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

Abaye objects to this line of reasoning: Rather, what should the halakha be, that one writes a receipt when the creditor cannot find the promissory note? If the receipt of the debtor is lost, should this creditor eat and rejoice? Once the debtor has lost his receipt, there is nothing to prevent the creditor from collecting the debt a second time. This, too, is unfair. In either case, whether a receipt is written or not, an injustice could result. Why should it be preferred that the potential of suffering an injustice should be borne by the debtor rather than the creditor? Rava said to Abaye: Yes, it is preferable, because, as it is written: 鈥淭he borrower is a servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). The debtor鈥檚 interests are subordinated to those of the creditor.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated are not valid, but those that are postdated are valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讜讞专讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讘谞讬住谉 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讘转砖专讬 讜诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 转砖专讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讝讘谞转讛 诪讬谞讱

Rav Hamnuna says: They taught this halakha only with regard to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling property, even postdated documents are not valid. What is the reason for this stringency in the case of bills of sale? If postdated documents were allowed, there could be times that the seller sells land to the purchaser in the month of Nisan of a particular year and writes a postdated deed for him stating that the sale took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the seller between Nisan and Tishrei and he purchases the land back from the purchaser. And then, when Tishrei arrives, the purchaser takes out the original bill of sale and says to the seller: It is true that you purchased the field from me, but I then purchased it from you again now, in Tishrei, as stated in this document.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讬讝讬祝 讘谞讬住谉 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讘转砖专讬 讜诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜驻专注 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 转讘专讗 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讝驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, a similar scenario could occur with promissory notes as well: There could be times that one borrows money in Nisan and writes a promissory note for the creditor stating that the loan took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei and he repays his debt to the creditor early and says to him: Give me my promissory note. And the creditor says to him: I lost it, and he writes him a receipt instead. And then, when the time written in the note arrives, the creditor takes out the supposedly lost promissory note and says to the debtor: It is true that you repaid me previously, but it is now, after you repaid that loan, that you borrowed from me these dinars recorded in this document, which is dated in Tishrei.

拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna holds that one does not write a receipt, so that scenario cannot occur. Like Rabbi Yehuda, Rav Hamnuna maintains that if a creditor loses his promissory note the debtor does not have to repay the loan. Rabbi Yosei, who does allow the creditor to collect his debt in such a case and write a receipt for the debtor, is concerned about that scenario, and consequently he holds that postdated promissory notes are not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讟专讬 诪讗讜讞专讬 讜讻转讘讬谞谉 转讘专讗 讗诪讗讬 拽注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘转专 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讻转讘讬转讜 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专讬 讻转讘讜 讛讻讬 砖讟专讗 讚谞谉 诇讗 讘讝诪谞讬讛 讻转讘谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讞专谞讜讛讜 讜讻转讘谞讜讛讜

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya of Difti who said this to Rav Kahana: And today, when we write postdated promissory notes, and we also write a receipt in cases where the creditor loses his promissory note, why do we do this? The combination of allowing postdated promissory notes and allowing the writing of a receipt instead of producing the promissory note would enable double collection of the loan to take place. Rav Kahana said to him: The problem was rectified after Rabbi Abba told his court scribe: When you write postdated promissory notes, write as follows: We did not write this document on its date, i.e., on the date written within the document; rather, we postdated it and wrote it. Since it is clear from the text of the document that it was postdated, double collection of the loan is avoided.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讘转专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讻转讘讬转讜 讛谞讬 转讘专讬 讗讬 讬讚注讬转讜 讝讬诪谞讗 讚砖讟专讗 讻转讘讜 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘讜 住转诪讗 讚讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚谞驻讬拽 诇专注讬讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But what about today, when we do not do this, i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba鈥檚 instructions? How do we avoid double collection of the loan? Rav Kahana replied: The problem was rectified after Rav Safra said to his court scribe: When you write these receipts for debtors who pay debts without the original promissory note being torn, if you know the date written in the missing promissory note, write it into the receipt. But if you do not know the date written in the promissory note, write the receipt without specification, i.e., do not write any date at all in the receipt, so that whenever the creditor produces the promissory note, the undated receipt can weaken it, i.e., exempt the debtor from payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Ashi who said to Rav Kahana:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 171

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 171

讘砖诇诪讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗诇讬诪讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诇讗 注讚讬诐 砖注砖讜 砖诇讬讞讜转谉 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 砖诇讬讞讜转谉

Granted, a court can write a new document, because the court has the power to confiscate money. A creditor has the right to seize any property that the debtor had owned on the day the promissory note was written, even if that property was subsequently sold to others; the earlier the date on the note, the more properties it applies to. By dating the new document on the date of the original document the creditor is once again given the right to seize properties from those who had purchased land from the debtor in between the date of the original loan and the date the new promissory note is actually written. The court has such confiscatory power. But with regard to witnesses, who already performed their agency, i.e., fulfilled their assigned role, the first time they wrote the promissory note, can they return and perform their agency again by writing a second promissory note?

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注讚讬诐 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 砖讟专讜转 注诇 砖讚讛 讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And is it so that witnesses are not empowered to do so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Witnesses who were commissioned to write a deed for the transfer of property may write even ten deeds for one field? If the original deed is lost or destroyed, the witnesses may write a replacement deed for the purchaser, even if the deed is lost many times.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛

Rav Yosef says an answer to this question: Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement was concerning a deed of gift, not a bill of sale. A gift of land has no guarantee; if it is repossessed from the recipient by the giver鈥檚 creditor to repay the giver鈥檚 debt, the recipient has no recourse and cannot collect any money from anyone. Therefore, in this case no one is jeopardized by the writing of many replacement deeds, which are intended only to serve as a proof that the recipient is actually entitled to the land.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 讘砖讟专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞专讬讜转

And Rabba says: It is possible to say that Rav Yehuda鈥檚 statement applied even with regard to a bill of sale that does not have a guarantee in it. In that case as well, there is no potential loss to any purchasers of land. By contrast, in the case of a promissory note, which can be used to repossess property from those who have purchased land from the debtor, witnesses do not have the authority to predate a document and thereby subject more purchasers to possible land seizures due to the predating of the document.

诪讗讬 讘专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讜 谞讜砖讬谉 讘讜 讗诇祝 讝讜讝 讜驻专注 诪讛谉 讞诪砖 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 注讚讬诐 诪拽专注讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讜 砖讟专 讗讞专 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讟专 讝讛 讬讛讗 诪讜谞讞 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讜讬讻转讘讜 砖讜讘专

The Gemara cited an excerpt from a baraita earlier. It now cites it in full: What is the full text of the baraita? As it is taught: If one thousand dinars are owed by a debtor, and the debt is recorded in a promissory note, and the debtor repaid five hundred dinars out of the total, the witnesses tear the original promissory note and write another promissory note for him, dated from the time of the first note. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: This original promissory note shall remain in its place, in the custody of the creditor, and witnesses write a receipt for the five hundred dinars that were repaid. This receipt is given to the debtor to protect himself against a possible attempt by the creditor to use the promissory note to collect the entire one thousand dinars.

讜诪驻谞讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬讻讜祝 诇驻讜专注讜 讜讗讞转 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讘讛 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yosei continues: And there are two reasons why the Sages said that they write a receipt, as opposed to writing a new promissory note: One reason is so that the creditor can coerce the debtor to repay him, i.e., the psychological pressure for the debtor of knowing that the creditor has a promissory note with a larger amount listed than what he owes him will induce the debtor to repay the remainder promptly. And the other one is so that he, the creditor, should be able to collect liened property from the first date, that of the original document.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诪讝诪谉 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讘讞讚讗 讗讬 诪讝诪谉 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专转 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注诇讱 讘转专转讬

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 second reason: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda also say that the new document must be dated from the time of the first document? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei did not hear a full explanation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion; he heard only that Rabbi Yehuda prescribed writing a new promissory note recording the new balance. And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying to Rabbi Yehuda: If you mean to say that the new promissory note is dated from the time of the first document, I disagree with you on one count, as I hold a receipt should be written to pressure the debtor. If you mean to say that the second promissory note is dated from the second date, i.e., from when the second promissory note was written, I disagree with you on two counts.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讟专 砖讝诪谞讜 讻转讜讘 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讘注砖专讛 讘转砖专讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 驻讜住诇 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗 诇驻谞讬讱 讘爪驻讜专讬 讜讛讻砖专转 讗诪专 诇讜 讻砖讛讻砖专转讬 讘讝讛 讛讻砖专转讬

搂 The Gemara discusses a related halakha. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Makkot 1:3): If there is a promissory note whose date is written as a Shabbat or as the tenth of Tishrei, i.e., Yom Kippur, it is assumed to be a postdated promissory note, as writing is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and it is therefore valid. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei deems the promissory note invalid. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: But didn鈥檛 such an incident come before you in Tzippori, and you yourself deemed the promissory note valid? Rabbi Yosei said to him: When I deemed the promissory note valid, it was in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, that I deemed it valid.

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讘讝讛 拽讗诪专

The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 response at the end of the baraita: But Rabbi Yehuda was also speaking in a case like this, where the date was a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, and yet Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion was that the promissory note is invalid.

讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚转 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽谞讜 诇注讜谞转讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讜谞诪爪讗转 注讜谞转讜 诪讻讜讜谞转 讘砖讘转 讗讜 讘注砖专讛 讘转砖专讬 砖砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专

Rabbi Pedat says: All parties to this dispute agree that if we engaged in an investigation of the date of the document, and its date was found to be exactly on Shabbat or on the tenth of Tishrei, that it is self-evident that it is a postdated promissory note and is valid.

诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讘注诇诪讗

The two Sages disagree only with regard to a case of a postdated promissory note in general, i.e., one in which the fact that it is postdated is not readily discernible from the dating of the document, as opposed to one dated on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.

讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗

As Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One does not write a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt; rather, the original document is torn, and in the case of partial repayment a new document is written, attesting to the balance due. And consequently, no harm can emerge from a postdated document. There is no concern that the date on the postdated document may have been recorded after the writing of a receipt.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讜谞驻讬拽 诪讬谞讬讛 讞讜专讘讗

And Rabbi Yosei conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: One writes a receipt for a debtor when he pays his debt, in lieu of tearing the promissory note. And consequently, harm can emerge from a postdated promissory note. Harm can occur in a case such as the following: The loan was given on the first of Nisan. The debt was paid on the following day and, rather than tearing the promissory note, a receipt was written and dated on the second of Nisan. If the original note had been postdated to the third of Nisan or thereafter, the creditor could use it to collect his debt a second time, arguing that the debtor鈥檚 receipt is irrelevant, as its date is prior to the date in the promissory note.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗驻诇讙讗 讗讘诇 讗讻讜诇讬讛 诇讗

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Even according to the one who says that one writes a receipt for the debtor when he pays, in lieu of tearing the promissory note, this statement applies only with regard to a case where the debtor pays half, i.e., a portion, of the debt. But with regard to a case where the debtor comes to repay all of the debt and the creditor has lost the promissory note and cannot tear it, all agree that one does not write a receipt. Rather, the debtor will not be required to repay the loan unless the creditor can produce the promissory note.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻讜诇讬讛 讻转讘讬谞谉

The Gemara rejects this opinion: But it is not so; we write a receipt even in a case where the debtor pays all of the debt.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诪住讬拽 讘讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 讝讜讝讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜砖拽讜诇 讝讜讝讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讟专讱 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讗讻转讜讘 诇讱 转讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara proves its assertion: This is like that case where Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came before Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, and said to Rabbi Abba: Give me my money. Rabbi Abba said to him: First give me my promissory note, and then take your money. Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef said to him: I lost your promissory note; instead, I will write a receipt for you. Rabbi Abba said to him: Isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the halakha is that one does not write a receipt?

讗诪专 诪讗谉 讬讛讬讘 诇谉 诪注驻专讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 专诪讬谞谉 讘注讬讬谞讬谉 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

Rabbi 岣nina bar Pappi, the judge, thereupon said: Who will give us some of the dust of Rav and Shmuel, and I will place it on my eyes, so highly do I regard them. Nevertheless, isn鈥檛 there the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, who both say that one writes a receipt?

讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Ilai says: The halakha is that one writes a receipt.

讜诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讗 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讘讚 砖讟专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬

The Gemara concludes: And it stands to reason that one writes a receipt. As, if it would enter your mind that one does not write a receipt, then if the promissory note of this creditor is lost, should this debtor eat and rejoice? Is it fair that he should keep money that he knows he owes the creditor?

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讬讗讻诇 讛诇讛 讜讞讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬谉 注讘讚 诇讜讛 诇讗讬砖 诪诇讜讛

Abaye objects to this line of reasoning: Rather, what should the halakha be, that one writes a receipt when the creditor cannot find the promissory note? If the receipt of the debtor is lost, should this creditor eat and rejoice? Once the debtor has lost his receipt, there is nothing to prevent the creditor from collecting the debt a second time. This, too, is unfair. In either case, whether a receipt is written or not, an injustice could result. Why should it be preferred that the potential of suffering an injustice should be borne by the debtor rather than the creditor? Rava said to Abaye: Yes, it is preferable, because, as it is written: 鈥淭he borrower is a servant to the lender鈥 (Proverbs 22:7). The debtor鈥檚 interests are subordinated to those of the creditor.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shevi鈥檌t 10:5): Promissory notes that are antedated are not valid, but those that are postdated are valid.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 讗讘诇 砖讟专讬 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讜讞专讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讗专注讗 讘谞讬住谉 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 讘转砖专讬 讜诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 转砖专讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专 讝讘谞转讛 诪讬谞讱

Rav Hamnuna says: They taught this halakha only with regard to promissory notes, but with regard to deeds of buying and selling property, even postdated documents are not valid. What is the reason for this stringency in the case of bills of sale? If postdated documents were allowed, there could be times that the seller sells land to the purchaser in the month of Nisan of a particular year and writes a postdated deed for him stating that the sale took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the seller between Nisan and Tishrei and he purchases the land back from the purchaser. And then, when Tishrei arrives, the purchaser takes out the original bill of sale and says to the seller: It is true that you purchased the field from me, but I then purchased it from you again now, in Tishrei, as stated in this document.

讗讬 讛讻讬 砖讟专讬 讛诇讜讗讛 谞诪讬 讝诪谞讬谉 讚讬讝讬祝 讘谞讬住谉 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讘转砖专讬 讜诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讜驻专注 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬 砖讟专讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬 讜讻转讬讘 诇讬讛 转讘专讗 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讝诪谞讬讛 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 讛砖转讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讝驻转 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: If so, a similar scenario could occur with promissory notes as well: There could be times that one borrows money in Nisan and writes a promissory note for the creditor stating that the loan took place in the following Tishrei, and some money happens to reach the debtor between Nisan and Tishrei and he repays his debt to the creditor early and says to him: Give me my promissory note. And the creditor says to him: I lost it, and he writes him a receipt instead. And then, when the time written in the note arrives, the creditor takes out the supposedly lost promissory note and says to the debtor: It is true that you repaid me previously, but it is now, after you repaid that loan, that you borrowed from me these dinars recorded in this document, which is dated in Tishrei.

拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专

The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna holds that one does not write a receipt, so that scenario cannot occur. Like Rabbi Yehuda, Rav Hamnuna maintains that if a creditor loses his promissory note the debtor does not have to repay the loan. Rabbi Yosei, who does allow the creditor to collect his debt in such a case and write a receipt for the debtor, is concerned about that scenario, and consequently he holds that postdated promissory notes are not valid.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讟专讬 诪讗讜讞专讬 讜讻转讘讬谞谉 转讘专讗 讗诪讗讬 拽注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘转专 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讻转讘讬转讜 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专讬 讻转讘讜 讛讻讬 砖讟专讗 讚谞谉 诇讗 讘讝诪谞讬讛 讻转讘谞讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讞专谞讜讛讜 讜讻转讘谞讜讛讜

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say it was Rav Yirmeya of Difti who said this to Rav Kahana: And today, when we write postdated promissory notes, and we also write a receipt in cases where the creditor loses his promissory note, why do we do this? The combination of allowing postdated promissory notes and allowing the writing of a receipt instead of producing the promissory note would enable double collection of the loan to take place. Rav Kahana said to him: The problem was rectified after Rabbi Abba told his court scribe: When you write postdated promissory notes, write as follows: We did not write this document on its date, i.e., on the date written within the document; rather, we postdated it and wrote it. Since it is clear from the text of the document that it was postdated, double collection of the loan is avoided.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬 讘转专 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 诇住驻专讬讛 讻讬 讻转讘讬转讜 讛谞讬 转讘专讬 讗讬 讬讚注讬转讜 讝讬诪谞讗 讚砖讟专讗 讻转讘讜 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘讜 住转诪讗 讚讻诇 讗讬诪转 讚谞驻讬拽 诇专注讬讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But what about today, when we do not do this, i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba鈥檚 instructions? How do we avoid double collection of the loan? Rav Kahana replied: The problem was rectified after Rav Safra said to his court scribe: When you write these receipts for debtors who pay debts without the original promissory note being torn, if you know the date written in the missing promissory note, write it into the receipt. But if you do not know the date written in the promissory note, write the receipt without specification, i.e., do not write any date at all in the receipt, so that whenever the creditor produces the promissory note, the undated receipt can weaken it, i.e., exempt the debtor from payment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi, and some say it was Rav Ashi who said to Rav Kahana:

Scroll To Top