Bava Batra 171

בשלמא בי דינא אלימי לאפקועי ממונא אלא עדים שעשו שליחותן חוזרין ועושין שליחותן

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?

ולא והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עדים כותבין אפילו עשרה שטרות על שדה אחת

The Gemara asks: And is it so that witnesses are not empowered to do so? But doesn’t 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.

רב יוסף אמר בשטר מתנה

Rav Yosef says an answer to this question: Rav Yehuda’s 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’s creditor to repay the giver’s 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.

ורבה אמר בשטר שאין בו אחריות

And Rabba says: It is possible to say that Rav Yehuda’s 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.

מאי ברייתא דתניא הרי שהיו נושין בו אלף זוז ופרע מהן חמש מאות זוז עדים מקרעין את השטר וכותבין לו שטר אחר מזמן ראשון דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר שטר זה יהא מונח במקומו ויכתבו שובר

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.

ומפני שני דברים אמרו כותבין שובר אחת כדי שיכוף לפורעו ואחת כדי שיגבה מזמן ראשון

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.

והא רבי יהודה נמי מזמן ראשון קאמר הכי קאמר ליה רבי יוסי לרבי יהודה אי מזמן ראשון קאמרת פליגנא עלך בחדא אי מזמן שני קאמרת פליגנא עלך בתרתי

The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yosei’s second reason: But doesn’t 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’s 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.

תנו רבנן שטר שזמנו כתוב בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי שטר מאוחר הוא וכשר דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי פוסל אמר לו רבי יהודה והלא מעשה בא לפניך בצפורי והכשרת אמר לו כשהכשרתי בזה הכשרתי

§ 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’t 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.

והא רבי יהודה נמי בזה קאמר

The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yosei’s 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’s opinion was that the promissory note is invalid.

אמר רבי פדת הכל מודים שאם הוזקקנו לעונתו של שטר ונמצאת עונתו מכוונת בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי ששטר מאוחר הוא וכשר

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.

לא נחלקו אלא בשטר מאוחר בעלמא

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.

דרבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין כותבין שובר ולא נפיק מיניה חורבא

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.

ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר כותבין שובר ונפיק מיניה חורבא

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’s receipt is irrelevant, as its date is prior to the date in the promissory note.

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אפילו למאן דאמר כותבין שובר הני מילי אפלגא אבל אכוליה לא

§ 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.

ולא היא אפילו אכוליה כתבינן

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.

כי הא דרב יצחק בר יוסף הוה מסיק ביה זוזי ברבי אבא אתא לקמיה דרבי חנינא בר פפי אמר ליה הב לי זוזיי אמר ליה הב לי שטראי ושקול זוזך אמר ליה שטרך אירכס לי אכתוב לך תברא אמר ליה הא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אין כותבין שובר

The Gemara proves its assertion: This is like that case where Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came before Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I lost your promissory note; instead, I will write a receipt for you. Rabbi Abba said to him: Isn’t there the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who both say that the halakha is that one does not write a receipt?

אמר מאן יהיב לן מעפריה דרב ושמואל רמינן בעיינין הא רבי יוחנן והא ריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו כותבין שובר

Rabbi Ḥanina 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’t there the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say that one writes a receipt?

וכן כי אתא רבין אמר רבי אילעא כותבין שובר

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

ומסתברא דכותבין שובר דאי סלקא דעתא אין כותבין שובר אבד שטרו של זה יאכל הלה וחדי

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?

מתקיף לה אביי ואלא מאי כותבין שובר אבד שוברו של זה יאכל הלה וחדי אמר ליה רבא אין עבד לוה לאיש מלוה

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: “The borrower is a servant to the lender” (Proverbs 22:7). The debtor’s interests are subordinated to those of the creditor.

תנן התם שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין

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

אמר רב המנונא לא שנו אלא שטרי הלואה אבל שטרי מקח וממכר אפילו מאוחרין נמי פסולין מאי טעמא זימנין דמזבין ליה ארעא בניסן וכתיב ליה בתשרי ומתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני וזבין ליה מיניה וכי מטי תשרי מפיק ליה ואמר ליה הדר זבנתה מינך

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.

אי הכי שטרי הלואה נמי זמנין דיזיף בניסן וכתיב ליה שטרא בתשרי ומתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני ופרע ליה ואמר ליה הב לי שטראי ואמר ליה אירכס לי וכתיב ליה תברא וכי מטי זמניה מפיק ליה ואמר ליה הני השתא הוא דיזפת מינאי

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.

קסבר אין כותבין שובר

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.

אמר ליה רב יימר לרב כהנא ואמרי לה רב ירמיה מדיפתי לרב כהנא והאידנא דכתבינן שטרי מאוחרי וכתבינן תברא אמאי קעבדינן הכי אמר ליה בתר דאמר להו רבי אבא לספריה כי כתביתו שטר מאוחרי כתבו הכי שטרא דנן לא בזמניה כתבניה אלא אחרנוהו וכתבנוהו

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.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא והאידנא דלא קא עבדינן הכי בתר דאמר ליה רב ספרא לספריה כי כתביתו הני תברי אי ידעיתו זימנא דשטרא כתבו אי לא כתבו סתמא דכל אימת דנפיק לרעיה

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But what about today, when we do not do this, i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba’s 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.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ואמרי לה רב אשי לרב כהנא

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