Commentary for Bava Batra 341:10

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

a deed] actually brought before you at Sepphoris and you declared [it] to be valid? [R. Jose] replied to him: When I declared [it] to be valid, I declared [it] in that [case only].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the date of the deed is a day on which writing is forbidden, from which it would be obvious to all (cf. loc. cit. n. 16) that It was postdated. No one, therefore, could possibly be misled by the date, and no confusion or loss would arise. Any other postdated deed, however, the contents of which do not clearly show that it is postdated, (i.e.. where the date is an ordinary working day). and which might consequently be mistaken for one written on that very date, and thus cause confusion or loss, is regarded by R. Jose as invalid. ');">²⁵</span> But, surely. R. Judah also speaks of such [a deed]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why. then, was it stated that It. Jose declares it to be invalid? ');">²⁶</span> — R. Pedath replied: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It. Judah and R. Jose. ');">²⁷</span> agree that if the date of the deed was calculated and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its date'. ');">²⁸</span> was found to coincide exactly with a Sabbath day or the Tenth of Tishri, it is a postdated deed and is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 748, n. 16, 4. ');">²⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 341:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.