Commentary for Bava Batra 342:3

ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר כותבין שובר ונפיק מיניה חורבא

would ensue,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the deed would be returned to him on his repayment of the debt, or would be exchanged for a second deed should he pay a portion only of the debt. ');">⁵</span> while R. Jose follows his view according to which a quittance may be written and loss might consequently ensue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor, after giving the debtor a quittance for his repayment of the loan, might produce the postdated deed (the date of which is later than the date of the quittance) and thereby claim his loan again. pleading that the quittance was given for an earlier loan. As the Fact that the deed is postdated could not be proved, the debtor would be the loser having to repay rise same loan twice. In the case, however, where the date coincides with a sacred day, on which no writing is permitted, the creditor's fraud would be detected. (Cf. p. 748. n. 16 and supra n. 4). ');">⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 342:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.