Commentary for Gittin 52:14

דא"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן שטר שלוה בו ופרעו אינו חוזר ולוה בו שכבר נמחל שעבודו טעמא דנמחל שעבודו אבל משום שיקרא לא חיישינן:

is written before the witnesses have testified to their signatures, it is invalid? The reason is that it seems to contain a falsehood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it runs: 'While we sat as a court of three there came before us So-and-so who testified to their signatures etc.' ');">¹²</span> So here, the documents seem to contain a falsehood? — This is no objection, as shown by the statement of R. Nahman, who said: R. Meir used to say that even if a man found [a Get] on a rubbish heap and had it signed and delivered to the wife, it is valid. And even the Rabbis do not differ from R. Meir save in regard to writs of divorce, which have to be written with 'special intention', but not in regard to other documents, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man gives a bond for a loan and repays the loan [on the same day], he may not use the same bond for another loan because the obligation contained in it is already cancelled. The reason is that the obligation contained in it is cancelled, but the fact that it may appear to contain a falsehood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In not being written originally for the loan which is now being contracted. ');">¹³</span> is of no concern.

Explore commentary for Gittin 52:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.