Jewish%20thought for Sanhedrin 58:22

ההיא אודיתא דהוה כתב ביה דוכרן פיתגמי

Mar sonof R. Ashi said: Even then, it may not be drawn up, unless the [necessary]meeting place is fixed and he [the debtor] is summoned to appear before thecourt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this improvised court must observe the usual formalities of a court, sitting in a place previously determined, and summoning the debtor. ');">²⁴</span> If a man admitted a claim of movable property, and they [the witnesses] secureda formal title from him, they may record it; but not otherwise. But whatif it concerned real estate, and they secured no formal title? — Amemarsaid: They may not record it. Mar Zutra said: They may. The law is that adeed is to be drawn up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of immovable property, as soon as the admission is made, the debt is considered as collected; consequently there is no reason why the debtor should prefer an oral debt to a written one; which latter, however, might well be preferred in the case of movable property. ');">²⁵</span> Rabina once happened to be atDamharia,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A town in the neighbourhood of Sura, v. Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 298.] ');">²⁶</span> and R. Dimi son of R.Huna of that town asked him: What of movable property which is still intact[i.e., in the possession of the debtor]? — He answered: It ranks as realestate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of which is stated above. ');">²⁷</span> R. Ashi, however, ruled:Since it still needs collection, it is not so. A certain deed of [debt] acknowledgment did not contain the phrase: 'He saidunto us, Write it, attest it and give it to him [the creditor].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is whether the omission is proof that the contract was written without the debtor's request or not. ');">²⁸</span> Abayeand Raba both said: This case comes under the ruling of Resh Lakish, whosaid: We may take it for granted that witnesses will not sign a documentunless he [the vendor] has attained hismajority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the age of twenty, v. B.B. 156a; the sale of a legacy before that is invalid, and it is taken for granted that witnesses are aware of this law. So also in this case, where the admission was made before two witnesses, and without Kinyan, the latter would know that they could not write a deed without the debtor's instructions; hence they must have been so instructed. ');">²⁹</span> R. Papi — others say,R. Huna the son of R. Joshua — objected: Can there be anything which we[the judges] do not know, and yet the clerks of the courtknow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This law, that two witnesses must not record the admission without explicit instructions, is not even known to all judges. How then can it be assumed that they must have known it? ');">³⁰</span> But in fact when the clerksof Abaye's court were questioned, they were found to know this law, and similarlythe clerks of Raba's court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was therefore shewn that this rule was known to clerks of the court, charged with the drafting of legal documents, and before whom they were generally attested. ');">³¹</span> A certain deed of acknowledgment contained the phrase; 'A memorial of judicialproceedings,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'A memorial of the words of so and so,' instead of, 'A memorial of testimony by witnesses.' ');">³²</span>

Explore jewish%20thought for Sanhedrin 58:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.