Reference for Bava Batra 336:10

תנו רבנן הרי שבא ואמר אבד שטר חובי אע"פ שאמרו עדים אנו כתבנו וחתמנו ונתננו לו אין כותבין לו את השטר בד"א בשטרי הלואה אבל שטרי מקח וממכר כותבין חוץ מן האחריות שבו

Might it not happen that the [original] tracing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first copy. v. previous note (a). ');">¹⁷</span> would be distinguishable, and [concerning such a case, surely,] it was taught: [A deed that] was effaced or obliterated, if its tracing is distinguishable. [is] valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of what avail, then, was Abaye's device seeing that they could erase the second text whilst preserving the tracing of the first text? ');">¹⁸</span> — He replied to him: Did I say a proper deed [shall be written]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A copy of the original. v. n. 6 (a). ');">¹⁹</span> What I said was mere [letters of the] alphabet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were (a) to be written; (b) erased; and on the erasure thus produced, a duplicate of the deed was to be written. Should, in such a case, the original letters re-appear they would signify nothing and the deed would remain invalid. ');">²⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: Should [a creditor] come and say, 'I lost my bond of indebtedness',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there are no witnesses to testify that the deed was really lost. ');">²¹</span> the bond [may not] be rewritten for him although witnesses stated, 'We wrote, signed and delivered [such a deed] to him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this evidence merely proves that the creditor is entitled to the rights of one such bond. It does not prove, however, that he lost his bond. Hence no second one in lieu of the first may be written for him, since he might make use of the two and thus reimburse himself twice. ');">²²</span> This, [however], applies only to the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in what (case) are the words said'. ');">²³</span> of bonds of indebtedness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the creditor might thereby collect his debt twice. Even if no security on the borrower's lands were to be entered, it could still be collected from his 'free' property. ');">²⁴</span> but [in the case of] deeds of purchase and sale [a deed], with the omission<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As will be explained, infra 169b. ');">²⁵</span> of [the clause] pledging [property may] be [re]written.

Explore reference for Bava Batra 336:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.