Bava Batra 342

לא נחלקו אלא בשטר מאוחר בעלמא

They are in disagreement only in [the case of] an ordinary Postdated deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The date of which is that of a working day and dies not, consequently, prove that the deed was postdated. ');">¹</span> [in] which [case] R. Judah follows his own view, according to which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'who said'. ');">²</span>

דרבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין כותבין שובר ולא נפיק מיניה חורבא

no quittance is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the debtor repaid a part of the loan or the whole of It and the creditor lost the deed. ');">³</span> and consequently no loss<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the debtor. ');">⁴</span>

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>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אפילו למ"ד כותבין שובר הני מילי אפלגא אבל אכוליה לא

R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: Even according to him who said [that] a quittance may be written, this may be done only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these words'. ');">⁷</span> for a half,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the debtor repaid a part of the debt only and desires to have evidence of payment. ');">⁸</span>

ולא היא אפי' אכוליה כתבינן

but not for the whole [of the debt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is the creditor's own fault if he lost the bond. He must either produce the bond or forfeit the loan. ');">⁹</span> And [the law is] not so, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Bail, a.l. ');">¹⁰</span>

כי הא דרב יצחק בר יוסף הוה מסיק ביה זוזי ברבי אבא אתא לקמיה דרבי חנינא בר פפי אמר ליה הב לי זוזיי אמר ליה הב לי שטראי ושקול זוזך אמר ליה שטרך אירכס לי אכתוב לך תברא אמר ליה הא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אין כותבין שובר

even for the full amount of a debt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on all of it'. ');">¹¹</span> [a quittance] may be written; as in the case of R. Isaac b. Joseph. He claimed [a sum of] money from R. Abba whom he sued<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he came'. ');">¹²</span>

אמר מאן יהיב לן מעפריה דרב ושמואל רמינן בעיינין הא רבי יוחנן והא ריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו כותבין שובר

before R. Hanina b. Papi. [When] he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Isaac. ');">¹³</span> said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abba. ');">¹⁴</span>

וכן כי אתא רבין אמר ר' אילעא כותבין שובר

'Give me my money', [the other] replied to him, 'Return to me my deed and you will receive your money'. 'I lost your deed', said [R. Isaac] to him, '[but] I will write for you a quittance'. 'Surely', the other replied to him, 'It was both Rab and Samuel who said [that] no quittance was to be written'.'[Were] one [to] give us of the dust of Rab and Samuel', he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Isaac. ');">¹³</span> exclaimed, 'we should put it into our eyes;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Out of respect and reverence for their memory. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומסתברא דכותבין שובר דאי סלקא דעתא אין כותבין שובר אבד שטרו של זה יאכל הלה וחדי

but it was both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish who stated [that] a quittance is to be written'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the greatness of the departed Masters, the law is in accordance with the ruling of R. Johanan and R. Lakish. ');">¹⁶</span> Similarly, when Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">¹⁷</span>

מתקיף לה אביי ואלא מאי כותבין שובר אבד שוברו של זה יאכל הלה וחדי א"ל רבא אין עבד לוה לאיש מלוה

he stated in the name of R. Elai [that] a quittance may be written. And it stands to reason that a quittance may be written; for should it be assumed [that] a quittance must not be written, [is it conceivable that where] the bond of this one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">¹⁸</span> was lost, the other should eat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consume other people's money. ');">¹⁹</span>

תנן התם שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין

and enjoy himself! Abaye demurred: What then; is a quittance to be written? Should this one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor. ');">²⁰</span>

א"ר המנונא לא שנו אלא שטרי הלואה אבל שטרי מקח וממכר אפילו מאוחרין נמי פסולין מ"ט זימנין דמזבין ליה ארעא בניסן וכתיב ליה בתשרי ומתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני וזבין ליה מיניה וכי מטי תשרי מפיק ליה ואמר ליה הדר זבנתה מינך

[if] the quittance of the other was lost, eat and enjoy himself? 'Yes', replied Raba to him, 'the debtor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he has the benefit of the transaction. ');">²¹</span> is the slave of the creditor'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he must beat the burden of preserving the receipt. ');">²²</span>

אי הכי שטרי הלואה נמי זמנין דיזיף בניסן וכתיב ליה שטרא בתשרי ומתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני ופרע ליה ואמר ליה הב לי שטראי וא"ל אירכס לי וכתיב ליה תברא וכי מטי זמניה מפיק ליה וא"ל הני השתא הוא דיזפת מינאי

Elsewhere We learnt: Antedated bonds of indebtedness are invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a creditor, who is justly entitled to seize any real estate sold by the debtor after the date of the loan, might fraudulently lay claim to lands which the borrower had sold between the date entered in the bond and the actual date of the loan, by pleading that the earlier date in the deed was the actual date of the loan. ');">²³</span> and postdated [ones] are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the creditor is thereby prevented from seizing any of the debtor's property that was sold between the actual date of the loan and the date in the deed. By allowing the entry of the later date he is assumed to have voluntarily surrendered his right upon such lands as were sold during the period intervening between the two dates, Sheb. X. 5. ');">²⁴</span>

קסבר אין כותבין שובר

Said R. Hamnuna: This law applies only to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they did not teach but'. ');">²⁵</span> bonds of indebtedness but [in the case of] deeds of purchase and sale even [those which are] postdated are invalid. What is the reason? [A person] might sometimes sell [a plot of] land to another in Nisan and write [the deed] for him in Tishri; and in the meantime he might obtain some money and repurchase it from him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without having the deed of sale returned to him, the buyer having asserted that he lost it. ');">²⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב יימר לרב כהנא ואמרי לה רב ירמיה מדיפתי לרב כהנא והאידנא דכתבינן שטרי מאוחרי וכתבינן תברא (אמאי קעבדינן הכי א"ל) בתר דאמר להו ר' אבא לספריה כי כתביתו שטר מאוחרי כתבו הכי שטרא דנן לא בזמניה כתבניה אלא אחרנוהו וכתבנוהו

But when Tishri arrived he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer. ');">²⁷</span> would produce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The postdated deed. ');">²⁸</span>

א"ל רב אשי לרב כהנא והאידנא דלא קא עבדינן הכי בתר דאמר ליה רב ספרא לספריה כי כתביתו הני תברי אי ידעיתו זימנא דשטרא כתבו אי לא כתבו סתמא דכל אימת דנפיק לרעיה

and say, 'I have [subsequently] bought it from you again'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the document which the buyer might have given to the seller as confirmation of his to.purchase would be of no avail, since its date is earlier than the one which appears on the postdated bill of sale, and the former could, therefore, plausibly claim that after the to purchase by the seller the land was sold to him again. ');">²⁹</span> If so, [in the case of] bonds of indebtedness also, one might sometimes borrow [money] in Nisan and write the bond for the creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for him'. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ואמרי לה רב אשי לרב כהנא

in Tishri, and in the meantime he would obtain some money and repay him. When [however the debtor] requested the return of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and said to him, give me my'. ');">³¹</span> bond, he would reply to him, 'I lost it', and would [instead] write out for him a quittance. When [later] the date of payment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its time'. ');">³²</span> arrived he would produce it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The postdated deed. ');">³³</span> and plead 'You have borrowed from me just now!' — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hamnuna. ');">³⁴</span> holds the opinion that no receipt is to be written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The creditor must return the bond itself before he can receive repayment of the debt. ');">³⁵</span> Said R. Yemar to R. Kahana, and others say [that] R. Jeremiah of Difti said to R. Kahana: But [what of] the present time, when postdated deeds are written though quittances also are written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of what has been said above, could a postdated deed be permitted where a receipt also is allowed? ');">³⁶</span> He replied to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' for this reading. v. Rashb., R. Gersh. and BaH, a.l. ');">³⁷</span> [This is permissible] since the time when R. Abba said to his scribes: 'When you write a postdated deed, write as follows: This deed was not written on the date indicated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in its time'. ');">³⁸</span> but was postdated.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'we delayed (or postponed) it and wrote it.' ');">³⁹</span> Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: And [what of] the present time when this is not done!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No formula such as that introduced by R. Abba is entered in a postdated deed, though the writing of a quittance is permitted! ');">⁴⁰</span> — [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Abba's formula. ');">⁴¹</span> is not necessary] since R. Safra instructed his scribes: When you write out quittances, enter the date of the deed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the quittance must not only contain the names of the creditor and debtor as well as the amount of the loan, but also the date of the bond in lieu of which the quittance is given. Consequently should the creditor ever attempt to make use of the cancelled bond because it was postdated the debtor would be in a position to expose him by means of the quittance in which the date of that bond is entered. ');">⁴²</span> if you know it; if not, leave the quittance undated so that whenever [the deed] is produced [the receipt] will render it invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the receipt is undated and contains all the particulars (such as names of parties and amount) of the bond, it can be used by the borrower against the creditor whenever the latter should attempt to advance a claim by means of that bond. Whether the date of the bond is earlier, or later than that on which the quittance was written matters little, since the quittance, being undated, can always be presented as a document written after the date of the bond. The issue of such an undated quittance, however, would naturally preclude the creditor from ever lending the debtor a sum equal to that in the bond in question. ');">⁴³</span> Said Rabina to R. Ashi, and others say [that] R. Ashi [said] to R. Kahana: