כג נפל ליד דיין לא יוציאו עולמית
23 Two [people] cling to a bill, the lender saying, 'It is mine; I dropped it and found it again,' and the borrower saying, '[True.] it was yours, but I paid you;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'And on being paid you returned the bill to me and I lost it.' This is the version given by Rashi in accordance with the wording of our text. Other texts have, 'It is mine' as the plea of the borrower (i.e. [H] instead of [H]) which is much simpler. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> [the validity of] the bill has to be established by its signatories [verifying their signatures]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And when the validity of the document has been thus endorsed, the creditor is entitled to demand payment. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> — this is the view of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: They shall divide [the amount], If it [the bill] fell into the hand of a judge, it must never be produced again. R. Jose says: It retains its validity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the creditor could demand the return of the document and enforce payment. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> The Master said above: '[The validity of] the bill has to be established by its signatories'. Does he mean that the creditor may demand payment of the whole amount, and does he disapprove of the Mishnah, TWO HOLD A GARMENT etc.? — Raba replied in the name of R. Nahman: If the document has been endorsed [in Court].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the document has been produced in Court and the witnesses have verified their signatures, the judges certifying the endorsement. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> all are agreed that [the litigants] divide [the amount between them].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the document is properly endorsed, and therefore quite valid, the litigants are in the same position as those who found the garment and were holding on to it. They therefore divide the amount of the debt recorded in the bill. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> The difference of opinion only arises in the case of an unendorsed [document]. Rabbi is of the opinion that even when one [i.e., a debtor] acknowledges the writing of a bill, it still requires endorsement [at Court], and if it is endorsed, [the amount] is divided, but if it is not endorsed [the amount] is not divided. For what reason? It is merely a potsherd.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the document is without any value. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> Who renders the document valid? [Only] the borrower.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By admitting its genuineness. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> But he says, 'It is paid!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the unendorsed document becomes valid only as a result of the admission of its genuineness by the borrower, he is to be believed when he says that he has paid the debt. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, is of the opinion that when one acknowledges the writing of a bill, it does not require endorsement [at Court], and therefore even if it is not endorsed, [the litigants] divide the amount.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the bill is not endorsed, the borrower cannot, when the document is produced by the lender, plead that he has paid the debt. The validity of the document does not, to that extent, depend on the plea of the borrower. Hence it is right that they should divide the amount. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> 'If it [the bill] fell into the hands of a judge, it must never be produced again.'