Bava Batra 337:1

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף שטרי מקח וממכר אין כותבין וכן היה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הנותן מתנה לחברו והחזיר לו את השטר חזרה מתנתו וחכמים אומרים מתנתו קיימת

Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Deeds of purchase and sale also [must] not be re-written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is possible that the original deed was returned by the buyer to the seller who has thereby (in accordance with the view of Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel which follows) again acquired the land he sold. ');">¹</span> for thus said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: Where a person made a gift to his friend and [the latter] returned the deed to him, his gift [also is, thereby] returned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly, in the case of a sale, it is possible that the deed of sale was returned, and the land was, thereby, re-transferred from the buyer to the seller. Cf. previous note. ');">²</span> But the Sages say: His gift is valid. The Master had said, 'with the exception of its land security'; what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why must the security be excluded from the duplicate. ');">³</span>

אמר מר חוץ מאחריות שבו מאי טעמא

— R. Safra replied: Because two deeds may not be written In respect of the same field in case a creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the seller of that field. ');">⁴</span> might go and seize [the field] of this [person]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer for whom a duplicate deed was written. ');">⁵</span> and [the latter]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', the buyer from whom the field has been taken by the creditor and for whom a duplicate deed was written. V. previous note. ');">⁶</span> would go and produce one [deed]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The duplicate. ');">⁷</span>

א"ר ספרא לפי שאין כותבין שני שטרות על שדה אחת דלמא אזיל בעל חוב טריף ליה להאי ואזיל האי ומפיק חד וטריף לקוחות ואמר ליה לבעל חוב שוף לי דאיקום בה והדר תא טירפן ומפיק אחרינא והדר אזיל טריף לקוחות אחריני

and seize [thereby the lands of subsequent] buyers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who bought from the same seller after the date of the sale in question and whose purchased lands are consequently included in the security of the first sale. ');">⁸</span> He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer. Cf. supra note 7. ');">⁹</span> would [then] say to the creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With whom he would form a conspiracy to defraud subsequent buyers. ');">¹⁰</span> 'Wait<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'allow me a period of peace'. ');">¹¹</span>

וכיון דקרעניה לשטרא דמלוה במאי הדר טריף לה

until I am firmly established in the possession of this field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in it', i.e., till the whole affair of the seizure be forgotten. ');">¹²</span> and then come and seize it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the debt for which the creditor was already reimbursed by his first seizure. ');">¹³</span> from me. He would [then]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the creditor had staged a second seizure. ');">¹⁴</span> produce the other [deed]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the original one which was alleged to have been lost. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכי תימא דלא קרעניה והא אמר רב נחמן כל טירפא דלא כתיב ביה קרעניה לשטרא דמלוה לאו טירפא הוא וכל אדרכתא דלא כתיב בה קרעניה לטירפא לאו אדרכתא הוא וכל שומא דלא כתיב ביה קרעניה לאדרכתא לאו שומא היא

and [thereby] rob other buyers [also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He and the creditor sharing the spoils of the fraud between them. Hence the provision that no duplicates are to be written even in the case of deeds of sale and purchase. ');">¹⁶</span> Since, however, the creditor's bond was torn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he seized the property from the buyer the first time. ');">¹⁷</span> whereby would he again seize [any] land?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'. ');">¹⁸</span> And if it be said [that this might refer to a case] where it was not torn; surely, [it may be pointed out,] R. Nahman stated: Any <i>tirpa</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to seize'), a document issued by a court of law to a creditor (to whom the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debt), authorising him to trace the debtor's property (including any land sold after the date of his loan), for the purpose of eventually seizing it in payment of his debt. ');">¹⁹</span>

לא צריכא דקאתי מכח אבהתיה

which does not contain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in which it is not written'. ');">²⁰</span> [the declaration], 'we have torn up the creditor's bond of indebtedness', Is not a [legal] <i>tirpa</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it been made legal, one could have used both documents, each at a different court in a different town. ');">²¹</span> and any <i>adrakta</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to tread'), an authorisation (following that of the tirpa) which a court issues to a creditor, after he had traced the debtor's property (cf. n. 1). to seize it (to 'tread' on) for the purpose of having it offered for public sale and his receiving the proceeds or the land itself at the price valued. ');">²²</span> which does contain [the entry]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in which it is not written'. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא ולמה ליה למימר ליה לבעל חוב שוף לי בהאי ארעא ואיקום בה תיפוק ליה דכיון דנקיט תרי שטרי טריף והדר טריף

'we have torn up the <i>tirpa</i> is not a [legal] <i>adrakta</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it been made legal, one could have used both documents, each at a different court in a different town. ');">²¹</span> I and any shuma<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (rt. [H] 'to appraise', 'value'), a record of the valuation of the seized property, which is delivered by the court to the creditor as evidence of the value at which it was assessed for him. Since a debtor may at any time repay the amount at which the land had been assessed, such a record is necessary to enable the creditor to receive the sum due to him. ');">²³</span> in which [the statement]. 'We have torn up the <i>adrakta</i>' is not entered<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in which it is not written'. ');">²⁰</span> is not a [legal] shuma!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 3. How then could it happen that a bond of indebtedness should not be torn up by the time the creditor had already taken possession of the property? ');">²⁴</span>

אם כן נפישי עליה בעלי דינין

— [The precaution was] necessary [in the case] only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'not necessary (but)'. ');">²⁵</span> where one asserts a claim by virtue of his paternal rights.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when he comes from the power of his fathers', i.e., the reason why a duplicate of a deed of purchase and sale is not issued, is not, as has been assumed, because a creditor might conspire to obtain double payment; but to provide against an heir who might prove by witnesses that a buyer had purchased a field from a seller who had robbed it from his father and in consequence of this proof it would be returned to him, while the buyer would be given a certificate authorising him to seize the property which anyone may have purchased from the same seller after the date of his purchase. Such a buyer, were he allowed a duplicate of his deed of purchase, could form a conspiracy with the heir by asking him to wait for a certain period, until he had been firmly established in the ownership of the field which he seized by virtue of one of the two copies of the deed and, after the whole affair had been forgotten, to claim again that field so that the buyer could, with the aid of the second of his two copies of the deed, seize the lands of other subsequent buyers. Hence R. Safra's ruling that no two deeds may be written in respect of one field. ');">²⁶</span> R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: Why [should it be necessary]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In giving a reason why R. Safra forbids the issue of two deeds of purchase in respect of the same field. ');">²⁷</span> for him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer who, as has been stated above, might form a conspiracy with a creditor to defraud subsequent buyers by means of the duplicate of his deed of purchase. ');">²⁸</span>

ולכתוב להאי שטרא מעליא ולכתוב תברא למוכר כל שטרי דיפקון על ארעא דא פסולין לבר מן דיפוק בזמנא דא

to say to the creditor, 'Wait until I am firmly established in the possession of this land'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in this land and I will be established in it'. ');">²⁹</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Safra's law. ');">³⁰</span> [surely], could be derived [from the fact] that since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer. ');">³¹</span> holds two deeds he [can] seize [once] and [immediately] seize again!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, the necessity for postponing the seizure of the second field to a later date. ');">³²</span>

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב פפא ואמרי לה קמיה דרב אשי זאת אומרת אין כותבין שובר

— If [he were to do] so [he would have had too] many litigants against him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his conspiracy might thereby be more likely to be discovered. ');">³³</span> And [why] should [not] a proper deed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One containing the clause pledging the seller's lands. ');">³⁴</span> be written for that [man],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Spoken of in the Baraitha (supra 168b, end), who pleads that he lost his deed and requests that a duplicate be given to him in its stead. ');">³⁵</span> while, for the seller,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to protect him against being called upon by the production of two deeds, to pay the buyer twice. ');">³⁶</span> [the following quittance might] be written out: 'All deeds that [may] be produced against this land are invalid except the one bearing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that will go out with'. ');">³⁷</span> this date'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the duplicate. Should the buyer ever present the first deed, the seller could prove its invalidity by the production of his quittance. ');">³⁸</span> The Rabbis recited this before R. Papa — and others say, before R. Ashi — [and suggested that] this proves [that] no quittance is [ever] to be written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a debtor cannot be compelled to repay a loan unless his bond is returned to him. He is not obliged to become the keeper of a quittance. Cf. Mishnah 170b, infra. ');">³⁹</span>