Bava Batra 341

בשלמא בי דינא אלימי לאפקועי ממונא אלא עדים שעשו שליחותן חוזרין ועושין שליחותן

[In the case of] a court of law, one can well understand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why it may tear up a deed and insert its date in the one given in exchange. ');">¹</span> because it has the power and authority to confiscate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to take Out'. ');">²</span> money;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A deed entitled its holder to seize any real estate which the debtor had sold to mortgaged after, but not before the date of the deed. Consequently. when a now deed is written for the balance of a debt in exchange for the original deed, the creditor should not be entitled to seize any property that was sold between the date of the original and that of the new deed. A court of law, however, having the right to confiscate any property. Is also empowered to enter in the second deed the date of the original and thus to subject to the creditor's seizure property to which he would not otherwise have been entitled. ');">³</span>

ולא והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עדים כותבין אפילו עשרה שטרות על שדה אחת

but [as regards] witnesses, who had once performed their mission,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' OF writing and signing the first deed. ');">⁴</span> [how could they] perform their mission again?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What authority have they for inserting the date of the original deed and to confer thereby upon the creditor privileges to which his new deed would not otherwise have entitled him? ');">⁵</span> — But [can they] not? Surely Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Witnesses may write even tell [successive]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the holder has lost the previous ones. ');">⁶</span>

רב יוסף אמר בשטר מתנה

deeds in respect of one field! — R. Joseph replied: [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The issue by witnesses of a second, or subsequent deed bearing the date of the original one. ');">⁷</span> is permitted only] in [the case of] a deed of gift.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a deed does not entitle its holder to the seizure of any property, and the date is therefore, of no consequence. ');">⁸</span> And Rabbah replied: [Even] in [the case of] a deed [of sale] which does not contain [the clause] pledging [property].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a deed does not entitle its holder to the seizure of any property, and the date is therefore, of no consequence. ');">⁸</span>

ורבה אמר בשטר שאין בו אחריות

What [was that] Baraitha?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to supra 170b. ');">⁹</span> — It was taught: If [a creditor] was claiming from [a debtor] a thousand <i>zuz</i> and he repaid five hundred <i>zuz</i> of these, the witnesses [may] tear up the bond and write for him another deed bearing the original date;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the first time'. ');">¹⁰</span> so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the words of'. ');">¹¹</span>

מאי ברייתא דתניא הרי שהיו נושין בו אלף זוז ופרע מהן חמש מאות זוז עדים מקרעין את השטר וכותבין לו שטר אחר מזמן ראשון דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר שטר זה יהא מונח במקומו ויכתבו שובר

R. Judah. R. Jose said: This deed must remain where it is. and a quittance is to be written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' for the five hundred zuz paid. ');">¹²</span> And for two reasons has it been said [that] a receipt was to be written. Firstly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one' ' ');">¹³</span> in order that he be compelled [thereby]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the trouble he has to take in preserving the quittance. ');">¹⁴</span>

ומפני שני דברים אמרו כותבין שובר אחת כדי שיכוף לפורעו ואחת כדי שיגבה מזמן ראשון

to repay [the debt] and secondly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');">¹⁵</span> in order that [the debt] may be collected from [property sold] since the original date. But R. Judah also said, 'bearing the original date'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What point, then, is there in R. Jose's second reason? ');">¹⁶</span>

והא רבי יהודה נמי מזמן ראשון קאמר הכי קאמר ליה ר' יוסי לרבי יהודה אי מזמן ראשון קאמרת פליגנא עלך בחדא אי מזמן שני קאמרת פליגנא עלך בתרתי

— This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus'. ');">¹⁷</span> is what R. Jose said to R. Judah: If you mean, 'bearing the first date', I disagree with you for one [reason];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first reason, that the debtor may be compelled to repay the loan. ');">¹⁸</span> if you mean 'bearing the second date' 'I disagree with you for two [reasons].

תנו רבנן שטר שזמנו כתוב בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי שטר מאוחר הוא וכשר דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי פוסל אמר לו רבי יהודה והלא מעשה בא לפניך בצפורי והכשרת אמר לו כשהכשרתי בזה הכשרתי

Our Rabbis taught: A deed the date of which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the time of which is written', i.e.. a certain date is given which, on calculation is Fund to be one of the following. ');">¹⁹</span> is a Sabbath or the Tenth of Tishri<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Writing is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, as on the Sabbath. ');">²⁰</span> is [regarded as] a postdated deed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is obvious that it was not written on the Day of Rest or the Day of Atonement, it is assumed to have been written on a previous day, and post dated so as not to invalidate without any proof the deed (Rashb.) ');">²¹</span>

והא רבי יהודה נמי בזה קאמר

and is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Judah, any postdated deed is valid even though the contents do not show that it was postdated; much more so in this case where it is obvious (cf. p. 748 n. 16) that it was postdated. ');">²²</span> So R. Judah. R. Jose [declares it to be] invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. explanation in the Gemara, infra. ');">²³</span> Said R. Judah to him: Was not [such<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., postdated. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רבי פדת הכל מודים שאם הוזקקנו לעונתו של שטר ונמצאת עונתו מכוונת בשבת או בעשרה בתשרי ששטר מאוחר הוא וכשר

a deed] actually brought before you at Sepphoris and you declared [it] to be valid? [R. Jose] replied to him: When I declared [it] to be valid, I declared [it] in that [case only].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the date of the deed is a day on which writing is forbidden, from which it would be obvious to all (cf. loc. cit. n. 16) that It was postdated. No one, therefore, could possibly be misled by the date, and no confusion or loss would arise. Any other postdated deed, however, the contents of which do not clearly show that it is postdated, (i.e.. where the date is an ordinary working day). and which might consequently be mistaken for one written on that very date, and thus cause confusion or loss, is regarded by R. Jose as invalid. ');">²⁵</span> But, surely. R. Judah also speaks of such [a deed]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why. then, was it stated that It. Jose declares it to be invalid? ');">²⁶</span> — R. Pedath replied: All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It. Judah and R. Jose. ');">²⁷</span> agree that if the date of the deed was calculated and it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its date'. ');">²⁸</span> was found to coincide exactly with a Sabbath day or the Tenth of Tishri, it is a postdated deed and is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 748, n. 16, 4. ');">²⁹</span>