Bava Batra 168b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

What is

the validation

of a document that has been erased?

The court writes: “

We were sitting as a panel of three

[the three of us sat together],

we, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so

[the judges].

So-and-so son of so-and-so presented before us a document that had been erased

[which had been written]

on such-and-such a date, and so-and-so and so-and-so

[were]

its witnesses.”

And if it is written in it

[in the validation document], “

We required the testimony of witnesses

[we questioned the witnesses who remembered the erased document]

and their testimony was found to correspond,”

meaning that it became clear that they also recognized the signatures of the witnesses on the document, then the document’s holder

may collect with it, and does not need to bring

any additional

proof

at all.

But if not,

if the witnesses testify only about the document’s contents and did not recognize the witnesses’ signatures, then he

must bring proof.

The holder of the document must bring other witnesses who recognized the signatures, or bring the witnesses who signed it themselves to testify about their signatures. Otherwise, the debtor can claim that the document was forged.

If it was torn

by a person, it is

invalid.

If it became torn

on its own, it is

valid.

If the document was erased or blurred,

then

if its impression

is still

recognizable, it is valid.

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of “it was torn,” and what are the circumstances of “it became torn”?

What is the difference between them?

Rav Yehuda said: “It was torn”

means

a court tear.

It is apparent that the court tore it because it found a defect in it or because the debt had already been paid.

“It became torn”

means

a tear that is not a court tear

but was caused on its own; therefore, it is valid.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances of a court tear?

How can we know that the tear was made by the court?

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Yehuda said:

For example, when

the place

of the

witnesses, the place of the date, or the place of the essential part

where the amount is written, was torn.

Abaye said:

For example,

when it was torn lengthwise and crosswise,

as the court customarily tears a document when it is invalid or the debt has been paid.

Certain Arabs

Ishmaelites

came to Pumbedita,

and they were forcibly seizing people’s fields,

taking fields from their owners by force, as well as the documents belonging to those fields, so that the owners would be unable to challenge their ownership.

The owners came before Abaye,

fearing that the Arabs would take their fields together with the documents, and they came to Abaye and

said to him: Let the Master inspect our documents,

let our master see our documents,

and let the Master write us another document based on them,

writing us a copy of the document before they seize it from us,

so that if one is taken from us, we will retain one.

If they take one document from us, the other will remain with us. Perhaps, after a long time, we will be able to recover our fields from those who purchased them from the Arabs.

He said to them,

Abaye:

What can I do for you!?

What can I do to remedy your situation? I cannot fulfill your request.

Since

Rav Safra said: One may not write two

documents for one field!

Because

perhaps he will collect it, and then collect it again.

Perhaps the document’s holder purchased the field from the seller with a guarantee, meaning that if the seller’s creditors seize it, the seller must give him another field in its place. If he does not, the purchaser can seize another field from the seller’s purchasers—those who bought from him later.

However, in that case he must give the seller’s purchasers the document for the field that was seized from him, which is in his possession, so that they can use that document to collect its value from the seller.

But if he has two documents for the same field, he could collect a second time from other purchasers, claiming that the creditors had just seized the field he bought from the seller, and proving his claim by the fact that his sale document was still in his possession.

They kept pressing him,

continuing to urge Abaye to write them a copy of the document despite this.

He said to

Abaye

his scribe,

the scribe who wrote documents:

Go and write for them,

write them a document such that

it will be on erased paper,

the document itself will be written on erased paper,

while its witnesses

will be signed

on ordinary paper,

where it is still smooth,

so that it will be invalid.

A document whose text is on erased paper while its witnesses are on ordinary paper is invalid. They will not notice this, and in this way I will be rid of them.

Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye:

He understood Abaye to mean that the scribe should first write an actual document and erase it, and then write it again, while the witnesses would sign on the place where the paper remained smooth. Therefore, he asked Abaye:

But perhaps its impression will remain recognizable!?

Perhaps the scribe will not erase the first document thoroughly, so that its impression will remain recognizable, since he intends to write on it again. If so, the impression of the first document will remain recognizable, and the owners of the document could erase the letters of the second document, leaving only the still-recognizable impression of the first. That document would then be written on ordinary paper and would be valid, without the disqualification of “its text is on erased paper while its witnesses are on ordinary paper.”

And if the concern is that it will be blurred, then

it was taught in a beraita: If it was erased or blurred, if its impression is recognizable, it is valid!

He said to him,

Abaye:

Did I say to write a proper document,

did I tell him first to write an actual document and erase it? After all,

I meant merely the alphabet.

I meant that he should write meaningless things, so that if they erased the document written over them, they would be left with nothing.

The Sages taught: If a person came

the lender

and said: “My loan document was lost,”

requesting that another be written in its place, and he had no witnesses that the loan document had been lost,

even if witnesses said: “We wrote it, signed it, and gave it to him,”

the loan document that was lost,

one does not write the document for him,

because perhaps the document was not lost, or perhaps he already found it, and he wants to have two documents so that he can collect the same debt twice.

When does this apply? To loan documents. But in the case of sale documents

that were lost,

one writes

him a new document. Since it is true that he purchased this land, and he is concerned that the matter may be forgotten and that someone may improperly challenge his ownership, a new document is written for him.

Except for the guarantee it contained,

meaning that in the new document they write that it carries no guarantee. If the field is seized from him, he will not be able to collect either from the seller himself or from the seller’s purchasers. In this way, we remove the concern that he might have two documents for the same field and collect twice if the field is seized from him. This is not so with a loan document: even if they write for him “except for the guarantee it contained,” this does not help, because although he would be unable to collect through it from the borrower’s encumbered property held by purchasers, he could still collect twice directly from the borrower.