Bava Batra 168b (קסח:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught: What is

the manner of

validating

a document that was erased?

The court writes: “

We three were convened

[we sat together, all three of us],

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

[that had been written]

on such-and-such a day, and So-and-so and So-and-so

[were]

its witnesses.”

And if it is written in it

the validation document: “

We required the testimony of witnesses

[we interrogated the witnesses who remembered the erased document]

and their testimony was found to be consistent,”

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

may collect with it, and he need not produce

any additional

proof

at all.

And if not,

but the witnesses testify only concerning the contents of the document and did not recognize the signatures of the witnesses, then he

must produce proof.

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

If it was torn

the document 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 tear made by the court.

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

“It became torn”

means

a tear not made by the court,

but rather it tore on its own; therefore, it is valid.

And the Gemara discusses:

What are the circumstances of a tear made by the court?

How can one 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, and the place of the essential text

where the sum is written, were torn.

Abaye said:

For example, when

it was torn lengthwise and crosswise,

as this is the manner in which the court tears a document when it is invalid or has been paid.

There were certain Ishmaelites

who

came to Pumbedita,

who were seizing people’s fields,

robbing fields from their owners and forcibly taking from them the documents concerning those fields as well, so that the owners would be unable to challenge their claim to them.

The owners came before Abaye,

as the owners of the fields were concerned that the Ishmaelites might take the fields from them together with the documents, and they came to Abaye and

said to him: Let the Master see our documents,

let our master see our documents,

and let our master write another document for us concerning it,

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

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

For if they take one document from us, the other will remain with us. Perhaps, after a long time, we will succeed in removing our fields from those who purchased them from the Ishmaelites.

He said to them,

Abaye:

What can I do for you!?

What can I do for your benefit? I cannot fulfill your request.

Since

Rav Safra said: One may not write two

documents concerning one field!

Because

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

Perhaps the holder of the document 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; and if he does not, the purchaser may seize another field from the seller’s purchasers [who purchased from him afterward.

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

But if he has two documents concerning the same field, he can return and seize a second time from other purchasers, claiming that the creditors have just seized the field that he purchased from the seller, and proving his claim by the fact that his document of sale is still in his possession.

They continued to press him,

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

Abaye said

to his

scribe,

the scribe who wrote documents:

Go, write for them,

write them a document of this kind, such that

it will be on erased paper,

the document itself will be on erased paper,

and its witnesses

will be signed

on the paper,

where it is still smooth,

so that it will be invalid,

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

Rav Aḥa bar Minyomi said to Abaye:

[He understood that Abaye intended that the scribe first write the document, erase it, and then write it again, while the witnesses would sign in the place on the paper that remained smooth. Therefore, he asked Abaye:]

But perhaps its impression will be recognizable!?

Perhaps the scribe will not erase the first document thoroughly enough that its impression is no longer recognizable, since he intends to write over it again. If so, the impression of the first document will be recognizable, and then the holders of the document will erase the letters of the second document so that only the impression of the first, which is still recognizable, remains. Since it was written on smooth paper, it would be valid, and it would not have the defect that “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 an effective document,

did I tell him to write an actual document first and erase it!? Rather,

I was referring merely to the alphabet.

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

The Sages taught: If a creditor came

the lender

and said: My promissory note was lost,

and requested that another be written for him in its place, and he had no witnesses that the promissory note had been lost from him.

Even though witnesses said: We wrote, signed, and gave it to him,

the promissory note that was lost,

they do not write the document for him,

lest 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.

In what case is this statement said? With regard to loan documents. But with regard to documents of sale and purchase

that were lost,

they may write

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

Except for the guarantee contained in it,

as they write in the new document that it carries no guarantee. If the field is seized from him, he cannot collect either from the seller himself or from the seller’s purchasers. Thus, we have removed the concern that he may have two documents concerning the same field and be able to collect twice if it is seized from him. This is not so with regard to a loan document: even if they write for him “except for the guarantee contained in it,” it is ineffective, for although he will not be able to collect with it from the debtor’s encumbered property that is in the possession of purchasers, he will still be able to collect twice from the debtor himself.