Bava Batra 171a — the Talmud in English

For

granted, a court,

can replace the first document and write a new document according to the date of the first document, so that they will be able to collect from it from the properties that were already in his possession from the first date. For although, according to the strict law, the creditor does not have the power to collect with the second document, which was written at a later date, from purchasers who preceded the writing of the document, nevertheless, the court writes the first date in the document, and the purchasers collect with it from the first date because the second document was written by the court, and a court

has the power to remove money,

for the renunciation of the court is renunciation.

But witnesses who have completed their agency

to write the first document and testify concerning it—how do they

return and perform their agency?

And who gave them this power to return and write a second document concerning the first date!?

And we challenge:

And not?

Is it indeed the case that, according to Rav’s words, the witnesses do not return and perform their agency?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

If one’s document was lost and he said to the witnesses, “Write another document for me,”

the witnesses may write even ten documents,

if these were lost one after another,

concerning one field!

And the Gemara brings two answers of two amoraim to resolve the challenge:

Rav Yosef said:

Indeed, the witnesses do not have the power to return and write another document in place of the first document that was lost, in order that they be able to collect through it from purchasers from the first date. And that which Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, that the witnesses return and write another document, is referring

to a gift document,

for there is no guarantee upon the giving of the field, and the document is not intended to collect through it from purchasers, but only as evidence. And since everyone knows that he received the field as a gift, there is no impediment at all to the witnesses’ returning and writing another document for him, so that evidence of this will be in his possession, and they will not be able to challenge the gift.

And Rabba said:

Even with a sale document, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that the witnesses write a new document in place of the document that was lost. But all this applies only

to a document in which there is no guarantee,

for the document does not constitute evidence that the field was sold with a guarantee, and he cannot collect through this document from purchasers. But with a document in which there is a guarantee, through which it is possible to collect from purchasers, the witnesses cannot return and write a new document with the first date.

And now the Gemara explains:

What is the beraita?

What was said in that beraita mentioned above, that according to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of one who repaid half of his debt, the witnesses tear up the first document and write another document for the balance of the debt with the first date?

As it was taught in a beraita: If they were owed one thousand zuz, and he repaid five hundred zuz of them—

the witnesses tear up the document

the first one, in which it is written that he owes one thousand zuz,

and write another document for him from the first date

for the five hundred zuz that remain,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: This document,

the first one, in which it is written that he owes one thousand zuz,

shall remain

as it is

in its place,

in the possession of the creditor,

and they shall write a receipt

for the debtor concerning the repayment of the five hundred zuz.

And for two reasons they said that they write a receipt

for the debtor concerning the repayment of half, but they do not make a new document, for two reasons:

One, so that he will compel

the debtor

to repay it,

since the debtor is concerned lest he lose his receipt, and the creditor will produce his document and demand the entire debt from him.

And one, so that he will collect

the balance of the debt from the properties that had been in the debtor’s possession and that he sold to purchasers, already

from the first date,

that is, from the time of the loan.

And we challenge the second reason of Rabbi Yosei:

But Rabbi Yehuda also says, from the first date

they write the second document,

he says,

and if so, what is the additional reason that Rabbi Yosei stated for writing a receipt?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda did not explain in his words whether they write in the second document the date of the first document or the date on which the second document was written; rather, he said without specification that he should replace the document in his possession with a new document for the balance of the debt.

And

this is what Rabbi Yosei says to Rabbi Yehuda: If,

according to your view,

from the first date

they write the second document,

you say,

if this is what you say,

I disagree

I disagree

with you

only

in one matter,

because in my view they write a receipt so that he will compel him to repay it.

But

if from the second date

they write the second document

you say—

if so,

I disagree

I disagree

with you in two matters.

And in my view they write a receipt for two reasons: a. so that he will compel him to repay it; b. so that he will be able to collect from the properties that had been in the debtor’s possession from the first date.

The Sages taught: A document whose date is written as falling on Shabbat or on the tenth of Tishrei,

that is, Yom Kippur. And it is not referring to a case in which the date of Shabbat or Yom Kippur is explicitly written in it, but rather, for example, it was in a place where they write the date in a document according to the solar months and not according to the Hebrew calendar, and when they checked the date, it became clear that this date fell on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur. And it is clear that the document was not written on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur. If so, it follows that the document was not written on the date appearing in it, but was written either after the date appearing in it, and they wrote an earlier date in it, and it is invalid on account of this, or it was written before the date appearing in it, and they wrote a later date in it, and it is valid.

In such a case we presume that

it is a late document, and valid.

For every document signed by valid witnesses is presumed valid, and we presume that it was made validly; and one who comes to challenge it and say that the date in it is an earlier date than its writing and that the document is invalid must prove this with evidence, and without evidence we are not concerned about this,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

For according to Rabbi Yehuda, even a document concerning which it is impossible to prove whether a date later than its writing was written in it is valid. And all the more so this document, from whose date it is proven that it was written with a later date, is valid.

Rabbi Yosei invalidates

a document that contains a date later than the time of its writing, when there is no proof that the date in it is a later date.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: But an incident came before you in Tzippori

in which a document with a later date came before you,

and you declared it valid!

He said to him: When I declared valid—

this

in which the written date falls on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur,

I declared valid.

Since it is proven from the document that it was not written at the time appearing in it, for Israelites do not write documents on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, and everyone understands that it was written with a later date, and there is no concern that a mishap will result from this document, as will be explained below.

This is not so with a document written with a later date at a time suitable for writing a document, when it will not become known that the document was written with a later date. In this case Rabbi Yosei disagrees and maintains that the document is invalid, as the reason for this will be explained below.

And we challenge: Why did Rabbi Yosei disagree here with Rabbi Yehuda?

But Rabbi Yehuda also, in this

case, in which the written date falls on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur,

says

that the document is valid. And in this Rabbi Yosei agrees, and Rabbi Yehuda was not speaking about a case in which it is not proven from the document that a later date was written in it.

Rabbi Pedat said

in explanation of the words of the beraita:

Everyone agrees,

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda agree concerning all documents containing a later date in this manner:

that if we had to investigate the season of a document,

that is, if we checked when the date written in the document falls,

and its season was found to coincide with its date,

it is found that the time written in it coincides

with Shabbat or with the tenth of Tishrei—

it is a late document

this one,

and valid

even according to Rabbi Yosei, since this document is considered as though it explicitly stated that it was written with a date later than its writing.