Bava Batra 171a (קעא.) — the Talmud in English

For

granted, in the case of the court,

they can replace the first document and write a new document according to the date of the first document, so that they can collect from it even from property that had already been in his possession from the earlier date. For although, by strict law, the creditor has no power to collect with the second document, which was written at a later date, from purchasers who acquired the property before the document was written, nevertheless, the court writes the earlier date in the document, and the creditor can collect from purchasers from that earlier date because the second document was written by the court; and the court

has the power to expropriate property,

as the property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless.

But witnesses who have completed their agency

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

return and perform their agency?

Who, after all, gave them the power to return and write a second document with the earlier date!?

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

According to Rav, do the witnesses not return and perform their agency?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

If a person lost his document and said to the witnesses, “Write me another document,”

the witnesses may write even ten documents,

if each one was lost after the preceding one,

concerning a single field!

The Gemara brings two answers from two amoraim to resolve the objection:

Rav Yosef said:

In fact, 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 from purchasers from the earlier date. And what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav—that the witnesses return and write another document—refers

to a gift document,

in which there is no guarantee attached to the transfer of the field, and the document is not intended to be used to collect from purchasers, but only as evidence. Since everyone knows that he received the field as a gift, there is no impediment to the witnesses returning and writing another document for him, so that he will have evidence of this in his possession and no one will be able to challenge the gift.

And Rabba said:

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

to a document that contains no guarantee,

as the document does not serve as evidence that the field was sold with a guarantee, and one cannot collect with this document from purchasers. But in the case of a document that contains a guarantee, with which it is possible to collect from purchasers, the witnesses cannot return and write a new document with the earlier date.

And now the Gemara explains:

What is the beraita?

What was stated in that beraita mentioned above, according to which Rabbi Yehuda rules that when a person repays half his debt, the witnesses tear up the first document and write another document for the balance of the debt with the earlier date?

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

the witnesses tear up the document

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

and write him another document from the original date

for the remaining five hundred dinars,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: This document,

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

shall remain

as it is

in its place,

in the possession of the creditor,

and they shall write a receipt

for the borrower confirming repayment of the five hundred dinars.

And for two reasons they said that one writes a receipt

for the borrower’s repayment of half the debt, rather than making a new document, for two reasons:

One, so that he will compel

the creditor

to make him repay it,

since the borrower is afraid that he might lose his receipt, and the creditor will produce his document and sue him for the entire debt.

And one, so that he will collect

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

from the original date,

that is, from the time of the loan.

And we raise an objection concerning Rabbi Yosei’s second reason:

But Rabbi Yehuda also says, “from the original date,”

that they write the second document,

he says,

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

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda did not clarify in his statement 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 simply said that he replaces the document in his possession with a new document for the balance of the debt.

And

this is what Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: If

in your opinion,

“from the original date”

is when they write the second document,

you say,

if that is what you said,

I disagree

I dispute

with you

only

on one point,

for one reason: In my opinion, one writes a receipt so that he will compel the borrower to repay him.

But

if “from the later date”

is when they write the second document,

you say—

if so,

I disagree

I dispute

with you on two points.

In my opinion, one writes a receipt for two reasons: a. So that he will compel him to repay; b. So that he can collect from property that had been in the borrower’s possession from the original date.

The Sages taught: With regard to a document whose date is written as Shabbat or as the tenth of Tishrei,

that is, Yom Kippur: This does not mean that the date of Shabbat or Yom Kippur is explicitly written in it. Rather, for example, it was in a place where the date in a document is written according to the solar months and not according to the Hebrew calendar, and when the date was checked, it became clear that it fell on Shabbat or Yom Kippur. It is obvious that the document was not written on Shabbat or Yom Kippur. Consequently, the document was not written on the date appearing in it: It was either written after the date appearing in it, in which case an earlier date was written in it and it is invalid for that reason, or it was written before the date appearing in it, in which case a later date was written in it and it is valid.

In such a case, we assume that

it is a later document, and it is valid.

Every document signed by valid witnesses is presumed valid, and we assume that it was executed properly. One who comes to challenge it and say that the date in it is earlier than the date on which it was written, and that the document is invalid, must prove this with evidence; without evidence, we are not concerned about this,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, even a document regarding which it is impossible to prove whether its date was written later than the date on which it was written is valid. All the more so this document, whose date proves that it was written with a later date, is valid.

Rabbi Yosei invalidates

a document whose date is later than the date on which it was written, when there is no proof that its date is later than the date of its writing.

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

in which a document with a later date was brought before you,

and you declared it valid!

He said to him: When I declared it valid—

in this case,

where the date written in it falls on Shabbat or Yom Kippur,

I declared it valid.

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

This is not so with regard to 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. Rabbi Yosei disagrees in that case and holds that the document is invalid, as the reason for this will be explained below.

And we raise an objection: Why did Rabbi Yosei disagree with Rabbi Yehuda here?

But Rabbi Yehuda also says, in this case,

where the date written in it falls on Shabbat or Yom Kippur,

he says

that the document is valid. And in this Rabbi Yosei agrees; Rabbi Yehuda was not speaking of a case where the document itself does not prove 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 with regard to every document containing a later date in this manner:

That if we had to determine the date of a document,

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

and its date was found to correspond to its stated date,

so that the date written in it corresponds

to Shabbat or to the tenth of Tishrei—

it is a later document

this document,

and it is 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 the date of its writing.