Bava Batra 171b (קעא:) — the Talmud in English

They did not disagree

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei

except with regard to an ordinary postdated document,

whose date is written as a weekday, and it is not evident from it that it was written with a later date.

As for Rabbi Yehuda,

who deems the document valid, he acts

according to his own position,

according to his view,

as he says: One does not write a receipt.

And he is not concerned whether the document was written at its proper time or with a later date, since the borrower never repays the debt until he receives the document and tears it up; and once the document has been torn up, there is no longer any concern.

And no mishap can result from it,

and no legal error can emerge from the document.

And Rabbi Yosei

disqualifies the document

according to his own position,

according to his view,

as he says

where one has repaid part of his debt,

one writes a receipt

for the partial repayment. Likewise, where the lender does not return the document, claiming that he lost it, the borrower pays the entire debt, and a receipt is written for the borrower acknowledging repayment of the debt, to establish that he repaid the entire debt.

Therefore, this document, which bears a later date, is invalid, since

a mishap can result from it,

as the lender might, after some time, produce the document with its later date and say that it is a new document for another loan made on the date appearing in the document. The receipt would not cover that loan, and he would collect with the document unlawfully.

This is not so with regard to a postdated document whose later date falls on Shabbat or Yom Kippur: He cannot claim that it is a document for another debt incurred on that date appearing in it. There is no concern that he will collect with it unlawfully, and therefore it is valid.

And with regard to the writing of a receipt, concerning which they disagreed in our Mishna:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Even according to the one who says that one writes a receipt, this statement applies

when they write a receipt, meaning specifically

for half,

for repayment of part of the debt, where there is concern that perhaps the lender will again demand the entire debt.

But for the entire debt,

for repayment of the entire debt, for example, where the lender claims that he lost the document and cannot return it to the borrower,

no,

they do not write a receipt for the borrower. Rather, the lender forfeits payment of the debt, as he brought the loss upon himself by losing the document, and the borrower need not pay him without receiving the debt document into his possession.

And we say:

That is not so!

Rather,

even for the entire debt,

in a case where the lender lost the document,

we write

the borrower a receipt, and he repays the debt.

This is like the incident involving Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, who was owed money

he was a creditor to

Rabbi Abba.

He came before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi

to litigate the debt.

He said to him,

Rav Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Abba:

Give me my money,

give me my funds.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba said:

Give me my document, and take your money,

give me my document and take your money.

He said to him,

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said:

Your document was lost by me; I will write you a receipt.

Your document was lost by me, and I will write you a receipt stating that you repaid the entire debt.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abba said:

Here is the ruling of Rav and Shmuel, who said

both of them,

as both of them said:

One does not write a receipt

for a borrower when the lender has lost the document. Rather, the lender forfeits payment of the debt, as he brought the loss upon himself by losing the document.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi said

that they had come to litigate before him:

Who will give us some of the dust of Rav and Shmuel

who will give us some of their dust

so that we may place it in our eyes,

out of our great reverence for them, for they were certainly great men of the generation. Nevertheless,

here

we have before us the words of

Rabbi Yoḥanan; and here,

we also have before us the words of

Reish Lakish,

both of whom disagree with Rav and Shmuel,

as both of them said,

as they both stated:

One writes a receipt.

And similarly, when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Ila’a said: A receipt is written.

And likewise, when Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Ila’a said: One writes a receipt.

And it is also reasonable from logical consideration

that one writes a receipt!

For if it enters your mind

that if you were to say

that one does not write a receipt,

if so, if

this person’s document was lost

the lender’s document—then would

the other consume

the money of the loan,

and rejoice!?

Would he rejoice in consuming another’s money for free!?

Abaye challenged this: But what

do you say? Is it because of this that

one writes a receipt

for the borrower when the lender claims that he lost his document? If so, the opposite should also follow: if

this person’s receipt was lost

the borrower’s receipt—then would

the other consume

the lender, who would collect the debt a second time through the document unlawfully,

and rejoice

and be happy?

Rava said to him: Yes! —

Indeed, as it is stated in the Book of Proverbs [22:7]:

“The borrower is a slave to the lender.”

Since the borrower is considered the lender’s slave with regard to the loan, it is preferable that the borrower take greater care than the lender, and that the responsibility for safeguarding the document rest upon him.

And concerning the postdated document over which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagreed,

we learned there

in tractate Sheviit [10:5]:

Early debt documents

in which a date earlier than the time when the document was written was recorded—

are invalid,

the documents.

Since, from the day the document is written, the borrower’s property becomes subject to the lender, if the borrower sold his fields to another after the date of the document, and when the time came to repay the debt he had nothing with which to pay, the lender could collect his debt from these fields, which are called “encumbered property,” meaning that he removes them from the purchaser in order to collect his debt. This is called “seizing purchasers’ property.”

It follows that if the document is antedated—for example, if it was Nisan and he wrote the date of the document as the preceding month of Tevet—the lender could, by virtue of this document, seize purchasers’ property unlawfully. If the borrower sold his property between Tevet and Nisan, and the lender came and proved on the basis of the date of the document that his lien on the property preceded its sale by the borrower, he would thereby collect from the purchasers unlawfully.

Therefore, the Sages penalized the lender: If he has an antedated document, it is invalid, and he has no right whatsoever to collect with it from purchasers, even from property that the borrower sold after the document was written.

And late-dated documents —

but documents in which a later date was written, for example, if it was Tevet and they postponed the date in the document until Nisan—

are valid,

the documents, since this harms the lender: He can collect from purchasers only from the time written in the document. If the borrower sold his property between Tevet and Nisan, the lender cannot collect his debt from that property.

These are the words of the Mishna up to this point.

Rav Hamnuna said: They taught

this law

only

with regard to

loan documents, but documents of sale and purchase —

even late-dated ones are also invalid!

What is the reason?

Because

sometimes he sells him land

sometimes he sells land to a purchaser

in Nisan, and writes for him

in the document that the date of the sale is

Tishrei

following Nisan.

And he happens to obtain money in the interim, and buys it from him.

The seller happens to obtain money in the meantime and then repurchases the land from him.

And when

the month of

Tishrei arrives, he produces it,

the purchaser produces the document,

and says to him

the seller:

I subsequently bought it from you.

I returned and bought the land from you, and here is the document attesting to the present sale.

And we raise an objection: If we are concerned about this with regard to a sale,

if so,

if so, why with regard to loan documents are postdated documents valid? For even with regard to

loan documents as well,

we should be concerned about this.

Because

sometimes he borrows

sometimes he borrows

in Nisan, and he writes him a document

and writes in the document that he borrowed from him

in Tishrei

following Nisan.

And he happens to obtain money in the interim and repays him,

the borrower happens to obtain money in the meantime and repays his debt to the lender,

and he says to him

the borrower says to the lender:

Give me my document,

return my loan document to me,

and he says to him

the lender says:

It was lost

it was lost

by me

the document.

And he writes him

the lender writes the borrower

a receipt —

a receipt stating that he repaid the debt. But in reality, the document remains in the lender’s possession.

And when its date arrives, he produces it,

and when the date written in the document, Tishrei, arrives, the lender produces the document

and says to him

the borrower:

It is now that you borrowed from me!

This document concerns money from a new loan that you borrowed from me now, in Tishrei!

And we answer: This tanna did not entertain this concern with regard to loan documents, and therefore deemed valid loan documents bearing a later date, because

he holds: One does not write a receipt,

and the borrower does not repay the lender until he returns his document to him; therefore, there is no concern of this kind.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say

some say that

Rav Yirmeya of Difti

said

to Rav Kahana: But nowadays, when we write postdated documents and write a receipt,

nowadays, when we write documents with a later date and also write a receipt for one who repaid a loan when the lender cannot find the document,

why do we do this?

Why do we validate these documents and not be concerned about Rav Hamnuna’s concern?

He said to him,

Rav Kahana said:

After

after

Rabbi Abba told his scribes

his scribes:

When you write

when you write

a postdated document

postdated

write this

in the document:

“This document was not written at its proper time;

we did not write this document at its proper time,

rather, we postponed it and wrote it.”

And since Rabbi Abba instructed them to write this formula in a postdated document, we are no longer concerned about Rav Hamnuna’s concern. For if the lender comes to demand payment again with the postdated document, the borrower will show him the receipt and say that he already repaid the debt. The lender will not be able to claim that the document was written for another loan made after the repayment, since it is written in the document that it was made with a later date. It is therefore like a document whose date is written as Shabbat or Yom Kippur, which we deemed valid above according to both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, since it is evident from the document that it was written with a date later than the time it was written, and no mishap can result from it.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But nowadays, when we do not do so,

now that we do not write this formulation in a postdated document, why do we validate a document that contains a later date? Is there not a concern of fraud, the very concern that Rav Hamnuna raised? For the lender might say to the borrower, when the borrower repays the debt, that he has lost the document, and give the borrower a receipt. Then, after the date appearing in the document has passed, the lender could produce the document against the borrower and say that it concerns another loan made at a later time, the time appearing in the document, and collect with it unlawfully!

Rav Kahana said to him:

Following

after

Rav Safra said to his scribes: When you write these receipts,

when you write these receipts, then

if you know the date of the document,

if you know the date of the document

write

in the receipt that it was written for repayment of the loan documented in a document written on a certain date. In that case, the lender will not be able to commit fraud, because even if he wrote the document with a later date, the receipt proves that the debt was paid. But

if not,

if you do not remember the date written in the loan document

write

a receipt

without specification,

with no date written in the receipt, but only the amount of the repayment,

so that whenever it is produced

whenever the lender produces against him a loan document for such an amount

it will be discharged by it,

this receipt will discharge that document, since no date is written in the receipt.

Once the borrower has this receipt in his possession, the lender must be careful not to lend the borrower a similar amount, since the borrower possesses a receipt proving that he repaid such an amount. And if he lent him that amount, he has brought the loss upon himself. And since Rav Safra instructed that a receipt be written in this manner, there is no longer any concern of a mishap with a loan document written with a later date, and therefore we validate it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi—and some say

and there are those who say that

Rav Ashi

said

to Rav Kahana: