Bava Batra 171b — the Talmud in English

They disagreed

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei

only with regard to an ordinary postdated document,

whose written date falls on a weekday, and it is not proven from it that it was written with a later date.

For Rabbi Yehuda

who validates the document, proceeds

according to his position,

according to his method,

for he says: A receipt is not written.

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

And no mishap emerges from it,

and no mishap will emerge from the document.

But Rabbi Yosei

disqualifies the document

according to his position,

according to his method,

for he says

in a place where he repaid part of his debt,

a receipt is written

for the partial repayment; and likewise, where the creditor does not return the document, claiming that he lost it, the debtor repays the entire debt, and a receipt is written for the debtor concerning repayment of the debt, to make known that he repaid his entire debt.

Therefore, this document, which has a later date, is disqualified, since

a mishap can emerge from it,

a mishap can emerge from the document: after some time the creditor may produce the document with the later date and say that it is a new document for another loan, made on the date appearing in the document; the receipt does not cover it, and he will collect with it unlawfully.

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

And concerning the writing of a receipt, about which they disagreed in our Mishna:

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

to writing a receipt, that is, specifically

for half,

for repayment of part of the debt, where there is concern lest the creditor return and claim the entire debt.

But for all of it,

for repayment of the entire debt, such as where the creditor claims that he lost the document and cannot return the document to the debtor,

no,

a receipt is not written for the debtor. Rather, the creditor forfeits payment of the debt, for he caused his own loss by losing the document, and the debtor need not pay him without receiving the debt document into his possession.

And we say:

That is not so!

Rather,

even for all of it,

the debt, in a case where the creditor lost the document,

we write

a receipt for the debtor, and he repays the debt.

As in this incident involving Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef, who had money owed to him

he was owed money

by Rabbi Abba.

He came before Rabbi Hanina bar Papi,

to adjudicate the debt claim.

He said to him

Rav Yitzhak to Rabbi Abba:

Give me my money,

give me my money.

He said to him

Rabbi Abba:

Give me my document, and take your money,

give me my document and take your money.

He said to him

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef:

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

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

He said to him

Rabbi Abba:

Here are Rav and Shmuel, who say

both of them,

as both of them said:

A receipt is not written

for a debtor when the creditor lost the document; rather, the creditor forfeits payment of the debt, for he caused his own loss by losing the document.

Rabbi Hanina bar Papi said

who had come to adjudicate before him:

Who will give us from the dust of

who will give us of their dust

of Rav and Shmuel, and we will place it in our eyes,

and place it in our eyes, out of our great veneration for them, for they were certainly great men of the world. But nevertheless,

here

we have before us the words of

Rabbi Yohanan, and here,

and we also have before us the words of

Reish Lakish,

both of whom disagree with Rav and Shmuel,

who both say,

as both of them said:

A receipt is written.

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 Ilaa said: A receipt is written.

And it is reasonable also from logical consideration

that a receipt is written!

For if it should enter your mind

that if you should think

that a receipt is not written,

if so, if

this person’s document was lost

the creditor’s—and would

the other eat

the loan money,

and rejoice!?

and rejoice at consuming the money of others for nothing!?

Abaye challenged him: But what do you say?

You will say that for this reason

a receipt is written

for the debtor when the creditor claims that he lost his document—and if so, it also follows in the opposite direction, that if

this person’s receipt was lost

the debtor’s—and would

the other eat

the creditor, collecting the debt a second time with the document unlawfully,

and rejoice

and rejoice?

Rava said to him: Yes! —

Indeed, for it is stated in the Book of Proverbs:

“The borrower is a servant to the lender.”

For the debtor, through his loan, is considered the lender’s servant; therefore, it is preferable that the debtor take greater trouble than the creditor, and that the obligation of safeguarding the document rest upon him.

And concerning a postdated document about which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disagreed,

we learned there

in tractate Sheviit:

Loan documents that are antedated

in which a date earlier than the time of writing the document was written—

are disqualified,

the documents.

Since from the day the document is written the debtor’s properties are liened to the creditor, and if after the date of the document the debtor sold his fields to another, and when the time for payment of the document arrived he had nothing with which to pay, the creditor can collect his debt from these fields, which are called “liened properties,” meaning that he takes them from the purchaser for collection of his debt; and this is called “seizing purchasers.”

And from here, if the document is antedated—for example, he stood in Nisan and wrote the date of the document as the preceding month of Tevet—the creditor can, by virtue of this document, seize purchasers unlawfully. For if the debtor sold his properties between Tevet and Nisan, and the creditor comes and proves, on the basis of the date of the document, that his lien on the properties preceded their sale by the debtor, it follows that he collects from the purchasers unlawfully.

Therefore, the Sages penalized the creditor: If an antedated document is in his possession, it is disqualified, and he has no right whatsoever to collect with it from purchasers, even from properties that the debtor sold after the time the document was written.

And postdated —

but documents in which a later date was written, such as where they stood in Tevet and postponed the date in the document to Nisan,

are valid,

the documents, for the creditor loses through this, since he cannot collect from purchasers except from the time written in the document; and if the debtor sold his properties between Tevet and Nisan, he cannot collect his debt from them.

Thus far are the words of the Mishna.

Rav Hamnuna said: They taught

this law

only

with regard to

loan documents, but documents of sale and purchase—

even postdated ones are also disqualified!

What is the reason?

Because

sometimes he sells him land

he sometimes sells land to the purchaser

in Nisan, and he writes for him

in the document that the time of the sale is

in Tishrei

following it.

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

The seller happens to obtain money in the meantime, and he returns and buys the land from him.

And when it arrives,

when the month of

Tishrei arrives, he produces it,

the purchaser produces the document,

and says to him

the seller:

I returned and bought it from you.

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

And we challenge: If there is concern for this with regard to a sale,

if so,

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

loan documents, too,

there should be concern for this.

For

sometimes he borrows

he sometimes borrows

in Nisan, and he writes him a document

and he writes for him in the document that he borrowed from him

in Tishrei

following it,

and money happens to come to him in the interim and he repays him,

and the debtor happens to obtain money in the meantime and repays his debt to the creditor,

and he says to him

the debtor says to the creditor:

Give me my document,

return the loan document to me,

and he says to him

the creditor:

It was lost

it was lost

by me

the document.

And he writes him

the creditor writes for the debtor

a receipt —

a receipt that he repaid the debt. But in truth the document remains in the creditor’s possession.

And when its time arrives, he produces it,

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

and says to him

to the debtor:

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 have this concern with regard to loan documents, and therefore validated loan documents in which a later date was written, because

he holds: A receipt is not written,

and the debtor does not repay the creditor until he returns his document to him; therefore, there is no concern for this.

Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say

and some say

Rav Yirmeya of Difti

said

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

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

why do we do this?

Why do we validate these documents, and do we not have concern for Rav Hamnuna’s concern?

He said to him

Rav Kahana:

After

after

Rabbi Abba said to his scribes

to his scribes:

When you write

when you write

a postdated document [

postdated ]

write this

in the document:

“This document of ours, we did not write it at its proper time,

this document we did not write at its proper time,

but we postponed it and wrote it.”

And since Rabbi Abba instructed that this wording be written in a postdated document, we are no longer concerned for Rav Hamnuna’s concern, because if the creditor comes to claim a second time with the postdated document, the debtor will show him the receipt and say to him that he already repaid the debt; and the creditor 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 like a document in which its date is written as Shabbat or Yom Kippur, which we validated above according to both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, since it is proven from the document that it was written with a date later than the time of its writing, and no mishap will emerge from it.

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But nowadays, when we do not act in this manner,

now, when we do not write this wording in a late-dated document, why do we deem valid a document that has a late date? Is there not a concern of fraud, which Rav Hamnuna was concerned about? For the lender might say to the borrower, when he repays him the debt, that the document was lost, and give the borrower a receipt; and after the date appearing in the document has passed, the lender will produce it against the borrower and say to him that the document is for another loan that was made at a later time, the time appearing in the document, and collect with it unlawfully!

Rav Kahana said to him:

After

after

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

when you write these receipts,

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 a loan recorded in a document written on such-and-such a date, and then the lender will not be able to commit fraud, for even if he wrote the document with a late date, the receipt proves against him that it has been repaid. But

if not,

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

— write

a receipt

without specification,

so that no date at all will be written in the receipt, but only the amount of the repayment,

for whenever there is produced

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

— it will serve to invalidate it,

this receipt will invalidate it, since no date is written in the receipt.

And after the borrower has this receipt in his possession, the lender must take care not to lend the borrower a similar amount, since the borrower has in his possession a receipt proving that he repaid such an amount. And if he lends him this amount, he has caused himself a loss. And since Rav Safra instructed that a receipt be written in this manner, there is no longer concern for a mishap with a loan document written with a late date, and therefore we deem it valid.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi—and some say

and some say that

Rav Ashi

said

to Rav Kahana: