Bava Batra 172b — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said:

the wording

“from you”

written in the document includes every person, and its meaning is that he borrowed

even from the Exilarch—

from the head of the exile,

and even from Shabur, the king.

And there is concern lest the head of the exile, or another person, lent it to him, and it fell from him and this one found it.

Rav Hisda said to Rabba: Go out and examine it,

go and investigate this halakha,

for in the evening he will ask about it,

as he will ask about it in the evening,

Rav Huna from you—

from you, what is your opinion concerning this matter.

He went out, examined it, and found,

Rabba went out, examined the halakha, and found this beraita,

as it was taught:

A divorce document upon which there are witnesses but in which there is no date

is one of the three types of divorce documents invalid by rabbinic enactment, and if she married another with this document, the offspring is fit, as explained in Gittin [86a.

Abba Shaul says: If “I divorced her today” is written in it—

it is fit

the divorce document.

Evidently,

it follows from the beraita that the wording

“today”

means that very day on which it is issued,

its meaning is that day on which the divorce document leaves his possession at the court and passes into the woman’s possession in order to divorce her with it, and it is considered a complete date.

Here too,

the same applies here: the wording

“from you”—

means that person from whose possession it emerges,

its meaning is from that person from whose possession the document emerges, since the court sees that the document is in his possession, and it is as though the name of the lender were written in the document; and it is not necessary that wording more explicit than this be written in the document.

Abaye said to him

to Rabba:

Perhaps

perhaps

Abba Shaul,

who declared fit a divorce document in which no date was written, but only the wording “today,” did so only because he does not require that a date be written in a divorce document, for perhaps

he holds like Rabbi Eliezer, who said: The witnesses to delivery

who saw the delivery of the divorce document to the woman

effect it

they are the ones who effect and establish the divorce document, and therefore the divorce document is fit even if no date is written in it.

And the fact that Abba Shaul requires that the wording “today” be written in the divorce document is not because he holds that a date is required in a divorce document. Rather, he holds that it must be proven from the divorce document that he intends to divorce her immediately when she receives the divorce document. For if he wrote no date at all in the divorce document, it is not proven from the divorce document that he is divorcing her immediately, and there is concern lest he divorce her with this divorce document only after a year or two have passed from the day she received the divorce document. Therefore, Abba Shaul requires that at least the wording “today” be written in the divorce document, whose meaning is that he divorces her immediately when she receives the divorce document.

But here,

here, in a loan document, in which it is necessary to specify in the document from whom he borrowed, perhaps we do not rely on wording that does not explicitly state from whom he borrowed, for

let us be concerned

there is concern

about a lost document!

Perhaps the document fell from another person, and this holder of the document found it, as Rav Huna said.

He said to him

Rabba said to Abaye:

For a lost document

of the document from the lender’s possession

we are not concerned,

and therefore we rely also on the wording “from you” written in the document, that the loan was from him.

And from where do you say

and from where do you prove

that we are not concerned about a lost document?

For we learned

in our Mishna:

Two people who were in one city, one named Yosef son of Shimon and another named Yosef son of Shimon—

they cannot produce this promissory note against each other,

because it is not clear from the document which one is the lender and which one is the borrower,

and another person cannot produce a promissory note against them,

since each one of them can claim that he was not the one who borrowed, but rather his fellow.

And it is precise from here that

they, against others—

can

produce a promissory note, so that if one of them has a promissory note against another person, he can collect from him.

And seemingly it is difficult:

but why

can they produce a promissory note against others?

Let us be concerned about a lost document!

Perhaps the second Yosef son of Shimon was the lender, and it fell from him, and this Yosef son of Shimon found it.

Rather, is it not that you can learn from this

from the Mishna that the one holding the document can collect the debt from another person written in the document, even though the document does not prove which Yosef son of Shimon is the lender, because

we are not concerned about a lost document;

the same applies if it is written in the document with the wording “I borrowed from you”: we are not concerned lest the loan in the document was from another person, and the document fell from him and this one found it.

And Abaye,

what does he answer to this?

In his view, a distinction must be made: in the Mishna, the entire concern is only

with regard to the loss of one person’s document

lest it fell from one person who has the same name as the one who now holds the document, and this holder of the document happened to find a document bearing a name like his own; concerning this

we are not concerned. But with regard to the loss of documents belonging to many people

such as a document in which it is written, “I borrowed from you,” which could have fallen from any person and come into the possession of any person, in this case certainly

we are concerned,

and they do not collect with this document.