Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 14, scan section 64

mains, and a receipt for five hundred must be given to the bor- rower. And for two reasons it was said that a receipt should be written and handed to the borrower: first, because he should be compelled to pay as soon as possible ; and, secondly, the debt should be counted from the first date. But does not R. Jehudah also say that a new document should be written with the same date as that which was torn? So said R. Jose to R. Jehudah : If you say that the document should be written from the first date, then I differ with you only in one thing — concerning the receipt; and if you think that the document should be written from the date on which a part was paid, then I differ with you in both. The rabbis taught : If the document was written at the date used by the government, and such a date fell on a Sabbath or on the Day of Atonement, on which it is prohibited for an Israelite to write, this note is to be considered written with a later date, which is valid. So is the decree of R. Jehudah. But according to R. Jose, it is invalid. Said R. Jehudah to him : Did not such a case come before you in Cepphoris, and you made it valid? And he answered: I did so only with a case similar to that about which we are discussing, because, as the date fell on a Sabbath, it is highly probable that the document was of a later date; but in other cases, where such a supposition has no basis, I do not agree with you. But what answer is this? R. Jehudah also claimed that the case hap- pened to be before R. Jose in Cepphoris. Said R. Pdath : All agree that if the date of the document was examined and found TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). 381 to fall on a Sabbath, or on the Day of Atonement, it must be considered as with a later date, and it is valid. In what they do differ is : A document which is doubtful, if written with an earlier or a later date. Acording to R. Jehudah, who holds that in case of payment no receipt is given, but the document itself must be returned, it is valid, because it cannot do any harm to any one by being collectible twice. And according to R. Jose, who holds that for a payment in part the document must not be returned, and only a receipt is furnished, it is invalid, because he can collect with it the whole amount, as the receipt is in the hands of the borrower. Said R. Huna b. Jehoshua: Even according to them who say that a receipt may be written, it is only if a part or a half was paid ; but for the whole amount no receipt is written, but he must return him the note; and if lost, he loses his money. (Says the Gemara 🙂 In reality it is not so, as a receipt may be written even on the whole amount ; as it happened with R. Itz'hak b. Joseph, who had money with R. Abba, and when he demanded his money, R. Abba demanded his promissory note. And R. Itz'hak answered : The note is lost, and I will give you a receipt. And he answered : There are both Rabh and Samuel who taught that we do not write a receipt. And when this case came before R. Hanina b. Papi, he said: Rabh and Samuel were so beloved by us that if some would bring the earth of their graves we would keep it always before our eyes ; but not- withstanding this, there are both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish who decided that a receipt should be given ; and the same was said by Rabbin when he came from Palestine in the name of R. Hah. Common sense also dictates so; as how can it be sup- posed that if the creditor lost the promissory note the debtor may consume the whole amount and enjoy himself? Abayi op- posed: But after your theory that a receipt is to be written, how is it if the receipt is lost — should the lender collect the money again and enjoy himself? Said Rabha to him: Yea! So is the law, as we read in the Scriptures : " The borrower is a servant to the lender" [Prov. xxii. 7]. Said R. Yema, according to others R. Jeremiah of Diphthi, to R. Kahna: What is the basis of our custom that we write documents with later dates, and we also write receipts? And he answered: That which R. Abba said to his scribe: When it shall happen 382 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. that you have to write a document with a later date, you must write as follows: This document was postdated by us for a certain reason, and is dated not with the date it was ordered, but of to-day. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahna: However, in our day and in our country we do not act likewise. It is since R. Safras said to his scribe: Should you have to write a receipt for a lost promissory note, then, if you are aware of the date the promissory note was given, you must write: " The money which was due according to the note written on such and such a date was returned to the lender." And if you do not know the exact date, you must write : " The money due on a note of so and so, to so and so, was paid," not mentioning the date at all; and then, if the note should appear again, it will be of no value. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi, and according to others R. Ashi to R. Kahna: But why is it not customary in our time to do so, as we write documents with later dates without men- tioning that they are postdated, and receipts with the date of payment, and we do mention the date of the document? And he answered : The rabbis enacted : One shall do so for his own sake; but if one does not care to do so, it will be his own fault if he should suffer damage. Said Rabba b. Ashila to the scribes: If you should have to write a deed of gift, or deeds in which the seller does not take the responsibility of the estate for the future, you shall do as follows: If you remember the date when the donor or the seller told you in the presence of witnesses to do so, you shall write that date; and if you do not recollect the exact date, you may write the current date, and it will not be considered false. Rabh told his scribes, and the same did R. Huna: When you are writing a docu- ment in the city of Shili, although you were ordered to do so in the city of Hini, you must write in the document the city in which you are doing it, and not the city where you were ordered. Rabha said : If one holds a promissory note for a hundred zuz, and requests that it shall be rewritten in two notes, each of fifty zuz, his request is to be refused — for the sake of both the lender and the borrower : for the lender it is better to have one document, as, should it happen that he pay the half, he will give him a receipt, which the borrower will have to watch, and therefore he will hasten to pay his debt ; and for the borrower TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). 383 it is also better, as the law of a document paid in part is, that the lender must take an oath (and in case he is lacking cash the