Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 22, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 23, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 24
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 22
This is the order in which debts are collected: When the creditor brings his promissory note to the court and the authenticity of the witnesses' signatures are verified, we tell the borrower: "Pay." We do not attach his property until the creditor demands this. If a judge errs and gives the creditor access to the borrower's property before he demands it, we remove the creditor from it.
If the borrower responds: "I will pay. Establish a date for me, so that I will have time to borrow money from another person, offer my land as collateral, sell property and bring the money," we grant him 30 days. We do not require that he bring security to the court. For if he possessed movable property, the court would expropriate it immediately.
If the creditor desires, he may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who possesses money or movable property and uses arguments to avoid payment. We do not require the borrower to bring a guarantor until he pays.
If the borrower has not brought payment when these 30 days are concluded, the court composes an adrachta. Similarly, if at the outset, when the lender demanded payment of him, he said: "I will not pay," we compose an adrachta against his property immediately and do not grant him any time. Similarly, if what is involved is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone and the borrower admits his obligation, we compose an adrachta against the property that is presently in his possession.
אסֵדֶר גְּבִיַּת הַחוֹב כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁיָּבִיא הַמַּלְוֶה שְׁטָרוֹ לְבֵית דִּין וְיִתְקַיֵּם אוֹמְרִים לַלּוֶֹה שַׁלֵּם. וְאֵין יוֹרְדִין לִנְכָסָיו תְּחִלָּה עַד שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ. וְאִם טָעָה הַדַּיָּן וְהוֹרִיד הַמַּלְוֶה לְנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְבָּעֶנּוּ מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר הַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם קִבְעוּ לִי זְמַן כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶלְוֶה מֵאַחֵר אוֹ אֲמַשְׁכֵּן אוֹ אֶמְכֹּר וְאָבִיא הַמָּעוֹת קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ לִתֵּן מַשְׁכּוֹן שֶׁאִלּוּ הָיוּ שָׁם מִטַּלְטְלִים מִיָּד הָיוּ בֵּית דִּין גּוֹבִין מֵהֶן. וְאִם רָצָה הַמַּלְוֶה לְהַחֲרִים עַל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָעוֹת אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין וּמַפְלִיג אוֹתוֹ בִּדְבָרִים הֲרֵי זֶה מַחֲרִים. וְאֵין מְחַיְּבִין הַלּוֶֹה לְהָבִיא עָרֵב עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן. שָׁלְמוּ הַשְּׁלֹשִׁים וְלֹא הֵבִיא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר בַּתְּחִלָּה כְּשֶׁתְּבָעוֹ אֵינִי מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד וְאֵין קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן. וְכֵן אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אוֹ שֶׁהוֹדָה כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נִכְסֵי בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ:
The following rules apply when the borrower claims: "The promissory note concerning which the signatures of the witnesses was validated is a forgery. I will bring proof and nullify the matter. The witnesses are located in this and this place and their names are so-and-so and so-and-so." If it appears to the judges that there is substance to his words, a time is established in which he must bring his witnesses to court. If it appears to them that he is merely raising deceptive arguments and fallacious claims, they should tell him: "Pay." Afterwards, if he brings proof of his claim, the money should be returned to him.
If the creditor is a man of force and it is possible that the money will not be able to be recovered from him, it should be entrusted to a third party.
בטָעַן וְאָמַר שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁנִּתְקַיֵּם בִּפְנֵיהֶם מְזֻיָּף הוּא אֲנִי אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטְּלֶנּוּ וְעֵדַי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְהֵם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי. אִם נִרְאֶה לַדַּיָּנִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו קוֹבְעִין לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא עֵדָיו וְאִם נִרְאֶה לָהֶם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא בַּעֲלִילוֹת דְּבָרִים וּבִטְעָנוֹת שֶׁל דֹּפִי אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ רְאָיָה יַחְזֹר. וְאִם הָיָה הַמַּלְוֶה אַלָּם וְשֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ מַנִּיחִין עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ:
When a time was established for the borrower to bring proof and nullify the promissory note, that time came and he did not come to court, we wait for three court sessions Monday, Thursday and Monday. If he does not come, we compose a peticha against him and place him under a ban of ostracism.
We give him a further respite of 90 days while he is under the ban of ostracism. The first 30, for perhaps he is seeking a loan, the middle 30, for perhaps he is seeking to sell property, and the final 30, for perhaps the person who purchased his property is seeking to bring him the money.
When these 90 days are completed and the borrower still does not appear in court, the court composes an adrachta against his property and releases him from the ban of ostracism.
גקָבְעוּ לוֹ זְמַן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וּלְבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְהִגִּיעַ הַזְּמַן וְלֹא בָּא מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ שֵׁנִי וַחֲמִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי. לֹא בָּא כּוֹתְבִין עָלָיו פְּתִיחָא וּמְשַׁמְּתִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַמְתִּינִין לוֹ וְהוּא בְּנִדּוּיוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם. שְׁלֹשִׁים רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא טוֹרֵחַ לִלְווֹת. אֶמְצָעִים שֶׁמָּא הוּא טוֹרֵחַ לִמְכֹּר. אַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁמָּא הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ טוֹרֵחַ לְהָבִיא מָעוֹת. שָׁלְמוּ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם וְלֹא בָּא בֵּית דִּין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו וּמַתִּירִין לוֹ נִדּוּיוֹ:
If the borrower lives within a two-day journey or less from the court, we do not compose an adrachta until we send messengers and inform him of this impending step. If he lives further away, it is not necessary to inform him.
When does the above apply? When throughout the entire 90 days he would procrastinate and say: "Just now, I will bring proof that nullifies the promissory note." If, however, he says: "I refuse to appear in court," we compose an adrachta against both his movable and his landed property immediately. Similarly, if a person is being sued on the basis of a legal document recording an object entrusted to him for safekeeping, we do not wait 90 days and instead, we compose an adrachta against his property immediately.
דאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַד שֶׁשּׁוֹלְחִין וּמוֹדִיעִין לוֹ. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרוֹב בְּבֵית דִּין מַהֲלַךְ שְׁנֵי יָמִים אוֹ פָּחוֹת. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה אֵין צְרִיכִין לְהוֹדִיעוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה כָּל הַתִּשְׁעִים יוֹם נִשְׁמָט וְאוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל אָמַר אֵינִי בָּא לְבֵית דִּין מִיָּד כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו בֵּין עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת בֵּין עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין. וְכֵן אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר עַל הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם אֶלָּא כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל נְכָסָיו מִיָּד:
The statements made above - that if the borrower does not come at the conclusion of the 90-day period we compose an adrachta - applies only with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, different rules apply. Even after 90 days, as long as the borrower says: "I will bring a proof and nullify the promissory note," we do not allow the lender to expropriate movable property.
The rationale is that the alleged lender might consume it and afterwards, the borrower will bring the proof that nullifies the promissory note, and then he will not find property belonging to the alleged lender that he can collect for repayment. This applies even if the lender possesses landed property, for perhaps that property will decrease in value or become dried out.
הזֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ שֶׁאִם לֹא בָּא בְּסוֹף הַתִּשְׁעִים כּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא עַל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת. אֲבָל עַל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר עַתָּה אָבִיא רְאָיָה וַאֲבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר אֵין מוֹרִידִין הַמַּלְוֶה לַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁמָּא יֹאכַל אוֹתָם וְיָבִיא זֶה רְאָיָה וִיבַטֵּל הַשְּׁטָר וְלֹא יִמְצָא מַה יִּטּל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה לַמַּלְוֶה קַרְקַע שֶׁמָּא תַּכְסִיף אוֹ תִּשְׁתַּדֵּף:
How is the adrachta composed? If we are expropriating property that is in the borrower's possession, we write in that document:
"So-and-so was obligated by a judgment to pay so-and-so this amount. He has not made this payment on his own volition. Hence, we have composed this adrachta against this and this field that he possesses."
Afterwards, three experts evaluate a portion of that field equivalent in value to the debt that he owes, and its prospective sale is announced according to the appraisal until those who add to the estimation make their bids. If there are no buyers, we transfer ownership of that portion of the field to the creditor because of his debt and rip up the promissory note, if such a document existed. If there was no landed property in the borrower's possession, we compose the adrachta which states:
ו"So-and-so undertook an obligation to so-and-so as recorded in the promissory note possessed by the creditor. The debtor has not paid this debt. We have not found property that is presently in the debtor's possession. We have already torn up the promissory note that the creditor possessed and have given him license to seek out and research whether there are any properties that the debtor sold from this and this date and onward, with the intent that his hand be raised over them. He has license to derive payment and expropriate his debt from all such properties."
כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא. אִם לִנְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין הוֹרִידוּהוּ אוֹמְרִים אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי בַּדִּין כָּךְ וְכָךְ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ מֵעַצְמוֹ וְכָתַבְנוּ לוֹ אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ עַל שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמִין לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה כְּנֶגֶד חוֹבוֹ וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁיִּרְאוּ עַד שֶׁיִּפְסְקוּ הַמּוֹסִיפִין. וּמוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחוֹבוֹ לַחֵלֶק שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתוֹ וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הַחוֹב אִם הָיָה שָׁם שְׁטָר. וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין כּוֹתְבִין הָאַדְרַכְתָּא כָּךְ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִתְחַיֵּב לִפְלוֹנִי כָּךְ בִּשְׁטָר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ חוֹבוֹ וְלֹא מָצָאנוּ לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ לַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַנְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי רְשׁוּת לִדְרשׁ וְלַחְקֹר וְלִהְיוֹת יָדוֹ נְטוּיָה עַל כָּל הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיִּמָצְאוּ לוֹ וְכָל קַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁמָּכַר מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וָהָלְאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהִפָּרַע לִגְבּוֹת חוֹבוֹ מִן הַכּל:
After this adrachta is composed, the lender goes and seeks property belonging or that once belonged to the borrower. If he finds property that is in his possession, they are evaluated for him. If he finds only property that has been sold after the date of his promissory note, he may expropriate it. We tear up the adrachta and write a tirpa.
זוְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין אַדְרַכְתָּא זוֹ הוֹלֵךְ הַמַּלְוֶה וּמְחַפֵּשׂ. אִם מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין שָׁמִין לוֹ מֵהֶן. מָצָא לוֹ נְכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין מֵאַחַר זְמַן שְׁטָרוֹ טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין שְׁטַר הָאַדְרַכְתָּא וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטַר הַטִּירְפָא:
How is the tirpa composed? We write:
ח"Because of the debt of this and this amount that so-and-so owes him, so-and-so won in court the right to expropriate this and this field that so-and-so purchased for this and this amount at this and this time. We have already torn up the adrachta that was in his possession, and we have given him license to expropriate this and this amount from this property."
כֵּיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי זָכָה בַּדִּין לִטְרֹף בְּחוֹב שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי חַיָּב לוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּךְ וְכָךְ מִשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית שֶׁלָּקַח פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי. וּכְבָר קָרַעְנוּ הָאַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִרְשִׁינוּהוּ לִטְרֹף מִזֶּה בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ:
After the tirpa is written so that the lender may expropriate the property, we bring three experts to that field who evaluate that field and appraise how much of the field should be given to him for the principal and half of the field's increase in value, as explained. We then announce the property's sale for thirty days in the same manner as we announce the sale of property inherited by orphans.
טוְאַחַר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין הַטִּירְפָא לִטְרֹף מוֹרִידִין שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּקִיאִין לְאוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וְשָׁמִין לוֹ מִמֶּנָּה כְּשִׁעוּר חוֹבוֹ כְּפִי מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לוֹ מִן הַקֶּרֶן וַחֲצִי הַשֶּׁבַח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמַכְרִיזִין עָלֶיהָ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכְרִיזִין עַל נִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים:
Afterwards, if the borrower is with us on the land, we require the borrower to take an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by our Sages. We also require the person expropriating the property to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he did not collect payment for this debt, that he did not waive payment of it, and that he did not sell it to another person. Afterwards, we give the lender possession of the purchaser's according to the assessment of the debt owed him, and we compose a horadah.
יוְאַחַר כָּךְ מַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ כְּלוּם כְּתַקָּנַת הַגְּאוֹנִים אִם הָיָה הַלּוֶֹה עִמָּנוּ בַּמְּדִינָה. וּמַשְׁבִּיעִין אֶת הַטּוֹרֵף בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע חוֹב זֶה וְלֹא מְחָלוֹ וְלֹא מְכָרוֹ לְאַחֵר. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ לְנִכְסֵי הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁלּוֹ וְכוֹתְבִין הוֹרָדָה:
How is this document composed? The judges write:
יא"After we had an evaluation of the property made for so-and-so, because of the debt he was owed, we announced the sale of the property as is fitting, and we required both the person expropriating the property and the debtor to take the appropriate oaths, we have given so-and-so possession of this and this field. He may use it as a person uses property that he has acquired."
וְכֵיצַד כּוֹתְבִין. אַחַר שֶׁשַּׁמְנוּ לִפְלוֹנִי בְּשׁוּמָא שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדוֹ וְהִכְרַזְנוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם כָּרָאוּי וְהִשְׁבַּעְנוּ אֶת זֶה הַטּוֹרֵף וְאֶת בַּעַל חוֹב הוֹרַדְנוּהוּ לְשָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית לִהְיוֹת מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ אָדָם בְּקִנְיָנוֹ:
From which time may the person who seeks to expropriate this property derive benefit from its produce? From the time the days of the announcement are completed.
יבוּמֵאֵימָתַי אוֹכֵל הַטּוֹרֵף פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִשֶּׁיִּפְסְקוּ יְמֵי הַהַכְרָזָה:
Whenever an adrachta does not state: "We have torn up the promissory note," it is not an acceptable adrachta. Whenever a tirpa does not state: "We have torn up the adrachta" it is not an acceptable tirpa. Whenever a shuma does not state: "We have torn up the tirpa," it is not an acceptable shuma.
יגכָּל אַדְרַכְתָּא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהוּ לִשְׁטַר הַהַלְוָאָה אֵינָהּ אַדְרַכְתָּא. וְכָל טִירְפָא שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לָאַדְרַכְתָּא אֵינָהּ טִירְפָא. וְכָל שׁוּמָא דְּלָא כָּתוּב בָּהּ קְרַעְנוּהָ לַטִּירְפָא אֵינָהּ שׁוּמָא:
When three experts descend to evaluate a property, one evaluates it as worth a maneh and two evaluate it at 200 zuz, or one evaluates it at 200 zuz and the other two evaluate it as worth a maneh, the assessor who offers the lone opinion is considered insignificant.
If one assessor evaluates it as worth a maneh, another at 80 zuz, and the third at 120, it is considered to be worth 100. If one says 100, the second 90, and the third 130, it is considered worth 110. This is our pattern of evaluation.
ידשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁיָּרְדוּ לָשׁוּם. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָאתַיִם אוֹ אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָאתַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים בְּמָנֶה. בָּטֵל יָחִיד בְּמִעוּטוֹ. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמָנֶה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בְּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר תִּשְׁעִים וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים נִדּוֹן בְּמֵאָה וַעֲשָׂרָה. וְעַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שָׁמִין בֵּינֵיהֶן:
When the court evaluated property belonging to a purchaser on behalf of a person who sought to expropriate it and erred - even if the error was concerning the smallest amount - the sale is nullified. The rationale is that since the court is considered to be an agent of the person expropriating the property and the purchaser, they have permission to expedite the matter, but not to impair anyone's position as is the law applying to an agent. All of the Halachic authorities ruled in that manner.
טובֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לַטּוֹרֵף בְּנִכְסֵי לוֹקֵחַ וְטָעוּ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא מִכְרָן בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי הֵן כְּשָׁלִיחַ לַטּוֹרֵף וְלַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן רְשׁוּת לְתַקֵּן אֲבָל לֹא לְעַוֵּת כְּשָׁלִיחַ. וְכָל הַמּוֹרִים כָּזֶה הוֹרוּ:
When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor -whether from property in the creditor's possession or property that was in the possession of a purchaser - and afterwards, the borrower, the person from whom the property was expropriated, or their heirs, acquires financial resources and pays the creditor his money, the creditor is removed from that landed property. For property that was evaluated and expropriated should always be returned to its owners, as mandated by Deuteronomy 6:18: "And you shall do what is just and good."
טזבֵּית דִּין שֶׁשָּׁמוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב בֵּין בְּנִכְסֵי לוֶֹה בֵּין בִּמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין שֶׁבְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וּלְאַחַר זְמַן הִשִּׂיגָה יָדוֹ שֶׁל לוֶֹה אוֹ שֶׁל נִטְרָף אוֹ שֶׁל יוֹרְשֵׁיהֶן וְהֵבִיאוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת מְעוֹתָיו מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מֵאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע. שֶׁהַשּׁוּמָא חוֹזֶרֶת לַבְּעָלִים לְעוֹלָם. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו יח) "וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר וְהַטּוֹב":
When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor and then evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor of that creditor, the original owner can redeem it. The legal power of the second creditor is no greater than that of the first.
When a creditor sold the property expropriated for him, gave it away as a present, gave it to his creditor voluntarily, or he died and the property was inherited, the original owner does not have the right to redeem it. If landed property was evaluated and expropriated for a woman and then she married, or property she owned was evaluated and expropriated from her and she married, her husband is considered to be a purchaser with regard to her property. He is not required to return it, nor must it be returned to him.
יזקַרְקַע שֶׁשָּׁמוּ אוֹתָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמוּהָ בֵּית דִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב שֶׁל זֶה הַמַּלְוֶה הֲרֵי זוֹ חוֹזֶרֶת. לֹא יְהֵא כֹּחוֹ גָּדוֹל מִכֹּחַ בַּעַל חוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן. מְכָרָהּ בַּעַל חוֹב אוֹ נְתָנָהּ בְּמַתָּנָה אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמָהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב מִדַּעְתּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּת וְהוֹרִישָׁהּ אֵינָהּ חוֹזֶרֶת. שָׁמוּ קַרְקַע לְאִשָּׁה וְנִשֵּׂאת אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמוּ מִמֶּנָּה וְנִשֵּׂאת בַּעַל בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּלוֹקֵחַ הוּא וְלֹא מַחְזִיר וְלֹא מַחֲזִירִין לוֹ:
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 23
Promissory notes that are predated are invalid, because they will be used to expropriate property from purchasers in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, our Sages penalized the lender, ruling that he may expropriate only property in the debtor's possession with a predated promissory note. This is a decree, enacted lest he expropriate property from the first, earlier, date.
אשִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמֻּקְדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי טוֹרֵף בָּהֶן לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְלֹא יִגְבֶּה בִּשְׁטָר מֻקְדָּם אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְרֹף בּוֹ מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ:
Postdated promissory notes are acceptable. For the legal power of the possessor of the promissory note has been diminished, for the lender can expropriate only property from the date of the promissory note. Even if the document does not state that it was postdated, it is acceptable.
בשִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף אֶלָּא מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתְבוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְאֻחָר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:
When a promissory note is written during the day and signed in the night that follows it, it is unacceptable, because it is predated. If, however, the borrower and the lender were involved in negotiating the matter until night fell and then they signed, it is acceptable, even when the kinyan was made at night.
גשְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֻקְדָּם. וְאִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִים בָּעִנְיָן עַד שֶׁנִּכְנַס הַלַּיְלָה וַחֲתָמוּהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר:
When a promissory note is dated on the Sabbath or on the tenth of Tishrei, we assume that it was postdated and that it is acceptable. We do not suspect that perhaps it is predated and that it was written on Sunday or on the eleventh of Tishrei. Instead, we accept the presumption that the promissory note is acceptable. The rationale is that it is known that legal documents are not composed on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was postdated.
דשְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרֵי שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר הוּא וְכָשֵׁר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מֻקְדָּם הוּא וּבְאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בְּי''א בְּתִשְׁרֵי נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מַעֲמִידִין הַשְּׁטָר עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּשַׁבָּת וּלְפִיכָךְ אִחֲרוּהוּ:
We may compose a promissory note for the borrower even though he is not accompanied by the lender. We do not, however, compose a promissory note for the lender unless he is accompanied by the borrower.
When does the above apply? With regard to a promissory note that was affirmed by a kinyan. For from the time the kinyan was carried out, the borrower's property was on lien. When, however, a promissory note was not affirmed by a kinyan, we do not compose the note even for the borrower, unless he is accompanied by the lender and he gives the note to the lender in our presence. The rationale is that we suspect that the borrower may have the document composed at this time so that he can take a loan in Nissan, but in fact the loan will not be given until Tishrei. Thus, the lender will be able to use this promissory note to expropriate property that was in the borrower's possession unlawfully from Nissan, although the promissory note did not enter his possession until Tishrei.
הכּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֶֹה עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן שֶׁהֲרֵי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסָיו. אֲבָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קִנְיָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֲפִלּוּ לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְיִתֵּן הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב עַתָּה לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא יִלְוֶה מִמֶּנּוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי וְנִמְצָא הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִנִּיסָן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי:
The following rules apply when witnesses performed a kinyan with the borrower, the seller, or another person involved in a business agreement, but the composition of the legal document was delayed extensively. If they remembered the date on which the kinyan was established, they should write the date of the kinyan in the legal document, even though it was not the date that they signed the legal document. It is not necessary for them to state in the document: "Our signatures were delayed until this-and-this date." If the witnesses do not know the date on which the kinyan was performed, they should date the legal document from the day on which it was composed.
Similarly, witnesses who observed a business transaction in one country and composed a legal document in another country should not record the place where they observed the testimony in the legal document. Instead, they should record the place where they signed the legal document.
ועֵדִים שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת הַשְּׁטָר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה אִם יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין בַּשְּׁטָר זְמַן הַקִּנְיָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן חֲתִימָתָן. וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת יָדֵינוּ עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לָהֶן הָעֵדוּת בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת וְכָתְבוּ הָעֵדִים בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת אֵין מַזְכִּירִין בַּשְּׁטָר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה בּוֹ הָעֵדוּת אֶלָּא מָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בּוֹ חֲתִימַת יָדָן:
When deeds of sale are not dated with the date of the transaction, even those that are postdated are not acceptable. The rationale is that the purchaser may use them to expropriate property in an unlawful manner.
What is implied? For example, the seller could have repurchased the field from the purchaser before the date of the postdated deed of sale. The purchaser could then produce the postdated deed of sale and say: "I returned and purchased it from you a second time." He could thus expropriate property from a purchaser unlawfully.
Why don't we harbor the same suspicions with regard to a postdated promissory note? It is possible that the borrower paid the lender before the date stated in the promissory note, the lender will write him a receipt, and then produce the promissory note and expropriate property unlawfully. We do not harbor such suspicions, because whenever a person composes a postdated promissory note, he can protect himself by having the receipt composed without a date. Thus, whenever the lender will produce the promissory note, the borrower can nullify it by producing this receipt. If the borrower did not do this and allowed the receipt to be composed dated the day when the debt was repaid, he caused himself a loss.
זשִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבוּ בִּזְמַנָּן אֲפִלּוּ הַמְאֻחָרִין פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לִטְרֹף בָּהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָזַר הַמּוֹכֵר וְקָנָה הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיֹאמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִמְּךָ וְנִמְצָא טוֹרֵף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. וְלָמָּה לֹא נָחוּשׁ כֵּן לִשְׁטַר חוֹב הַמְאֻחָר שֶׁמָּא יִפְרָעֶנּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר תַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַשּׁוֹבֵר סְתָם שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשְּׁטָר יִשְׁבֹּר אוֹתוֹ זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְכָתַב הַשּׁוֹבֵר בִּזְמַן הַפֵּרָעוֹן הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ:
When a person was compelled to sell his field against his will and issued a protest, or hurried and sold the field or gave it away to another person before he sold it to the person who compelled him to sell it, the money that the person who compelled him to sell it gave him is considered to be a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. He may not use that deed of sale to expropriate any property that had been sold by the seller to others. This law was stated, because this deed of sale should not have been written, and it was written only under compulsion. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
חמִי שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּאֹנֶס וּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא. אוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְאַחֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר לְאַנָּס. הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל אַנָּס אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטַר מֶכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דִּין שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וְלֹא נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
It is possible for a person to expropriate property without a legal document, merely on the basis of verbal testimony.
What is implied? If a person has witnesses who will testify that property was stolen from his father. He can expropriate the property on the basis of this testimony, although there is no legal document. Similarly, if witnesses testify that a judgment was concluded for his father to expropriate property from so-and-so, for this-and-this amount, at this-and-this time, and his father died without expropriating the property, the son may expropriate property on the basis of this testimony.
טאֶפְשָׁר לַטּוֹרֵף שֶׁיִּטְרֹף בְּלֹא שְׁטָר אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת עַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁזּוֹ גְּזוּלָה מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵין כָּאן שְׁטָר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִידוּ לוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמַר הַדִּין לְאָבִיו לִטְרֹף מִנִּכְסֵי פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵת אָבִיו וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָרַף הֲרֵי הַבֵּן טוֹרֵף בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ:
Therefore, we should never compose two deeds of sale for the same property, lest the purchaser perpetrate deception together with the creditor and expropriate property unlawfully.
What is implied? This person will expropriate this field from the purchaser based on testimony that his father had the right to expropriate it. The purchaser will then use one deed of sale that he possesses to expropriate property from people who purchased property after he did from the borrower who sold him the property. The court will tear up the deed of sale that the initial purchaser possesses.
For the sake of deception, the person who expropriated the field will allow the purchaser to take possession of it again. He will then expropriate it again on the basis of the testimony of his witnesses. The purchaser will then produce the second deed of sale and expropriate property from other purchasers unlawfully.
If so, what should a person who has lost his deed of sale to a property do if the witnesses to the sale are still alive? A second deed of sale should be composed, saying: "This deed of sale may not be used to expropriate property that has been sold, or property that is in the possession of the seller. We have composed it only to establish so-and-so, the purchaser, as the owner of the field, so that the seller or his heirs cannot expropriate it from him."
ילְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שִׁטְרוֹת מֶכֶר עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה הַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנוּנְיָא עִם בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. יָבוֹא זֶה וְיִטְרֹף שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו וְיַחְזֹר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיִטְרֹף בִּשְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלָּקְחוּ אַחֲרָיו וְיִקְרַע שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיַחְזֹר בִּקְנוּנְיָא וְיַעֲמֹד בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָבוֹא הוּא שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ בְּעַצְמָהּ וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בְּעֵדוּת עֵדָיו וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר הַשֵּׁנִי וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ לָקוֹחוֹת אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. אִם כֵּן מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד לוֹ שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר וְעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִכְתְּבוּ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי וְיֹאמְרוּ בּוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְלֹא כְּתַבְנוּהוּ אֶלָּא לְהַעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו:
This principle does not apply with regard to promissory notes. Even though the witnesses to the loan are alive and entered into a kinyan with the borrower, if the lender returns immediately and tells the witnesses: "The promissory note that you composed for me is now lost or was burnt," they should not compose a second promissory note for him. We suspect that the debt was paid or that he waived payment.
The above applies even if the loan was given for a period of time. The lender cannot collect any money on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, unless the borrower states: "The loan was never given." In that instance, he is established as a liar through their testimony, as will be explained.
יאבְּשִׁטְרֵי הַחוֹבוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְחָזַר בִּשְׁעָתוֹ וְאָמַר שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתַבְתֶּם לִי עַתָּה אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ אוֹ מְחָלוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁזֶּה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן בְּעֵדוּתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:
When a promissory note in a person's possession is worn and it is beginning to become effaced, the lender should have witnesses look at it. He should then come to the court, and the court will validate it. The witnesses who signed the promissory note itself, however, may not compose another promissory note on their own initiative, even when the promissory note was blotted out in their presence. Instead, they should go to the court, and the court will validate the promissory note.
יבמִי שֶׁבָּלָה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא הוֹלֵךְ לְהִמָּחֵק מַעֲמִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵם עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם. אֲבָל עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר עַצְמָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל בָּאִין לְבֵית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם:
How should this promissory note be validated? The court composes a new document that states: "We the court composed of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, saw how so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, produced a promissory note that was effaced in our presence. It was dated on this-and-this date. So-and-so, and so-and-so are his witnesses."
If they composed such a document and required the testimony of the witnesses, and their testimony was corroborated, the lender may collect the debt with this document that was composed for him. No further validation is required.
If the court did not compose such a document, if the debtor protests that the document is a forgery, the lender must also bring proof regarding the signatures of the original witnesses, so that their testimony will be validated.
יגכֵּיצַד מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר אַחֵר וְאוֹמְרִים אָנוּ בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוֹצִיא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שְׁטָר מָחוּק לְפָנֵינוּ וּזְמַנּוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְהֻזְקַקְנוּ לְעֵדוּתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים וְנִמְצֵאת מְכֻוֶּנֶת גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ לוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִיּוּם אַחֵר. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כֵן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עַד שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם עֵדוּתָן:
When a promissory note is torn, it is acceptable. If its wording is in the process of being rubbed out or muddled, as long as the form of the original letters are recognizable, it is acceptable.
If it is torn as the court tears a legal document, it is unacceptable. In which manner does the court tear a legal document? Both horizontally and vertically.
ידשְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁנִּתְקָרֵעַ כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִתְטַשְׁטֵשׁ אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר כָּשֵׁר. נִקְרָע קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב:
The following laws apply when a person repays a portion of a debt recorded in a promissory note. If the lender desires, he may exchange the original promissory note, and the court composes a new document for him for the remainder of the debt, with the lien beginning on the original date. The witnesses to the original promissory note may not take this initiative. If he desires, he may write the borrower a receipt.
טומִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ אִם רָצָה מַחְלִיף וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ בֵּית דִּין שְׁטָר אַחֵר בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן אֲבָל לֹא עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם רָצָה יִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר:
When a person comes to pay his debt, and the lender tells him: "I lost my promissory note," the lender should compose a receipt for him and then the borrower should pay the entire debt. The borrower may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who hides his promissory note and claims that it is lost.
If the borrower lodges a definite claim, saying: "The promissory note is in his possession. He just placed it in his pocket," my masters have ruled that the lender should take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note was lost. Afterwards, the borrower should pay the debt and a receipt should be composed.
טזהַבָּא לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אָבַד לִי הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתֹּב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר וְיִפְרַע כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַלּוֶֹה לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׁטָרוֹ וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁאָבַד. וְאִם טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר הַשְּׁטָר אֶצְלוֹ וְעַתָּה הִנִּיחוֹ בְּכִיסוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה הֶסֵּת שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפְרַע חוֹבוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר:
When a lender produces a promissory note for a maneh and asks that two promissory notes for 50 zuz be composed, we do not comply. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have the entire debt recorded in a single promissory note. For if he pays him a portion of the debt, the legal power of the promissory note will be impaired.
Conversely, if the lender produced two promissory notes, each one for 50 zuz, and asks that one promissory note for 100 be composed, we do not comply. Instead, we validate both of them individually. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have two promissory notes, so that the lender cannot compel him to pay the entire sum at one time.
יזמִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמָנֶה וְאָמַר עֲשׂוּ לִי מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים אֵין עוֹשִׂין שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת הַכּל בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד שֶׁאִם יִפְרָעֶנּוּ מִקְצָת נִמְצָא שְׁטָרוֹ פָּגוּם. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים וְאָמַר עֲשׂוּ לִי אוֹתָן בְּמֵאָה אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ אֶלָּא עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יָכֹף אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין בְּפַעַם אַחַת לִגְבּוֹת הַכּל:
When a lender produces a promissory note for 100 zuz and says: "Tear it up and compose another promissory note for 50," we do not heed his request. We fear that perhaps the borrower repaid the entire amount, and the lender wrote a receipt for him. If the lender authenticated the new promissory note for 50 zuz and the borrower produced the receipt, he would tell the borrower: "This is another promissory note."
יחהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמֵאָה וְאָמַר קְרָעוּהוּ וְכִתְבוּ לִי שְׁטָר אַחֵר בַּחֲמִשִּׁים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פָּרְעוּ הַכּל וְכָתַב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עַל שְׁטָר שֶׁל מֵאָה וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר וְיוֹצִיא קִיּוּם זֶה עַל שְׁטַר חֲמִשִּׁים וְיוֹצִיא הַלּוֶֹה הַשּׁוֹבֵר יֹאמַר לוֹ זֶה שְׁטָר אַחֵר הוּא:
Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 24
We have already explained that a promissory note concerning a loan that was affirmed by a kinyan may be composed for a borrower even when the lender is not together with him. Similarly, we compose a deed of sale for a seller even though the purchaser is not together with him. And we compose a receipt for a lender even though the borrower is not together with him. We compose a receipt for a woman even though her husband is not together with her, and a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife is not with him.
We do not compose legal documents for consecration and marriage, sharecropping agreements, business contracts, the choice of judges, the claims of the litigants, and any act of court without the consent of both principals. It is necessary to be careful about all the particulars of the composition of these documents, as is the case with regard to other legal documents.
אכְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁשְּׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתוֹ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ. וְכֵן כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבֵר לַמַּלְוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֶֹה עִמּוֹ וְשׁוֹבֵר לְאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעְלָהּ עִמָּהּ וְגֵט לְאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ. אֲבָל אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שִׁטְרֵי אֵרוּסִין וְנִשּׂוּאִין וְשִׁטְרֵי אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת וּשְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ שְׁטַר טַעֲנַת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְכָל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָאֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין לְהִזָּהֵר בְּתִקּוּנָן כִּשְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָרוֹת:
Who must pay the scribe's fee for the composition of these documents? With regard to promissory notes, the borrower must pay. With regard to deeds of sale, the purchaser must pay. The woman must pay the fee for the bill of divorce. The groom must pay the fee for documents for consecration and marriage. The recipient of the field, the sharecropper, or the worker must pay the fee for the composition of a contract. With regard to the document recording the choice of judges and the claims of litigants, both parties must share the fee.
בוּמִי נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַסּוֹפֵר. בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַלְוָאָה הַלּוֶֹה נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וּבְשִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר הַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן שָׂכָר. וְהָאִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת שְׂכַר הַגֵּט. וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר שְׁטַר הָאֵרוּסִין אוֹ הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְכֵן הָאָרִיס אוֹ הַשָּׂכִיר נוֹתֵן שְׂכַר הַשְּׁטָר. אֲבָל שְׁטַר בְּרֵרַת הַדַּיָּנִין אוֹ טַעֲנוֹת בַּעֲלֵי דִּינִין שְׁנֵיהֶם נוֹתְנִין שָׂכָר:
The following law applies both to legal documents composed for one of the parties when the other is not present, and legal documents that can be composed only when both consent and both are present - e.g., a promissory note written at the request of the lender, or a deed of sale written at the request of the purchaser. In all instances, the witnesses must recognize the identity of the individuals mentioned in the legal document, that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, and that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. This is necessary, lest two individuals come and try to perpetrate deceit, changing their names to the names of other people, and then acknowledge obligations to each other.
גאֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הַנִּכְתָּבִין לְאֶחָד שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ וְאֶחָד הַשְּׁטָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם וּשְׁנֵיהֶן עוֹמְדִין כְּגוֹן שְׁטָר שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לַלּוֹקֵחַ כֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הָעֵדִים מַכִּירִין הַשֵּׁמוֹת שׁבַּשְּׁטָר שֶׁזֶּה הוּא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי וְזֶהוּ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְיַעֲשׂוּ קְנוּנְיָא וִישַׁנּוּ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בְּשֵׁמוֹת אֲחֵרִים וְיוֹדוּ זֶה לָזֶה:
Whenever a person has established a name for 30 days in a city, we do not suspect that he has another name and has changed his name to perpetrate deceit. For if we would raise such suspicions, there would be no end to the matter.
Therefore, if a person who has not established his name in a city for 30 days comes and asks: "Write a promissory note for me that I am obligated to so-and-so" - or "... to this person for these and these many dinarim" we do not compose such a document for him unless he brings proof that this is his name, or he waits until his identity is established.
דכָּל מִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא שֵׁם אַחֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ וְהוּא שִׁנָּהוּ כְּדֵי לְרַמּוֹת וְלַעֲשׂוֹת קְנוּנְיָא שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שְׁמוֹ בָּעִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם וּבָא וְאָמַר כִּתְבוּ עָלַי שְׁטָר שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לִפְלוֹנִי אוֹ לָזֶה כָּךְ וְכָךְ דִּינָרִין. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁזֶּה שְׁמוֹ אוֹ יֻחְזַק:
The following laws apply when there is a dispute with regard to any promissory note produced before us. For example, the borrower claims: "I do not owe anything. Maybe a charlatan pretended that his name was my name and acknowledged owing money to this person." Or he might claim: "I do not owe anything to this person, but rather to another person. This plaintiff is a charlatan in claiming that his name is the same as the name of the person to whom I owe." Since it has not been established that there are two people in that city with the same name, we pay no attention to his claim. For it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know the identity of the people mentioned within it.
Similarly, it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know with certainty that the persons making the statements concerning themselves are adults and mentally competent. And witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know how to read and sign their names.
הכָּל שְׁטָר שֶׁיָּצָא לְפָנֵינוּ וְיִטְעֹן הַלּוֶֹה וְיֹאמַר אֵינִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם שֶׁמָּא רַמַּאי אַחֵר הֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כִּשְׁמִי וְהוֹדָה לָזֶה אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר לֹא לָזֶה אֲנִי חַיָּב כְּלוּם אֶלָּא לְאַחֵר וְזֶה רַמַּאי הוּא וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁמוֹ כְּשֵׁם בַּעַל חוֹבִי. מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הֻחְזַק שָׁם שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִדְבָרָיו שֶׁחֲזָקָה הוּא שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכִּירִין אֵלּוּ הַנִּזְכָּרִים בּוֹ. וְכֵן חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נוֹדַע לָהֶם בְּוַדַּאי שָׁאֵלוּ שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עַל עַצְמָן גְּדוֹלִים וּבְנֵי דַּעַת. וְאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יוֹדְעִים לִקְרוֹת וְלַחְתֹּם:
When witnesses do not know how to sign their names, and the names of the witnesses were cut out from a blank paper and placed over the legal document, and then the witnesses "signed" with this script, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct, and the promissory note is unacceptable.
ועֵדִים שֶׁאֵין יוֹדְעִין לַחְתֹּם וְקָרְעוּ לָהֶן נְיָר חָלָק וְחָתְמוּ עַל הָרָשׁוּם מַכִּין אוֹתָן מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְהַשְּׁטָר פָּסוּל:
When the head of a court of law knows about the general circumstances described in a legal document, he may sign it even though he does not read it himself, but instead, it was read to him by one of his scribes. The rationale is that the head of the court trusts the scribe, and the scribe is afraid. No other person can do this. A witness may not sign a legal document until he reads it word for word.
זרֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ עִנְיַן הַשְּׁטָר וְקָרָא הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּפָנָיו הַסּוֹפֵר שֶׁלּוֹ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא מַאֲמִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵימָתוֹ עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹתֵם עַל הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאָהוּ הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ. וְאֵין שְׁאָר הָעָם רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא הָעֵד הַשְּׁטָר מִלָּה מִלָּה:
The following laws apply when there are two people in a city, each named Yosef, the son of Shimon. Neither of them can demand payment from the other on the basis of a promissory note that he produces, nor can a third party demand payment from either of them on the basis of a promissory note that he produces unless the witnesses who signed the promissory note come themselves and testify: "This is the promissory note concerning which we testified, and this is the person concerning whom we testified regarding the loan."
Similarly, such individuals cannot divorce their wives unless they do so in the presence of the other individual with the same name. Similarly, if a person finds a receipt among his legal documents saying, "The promissory note concerning the debt owed to Yosef, the son of Shimon, has been paid," the debts recorded in the promissory notes this person owes to both of these individuals with the same name are considered to be paid.
What should people whose names and the names of their parents are alike do to enable them to compose valid legal documents? They should write the third generation as identification in the legal document. If the names of their grandparents are the same, they should write a sign. If the signs also looked alike, they should write their family lineage. If they were both priests or both Levites, they should write further generations.
חשְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בָּעִיר שֵׁם כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן בָּאוּ עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר בְּעַצְמָן וְאָמְרוּ זֶהוּ הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ עָלָיו וְזֶהוּ שֶׁהֵעַדְנוּ לוֹ בְּהַלְוָאָה. וְכֵן אֵין מְגָרְשִׁין נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אֶלָּא זֶה בִּפְנֵי זֶה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שׁוֹבֵר שֶׁשְּׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ שִׁטְרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן שֶׁעָלָיו פְּרוּעִין. וְכֵיצַד יַעֲשׂוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁשְּׁמוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין וּשְׁמוֹת אֲבִיהֶן שָׁוִין. יְשַׁלְּשׁוּ. הָיוּ שְׁמוֹת אֲבוֹת אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן שָׁוִין יִכְתְּבוּ סִימָנֵיהֶן. הָיוּ דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה בְּצוּרָתָן יִכְתְּבוּ יִחוּסָן. הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם לְוִיִּם שְׁנֵיהֶם כֹּהֲנִים יִכְתְּבוּ דּוֹרוֹת:
The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague that states: "I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, borrowed a maneh from you." Although the name of the lender is not mentioned in the promissory note, any person who produces this promissory note from his possession can expropriate payment with it. The borrower cannot rebuff the plaintiff by saying that the promissory note belonged to another person from whom it fell.
Similarly, when there are two people named Yosef, the son of Shimon, dwelling in the same city and one of them produces a promissory note against one of the inhabitants of the city, the defendant cannot rebuff him by saying: "I am obligated to so-and-so whose name is the same as yours and this promissory note fell from him." Instead, the person who produced the promissory note may use it to collect the debt. We do not suspect that the promissory note fell.
טהוֹצִיא עָלָיו שְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ אֲנִי פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי לָוִיתִי מִמְּךָ מָנֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם הַמַּלְוֶה כָּל מִי שֶׁיָּצָא שְׁטָר זֶה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר שֶׁל אַחֵר הוּא וְנָפַל. וְכֵן שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הַדָּרִין בְּעִיר אַחַת שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶחָד מֵהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל אֶחָד מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִדְחוֹתוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא כְּשִׁמְךָ אֲנִי חַיָּב וּמִמֶּנּוּ נָפַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ גּוֹבֶה וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִנְפִילָה:
The following laws apply when two persons produce promissory notes against each other. The latter cannot tell the first: "If I owed you money, why would you borrow from me?" Instead, each one is entitled to collect the debt mentioned in his promissory note.
If both of the promissory notes were for 100 zuz, both of the principals possessed property of equivalent value, be it property of superior quality, property of intermediate quality, or property of inferior quality, we do not attend to them. Instead, each person remains with what he possesses. If one possesses property of superior quality and property of intermediate quality, and the other only property of inferior quality, the one should expropriate the property of intermediate quality, and the other should expropriate the property of inferior quality.
ישְׁנַיִם שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ כָּל אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ אֵין הָאַחֲרוֹן יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָרִאשׁוֹן אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה לוֶֹה מִמֶּנִּי אֶלָּא זֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ. הָיָה זֶה בְּמֵאָה וְזֶה בְּמֵאָה וְיֵשׁ לָזֶה עִידִית וְלָזֶה עִידִית אוֹ לָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה בֵּינוֹנִית לָזֶה זִבּוּרִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית אֵין נִזְקָקִין לָהֶן אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עוֹמֵד בְּשֶׁלּוֹ. הָיָה לָזֶה עִידִית וּבֵינוֹנִית וְלָזֶה זִבּוּרִית זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַבֵּינוֹנִית וְזֶה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית:
The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague and that person produces a deed of sale, stating that the alleged lender sold him a field. If they are in a place where the purchaser pays the money, and afterwards the seller writes the deed of sale, the promissory note is invalidated. The rationale is that the borrower will tell the alleged lender: "If I was indebted to you, you should have used the money to pay the debt."
In a place where the deed of sale is composed and then the money is paid, however, the promissory note is viable. For the alleged lender can claim: "I sold you the field so that you would have known property from which I could collect my debt if you claimed bankruptcy."
יאהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהַלָּה מוֹצִיא שְׁטָר שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה אִם הָיוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ הַמָּעוֹת וְאַחַר כָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בָּטֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי אוֹמֵר לוֹ אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי חַיָּב לְךָ הָיָה לְךָ לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבְךָ. אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין הֲרֵי שְׁטַר הַחוֹב קַיָּם שֶׁהֲרֵי זֶה אוֹמֵר מָכַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לְךָ נְכָסִים יְדוּעִים שֶׁאֶגְבֶּה מֵהֶן חוֹב שֶׁלִּי:
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 22
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 23
Quiz Yourself on Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 24
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.