## Bava Batra Daf 170b

###### Bava Batra 170b:1
[Bava Batra 170b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/170b:1)

אָמַר אֶלָּא לְבָרֵר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא נָמֵי – לְבָרֵר קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**say** that the litigant loses the case if he cannot produce verification of his extraneous claims, but **only** that he is told **to verify** those claims if he can. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa **said to** Rabbi Abba: **I, too, am saying** only that you are required **to verify** your claim if you can; if you cannot, you will not be required to pay.


###### Bava Batra 170b:2
[Bava Batra 170b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/170b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יַחְלִיף, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: יִכְתּוֹב שׁוֹבָר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נִמְצָא זֶה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹמֵר שׁוֹבָרוֹ מִן הָעַכְבָּרִים! אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כָּךְ יָפֶה לוֹ, וְלֹא יֵרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of a debtor **who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says:** The creditor **should exchange** the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he **should write a receipt** for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note. **Rabbi Yehuda said** with regard to this arrangement: It is **found** that **this** debtor **must** now **guard his receipt against** being destroyed by **mice,** as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note. **Rabbi Yosei said to him: This** situation is **fitting for him;** it is better that this procedure be followed, **and the strength of** the claim of **this** creditor **not be weakened.**


###### Bava Batra 170b:3
[Bava Batra 170b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/170b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אֵין הֲלָכָה לֹא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלֹא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; אֶלָּא בֵּית דִּין מְקָרְעִין הַשְּׁטָר, וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** The ***halakha*** is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, nor** is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei. Rather,** the *halakha* is that **the court tears up the** original promissory **note and writes a different** promissory **note for** the creditor, listing the new sum owed, dated **from the time** of the **first** document.


###### Bava Batra 170b:4
[Bava Batra 170b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/170b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: אִי שְׁמִיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַב הָא [בָּרַיְיתָא] דְּתַנְיָא: עֵדִים מְקָרְעִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר, וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן – הֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said to Rav Huna, and some say** it was **Rav Yirmeya bar Abba** who said this **to Rav Huna: If Rav would have heard this** following ***baraita*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that according to Rabbi Yehuda the proper procedure is that the **witnesses tear the** original promissory **note and write another** promissory **note for** the creditor listing the new sum owed, dated **from the time** of the **first** document, **he would have retracted** his statement that the court tears the promissory note and writes a new one.


###### Bava Batra 170b:5
[Bava Batra 170b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/170b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְלָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to him:** Rav **heard** the *baraita*, **and** nevertheless **he did not retract** his statement. While Rabbi Yehuda says in the *baraita* that the witnesses write a new promissory note, Rav maintains that this must be done specifically by a court. Why is this?