## Bava Batra Daf 171b

###### Bava Batra 171b:1
[Bava Batra 171b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:1)

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר מְאוּחָר בְּעָלְמָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The two Sages **disagree only with regard to** a case of **a postdated** promissory **note in general,** i.e., one in which the fact that it is postdated is not readily discernible from the dating of the document, as opposed to one dated on Shabbat or Yom Kippur.


###### Bava Batra 171b:2
[Bava Batra 171b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:2)

דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְלָא נָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ חוּרְבָּא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Yehuda** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as he says:** One does **not write a receipt** for a debtor when he pays his debt; rather, the original document is torn, and in the case of partial repayment a new document is written, attesting to the balance due. **And** consequently, **no harm can emerge from** a postdated document. There is no concern that the date on the postdated document may have been recorded after the writing of a receipt.


###### Bava Batra 171b:3
[Bava Batra 171b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:3)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, וְנָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ חוּרְבָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yosei** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as he says:** One **writes a receipt** for a debtor when he pays his debt, in lieu of tearing the promissory note. **And** consequently, **harm can emerge from** a postdated promissory note. Harm can occur in a case such as the following: The loan was given on the first of Nisan. The debt was paid on the following day and, rather than tearing the promissory note, a receipt was written and dated on the second of Nisan. If the original note had been postdated to the third of Nisan or thereafter, the creditor could use it to collect his debt a second time, arguing that the debtor’s receipt is irrelevant, as its date is prior to the date in the promissory note.


###### Bava Batra 171b:4
[Bava Batra 171b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:4)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, הָנֵי מִילֵּי אַפַּלְגָא, אֲבָל אַכּוּלֵּיהּ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Even according to the one who says** that one **writes a receipt** for the debtor when he pays, in lieu of tearing the promissory note, **this statement** applies only **with regard to** a case where the debtor pays **half,** i.e., a portion, of the debt. **But with regard to** a case where the debtor comes to repay **all of** the debt and the creditor has lost the promissory note and cannot tear it, all agree that one does **not** write a receipt. Rather, the debtor will not be required to repay the loan unless the creditor can produce the promissory note.


###### Bava Batra 171b:5
[Bava Batra 171b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:5)

וְלָא הִיא, אֲפִילּוּ אַכּוּלֵּיהּ כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this opinion: **But it is not so; we write** a receipt **even in** a case where the debtor pays **all of** the debt.


###### Bava Batra 171b:6
[Bava Batra 171b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:6)

כִּי הָא דְּרַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה מַסֵּיק בֵּיהּ זוּזִי בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי זוּזַיי״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״הַב לִי שְׁטָרַאי, וּשְׁקוֹל זוּזָךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״שְׁטָרָךְ אִירְכַס לִי, אֶכְתּוֹב לָךְ תְּבָרָא״. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״הָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר!״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proves its assertion: This is **like that** case **where Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef was owed money by Rabbi Abba.** Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef **came before Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi,** and **said to** Rabbi Abba: **Give me my money.** Rabbi Abba **said to him:** First **give me my** promissory **note, and** then **take your money.** Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef **said to him: I lost your** promissory **note;** instead, **I will write a receipt for you.** Rabbi Abba **said to him: Isn’t** there the opinion of **Rav and Shmuel, who both say** that the *halakha* is that one does **not write a receipt?**


###### Bava Batra 171b:7
[Bava Batra 171b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:7)

אֲמַר: ״מַאן יָהֵיב לַן מֵעַפְרֵיהּ דְּרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, רָמִינַן בְּעַיְינִין; הָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappi, the judge, thereupon **said: Who will give us** some **of the dust of Rav and Shmuel,** and **I will place it on my eyes,** so highly do I regard them. Nevertheless, **isn’t** there the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, who both say** that one **writes a receipt?**


###### Bava Batra 171b:8
[Bava Batra 171b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:8)

וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And similarly, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Ilai says:** The *halakha* is that one **writes a receipt.**


###### Bava Batra 171b:9
[Bava Batra 171b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:9)

וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּכוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּא אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר, אָבַד שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – יֹאכַל הַלָּה וְחָדֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And it stands to reason that** one **writes a receipt. As, if** it would **enter your mind that** one does **not write a receipt,** then **if the** promissory **note of this** creditor **is lost, should this** debtor **eat and rejoice?** Is it fair that he should keep money that he knows he owes the creditor?


###### Bava Batra 171b:10
[Bava Batra 171b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:10)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאֶלָּא מַאי, כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר?! אָבַד שׁוֹבָרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – יֹאכַל הַלָּה וְחָדֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִין, ״עֶבֶד לֹוֶה לְאִישׁ מַלְוֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye objects to this** line of reasoning: **Rather, what** should the *halakha* be, that one **writes a receipt** when the creditor cannot find the promissory note? If **the receipt of** the debtor **is lost, should this** creditor **eat and rejoice?** Once the debtor has lost his receipt, there is nothing to prevent the creditor from collecting the debt a second time. This, too, is unfair. In either case, whether a receipt is written or not, an injustice could result. Why should it be preferred that the potential of suffering an injustice should be borne by the debtor rather than the creditor? **Rava said to** Abaye: **Yes,** it is preferable, because, as it is written: **“The borrower is a servant to the lender”** (Proverbs 22:7). The debtor’s interests are subordinated to those of the creditor.


###### Bava Batra 171b:11
[Bava Batra 171b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:11)

תְּנַן הָתָם: שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמּוּקְדָּמִין – פְּסוּלִין, וְהַמְאוּחָרִין – כְּשֵׁרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Shevi’it* 10:5): **Promissory notes that are antedated are not valid, but** those **that are postdated are valid.**


###### Bava Batra 171b:12
[Bava Batra 171b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:12)

אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה, אֲבָל שְׁטָרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר – אֲפִילּוּ מְאוּחָרִין נָמֵי פְּסוּלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? זִימְנִין דִּמְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ אַרְעָא בְּנִיסָן וְכָתֵיב לֵיהּ בְּתִשְׁרִי, וּמִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי וְזָבֵין לַיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, וְכִי מָטֵי תִּשְׁרִי – מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: הֲדַר זְבֵנְתַּהּ מִינָּךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** with regard to **promissory notes, but** with regard to **deeds of buying and selling** property, **even postdated** documents **are not valid. What is the reason** for this stringency in the case of bills of sale? If postdated documents were allowed, there could be **times that** the seller **sells land to** the purchaser **in** the month of **Nisan** of a particular year **and writes** a postdated deed **for him** stating that the sale took place **in** the following **Tishrei, and** some **money happens to** reach the seller **between** Nisan and Tishrei **and he purchases** the land back **from** the purchaser. **And** then, **when Tishrei arrives,** the purchaser **takes out** the original bill of sale **and says to** the seller: It is true that you purchased the field from me, but **I then purchased it from you** again now, in Tishrei, as stated in this document.


###### Bava Batra 171b:13
[Bava Batra 171b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:13)

אִי הָכִי, שְׁטָרֵי הַלְוָאָה נָמֵי – זִמְנִין דְּיָזֵיף בְּנִיסָן וּכְתִיב לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא בְּתִשְׁרִי; וּמִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ זוּזֵי בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי וּפָרַע לֵיהּ, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי שְׁטָרַאי, וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: אִירְכַס לִי, וְכָתֵיב לֵיהּ תְּבָרָא; וְכִי מָטֵי זִמְנֵיהּ, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דִּיזַפְתְּ מִינַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** a similar scenario could occur with **promissory notes as well:** There could be **times that one borrows** money **in Nisan and writes** a promissory **note for** the creditor stating that the loan took place **in** the following **Tishrei, and** some **money happens to** reach the debtor **between** Nisan and Tishrei **and he repays** his debt **to** the creditor early **and says to him: Give me my** promissory **note. And** the creditor **says to him: I lost** it, **and he writes him a receipt** instead. **And** then, **when the time** written in the note **arrives,** the creditor **takes out** the supposedly lost promissory note **and says to** the debtor: It is true that you repaid me previously, but **it is now,** after you repaid that loan, **that you borrowed from me these** dinars recorded in this document, which is dated in Tishrei.


###### Bava Batra 171b:14
[Bava Batra 171b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:14)

קָסָבַר: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna **holds that** one does **not write a receipt,** so that scenario cannot occur. Like Rabbi Yehuda, Rav Hamnuna maintains that if a creditor loses his promissory note the debtor does not have to repay the loan. Rabbi Yosei, who does allow the creditor to collect his debt in such a case and write a receipt for the debtor, is concerned about that scenario, and consequently he holds that postdated promissory notes are not valid.


###### Bava Batra 171b:15
[Bava Batra 171b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא דְּכָתְבִינַן שְׁטָרֵי מְאוּחָרֵי וְכָתְבִינַן תְּבָרָא, אַמַּאי קָעָבְדִינַן הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ שְׁטָרֵ[י] מְאוּחָרֵי, כְּתֻבוּ הָכִי: ״שְׁטָרָא דְּנַן לָא בְּזִמְנֵיהּ כְּתַבְנֵיהּ, אֶלָּא אַחַרְנוֹהִי וּכְתַבְנוֹהִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yeimar said to Rav Kahana, and some say** it was **Rav Yirmeya of Difti** who said this **to Rav Kahana: And today, when we write postdated** promissory **notes, and we** also **write a receipt** in cases where the creditor loses his promissory note, **why do we do this?** The combination of allowing postdated promissory notes and allowing the writing of a receipt instead of producing the promissory note would enable double collection of the loan to take place. Rav Kahana **said to him:** The problem was rectified **after Rabbi Abba told his** court **scribe: When you write postdated** promissory **notes, write as follows: We did not write this document on its date,** i.e., on the date written within the document; **rather, we postdated it and wrote it.** Since it is clear from the text of the document that it was postdated, double collection of the loan is avoided.


###### Bava Batra 171b:16
[Bava Batra 171b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: וְהָאִידָּנָא – דְּלָא קָא עָבְדִינַן הָכִי? בָּתַר דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סָפְרָא לְסָפְרֵיהּ: כִּי כָּתְבִיתוּ הָנֵי תְּבָרֵי; אִי יָדְעִיתוּ זִימְנָא דִשְׁטָרָא – כְּתֻבוּ, אִי לָא – כְּתֻבוּ סְתָמָא, דְּכׇל אֵימַת דְּנָפֵיק – לַרְעֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But** what about **today, when we do not do this,** i.e., we do not follow Rabbi Abba’s instructions? How do we avoid double collection of the loan? Rav Kahana replied: The problem was rectified **after Rav Safra said to his** court **scribe: When you write these receipts** for debtors who pay debts without the original promissory note being torn, **if you know the date** written **in the** missing promissory **note, write** it into the receipt. But **if** you do **not** know the date written in the promissory note, **write** the receipt **without specification,** i.e., do not write any date at all in the receipt, so **that whenever** the creditor **produces** the promissory note, the undated receipt **can weaken it,** i.e., exempt the debtor from payment.


###### Bava Batra 171b:17
[Bava Batra 171b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/171b:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi, and some say** it was **Rav Ashi** who said **to Rav Kahana:**