## Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra Chapter 10

###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:1)

**משנה:** גֵּט פָּשׁוּט עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ וּמְקוּשָּׁר עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וּמְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ כָּשֵׁר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ פָשׁוּט. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The witnesses to an simple document¹ sign inside, to a knotted² 10:1), the document was written with wide spaces between the lines, then was folded and sewn so that the document text was hidden and a witness signed the fold on the back. The number of witnesses must equal the number of folds. But the text below indicates that the text was written before it was folded and sealed. A valid document must be folded at least three times.
The basic use for “knotted” documents was for real estate transactions, probably to hide the financial data from public knowledge. Such a document was certainly impossible in Egypt, where all real estate transactions had to be filed with the State registrar. Its validity in rabbinic tradition is given a biblical basis. It seems from the discussion in Babli *Bava batra* 10 that the use of “knotted” documents among Jews was mainly a Palestinian peculiarity (such documents have been found in the Judean desert.) In fact, it was a typically Greek form of document (cf. S. Lieberman, יװנית ויװנות בארץ ישראל Jerusalem 1962, p. 20 ff.) one on its back. A simple document whose witnesses signed on its back³ and a knotted one whose witnesses signed on its interior both are invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, a knotted one whose witnesses signed inside⁴ is valid since one can turn it into a simple one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, everything follows local custom.

footnotes:
¹ A normal document whose witnesses sign below the text.
² A knotted document is signed on the verso, between the folds. According to Rashbam (Commentary to Bava batra
³ In order to eliminate fraud, witnesses on an open document must start to sign below the text, leaving exactly one line free.
⁴ Following the rules of open documents.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:2)

**הלכה:** גֵּט פָּשׁוּט עֵידָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ כול׳. וּמְנַיִין לְגֵט הַמְקוּשָּׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִימִּי. וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה. וְאֶת הֶחָתוּם. זֶה הַמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי. זֶה הַפָּשׁוּט שֶׁבַּמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת הַחֻקִּים. שֶׁבֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה בִשְׁנַיִם וְזֶה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה מִתּוֹכוֹ וְזֶה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The witnesses to an open document are inside,” etc. ⁵ 8:12, Notes 107–112. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed⁶ 32:11: “I took the document of acquisition, the sealed one, the orders and rules, and the public one.” The verse clearly states that a sealed document is the main object, accompanied by a public document. The same argument is stated in the Babli, 160b.”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted⁷. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two [witnesses], the other with three⁸; one in it, the other on its back⁹.

footnotes:
⁵ A similar text is in Giṭṭin
⁶ Jer.
⁷ The text of the document, whose formulation is identical whether sealed or public.
⁸ A public document needs two witnesses, a sealed (knotted) one at least three.
⁹ A simple document is signed by the witnesses on the recto of the sheet, starting exactly one line after the end of the text. A knotted document is signed on the verso, between the folds.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:3)

וְרַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָמְרִין. וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה. זֶה הַפָּשׁוּט. וְאֶת הֶחָתוּם. זֶה הַמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי. זֶה הַפָּשׁוּט שֶׁבַּמְקוּשָּׁר. וְאֶת הַמִּצְוָה וְאֶת הַחֻקִּים. שֶׁבֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה בִשְׁנַיִם וְזֶה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְזֶה מִתּוֹכוֹ וְזֶה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
But the rabbis of Caesarea say, “I took the sale document”, that is the simple one. “And the sealed”, that is the knotted [document]. “And the open,” that is the simple, part of the knotted. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two [witnesses], the other with three; one in it, the other on its back.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:4)

רִבִּי אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הִלְכַת מְקוּשָּׁר כָּךְ הוּא. כּוֹתֵב שֵׁם הַמַּלְוֶה וְשֵׁם הַלּוֹוֶה וְשֵם הָעֵדִים וּזְמַן. וּמְקַשְּׁרוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְכוֹתֵב כֵּן מִלְּמַטָּה. חָשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא זִיֵּיף. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעַדִים חוֹתְמִין מִלְּמַטָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְלוֹנִי מְקוּבָּל עָלַי כָּל הַכָּתוּב לְמַעֲלָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah. The practice for a knotted one is the following. One writes the lender’s name, and the borrower’s name, the witnesses’ names, and the time. Then one knots it and repeats the text below¹⁰. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies¹¹? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

footnotes:
¹⁰ In fact, one folds the document and writes the main text a second time on the outside, followed by the witnesses’ signatures, and ties the document. The document is valid only if the texts inside and outside coincide and the names of the witnesses are confirmed by the inside text.
¹¹ How can the witnesses be sure that the writer of the document will not falsify the document after they affixed their signatures? For a simple document there is no problem since anything following the signatures has to be disregarded. For a sealed document with signatures at a right angle there is no problem since any text not covered by the signatures at the back has to be disregarded. But if the signatures are affixed while the document is being written, where are the guarantees?


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:5)

רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. צְרִיכִין הָעֵדִים לִהְיוֹת רְחוֹקִים מִן הַכְּתָב מְקוֹם שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִּין. רִבִּי אִידִי בְשֵׁם רַב יִרְמְיָה. מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו לְאָרְכּוֹ. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתְבוּ עֵדָיו לְרָחְבּוֹ. אָהֵן מִלְּגֵיו וְאָהֵן מִלְּבַּר. אֵיכִי עֲבִיד. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. כֵּיצַד הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין בַּגֵּט הַמְקוּשָּׁר. אָמַר רַב חוּנָה. בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לַקֶּשֶׁר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בֵּין עֵדִים לַשְּׁטָר מְקוֹם ב̇ שִׁיטִּין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The signatures of the witnesses must be two blank lines away from the text¹³ be two empty lines away from the text.
All talmudic sources require that on a simple document there be *exactly* one line between the concluding formula of a document and the witnesses’ signatures. This is Hellenistic practice, cf. Taubenschlag (*loc. cit. Bava meṣia‘* 1, Note 84) p. 36.. Rebbi Idi in the name of Rav Jeremiah: On a knotted document the witnesses sign lengthwise¹⁴; on a simple document the witnesses sign across¹⁵. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rebbi Mana said, [ ]¹⁶ 9:8 (Note 108): “R. Mana said, if he started at the end of the second line and ended at the fourth line, it is valid.” If the first witness starts to sign towards the end of the second line after the text and the second witness then finishes on the fourth line, the document is valid since exactly one line is empty after the final clause; the document cannot be falsified by additions.. How do the witnesses sign on a knotted document? Rav Huna said, between two knots¹⁷. Rebbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines¹⁸.

footnotes:
¹³ The following discussion shows that one must read: “The signatures of the witnesses may not
¹⁴ He follows up on his earlier statement that the names of the witnesses must be mentioned in the text of the document. Then the document is folded after completion and the witnesses sign lengthwise on the outside.
¹⁵ Below the text, as explained later in the following.
¹⁶ R. Mana’s statement is missing. It is found in Giṭṭin
¹⁷ Since before opening the document one must verify that it has the required number of signatures, it must be folded in such a way that the signatures can be read when it is still tied.
¹⁸ Cf. Note 13.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:6)

שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חָלָק מְקוֹם שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִּין לְעִנְיָין אֶחָד אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה כֵן. עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָונִי. וְעִבְרִי גַּבֵּי יְוָונִי לֹא בְעִינן אֶחָד הוּא. כַּמָּה יְהוּ הָעֵדִים רְחוֹקִים מִן הַכְּתָב. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ מַקְרִים עִמּוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. מְלֹא שִׁיטָּה. רִבִּי דּוֹסִתַּא בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מְלֹא חֲתִימַת יְדֵי הָעֵדִים. רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב אָמַר. מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ עַד כְּדֵי לך ולך. בְּאֵי זֶה כְתַב מְשַׁעֲרִין אוֹתוֹ. רִבִי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שׁוּבְתַּי. מְלֹא חֲתִימַת יְדֵי הָעֵדִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁹ 9:8, Notes 105–115. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An empty space of two lines in a text about one subject in any case [invalidates]²⁰. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so²¹ 9:8, explained there Note 102.: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? ²² 7:11–12.“How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it²³, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one full line. Rebbi Dositheos ben Jehudah says, the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.” Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: One estimates לך ולך²⁴. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.

footnotes:
¹⁹ This essentially is a text from Giṭṭin
²⁰ Since text may be inserted in the document after the witnesses signed.
²¹ Mishnah Giṭṭin
²² Tosephta Giṭṭin
²³ The signatures can be read with a text if the first signature be exactly one line away from the text.
²⁴ The line must accomodate letters extending both above and below the usual writing space; Babli 163a.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:7)

חִזְקִיָה אָמַר. וּבִלְבַד לְקוּלָּא. שֶׁאִם הָיָה חוֹתָם יְדֵי הָעֵדִים דַּק וְהַכְּתָב גַּס הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַגַּס. חוֹתָם יְדֵי הָעֵדִים גַּס וְהַכְּתָב דַּק הוֹלְכִין אַחַר הַדַּק. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק אִין הֲוָה כְגוֹן יוֹסֵי בֶּן יַנַּאי מְשַׁעֲרִין כְּדֵי מֶלֶךְ וּבֶן מֶלֶךְ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency²⁵. If the witnesses’ handwriting was small and the text large, one follows the large. If the witnesses’ handwriting was large and the text small, one follows the small²⁶. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh²⁷ it is the answer to a question by R. Jeremiah. The statement is that יוסי נ׳ ינאי will get as much space above and below as מלך בן מלך..

footnotes:
²⁵ The larger of the handwritings of the scribe and the first witness is the measure of the width of “one line” in the Tosephta; Babli 162b.
²⁶ For practical purposes, the scribe prepares lines on parchment or papyrus before writing the document; his lines determine everything.
²⁷ This is a repetition of the argument of Note 23; in Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:8)

רִבִּי אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. צָרִיךְ לְהַרְחִיק מִן הַמַּחַק מְקוֹם שְׁתֵּי שִׁיטִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. וְאֲפִילוּ פָשׁוּט. רַב אָמַר. מַחַק אוֹ תְלוּת שֶׁבִּכְתָב הַזֶּה זֶהוּ קִיּוּמוֹ. רַב אָמַר. זֶהוּ קִיּוּמוֹ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חֲקוּלָא. כָּל מַה שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לִתְלוֹת בְּמַחַק תְּלֵה. מָהוּ כָּל מַה שֶׁאַתְּ יָכוֹל לִתְלוֹת בְּמַחַק תְּלֵה. רִבִּי יָסָא קוֹצֵירָה חַתְנֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. סִמְפוֹן כָּתוּב מִלְּעֵיל וְסִימְפוֹן מְחִיק מִלְּרַע. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. גָּמְּרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹתָן קִידּוּשִׁין גְּמוּרִין. בְּגִין דְלָא מֵיצָר בֵּינֵיה גֵט מָחְקֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנִן חָשְׁשִׁין דְּלָא מֵיצָר בֵּינֵיה גֵט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One has to expand two lines from an erasure²⁸. Rebbi Isaac said, even for a simple document²⁹. Rav said, an erasure or an insertion must be confirmed in writing³⁰. Rav said, “this is its confirmation”³¹. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Isaac ben Haqula: Any erasure has to be given a maximal interpretation. What means, any erasure has to be given a maximal interpretation? Rebbi Yasa the fuller, son-in-law to Rebbi Yose, in the name of Rebbi Yose: “Contract”³² 7:6, Notes 133–139. The name of “contract”, τὸ σύμφωνον, is given to the contract stating a conditional preliminary marriage. If the groom satisfies the condition within a certain time frame, the preliminary marriage is valid from the moment of signing the contract. If he fails to satisfy the condition in the pre-established time frame, the woman is not preliminarily married and may marry any other man. is written on top, “contract” erased below. I am saying, they decided to make it an unconditional preliminary marriage. They erased it in order not to make an insertion in the document³³ in the final summary, which automatically made the *symphon* clause unenforceable, instead of inserting between the lines a note annulling the *symphon* clause., because the rabbis are suspicious of insertions in documents³⁴.

footnotes:
²⁸ After an erasure, the text has to continue for at least another two lines.
²⁹ Even for a simple document, the text has to continue for two lines since the last line simply contains the formula stating the validity of the preceding text, which cannot serve as a confirmation.
³⁰ Both an erasure and an insertion by writing between lines must be referred to in the continuing text.
³¹ Rav prescribes the formula: “this is confirmation of [erasure/insertion] x”. The same is required in the Babli, 161b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.
³² Cf. Giṭṭin
³³ Since they already had formulated all the financial terms of the marriage, they preferred to erase the mention of symphon
³⁴ The insertion would have required another lengthening of the document by a text confirming the insertion.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:9)

שְׁטָר נְפַק רִבִּי חוּנָה לְרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. אוֹגְדוֵֹי מְחִיק קוֹנְטָא לָא מְחִיק. אֲמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה לְרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. פּוּק חֲמִי עַד הַהֵן אָהֵן קוֹנְטָא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ. נְפַק וָמַר. עִם טְרִיָיא קוֹנְטָא. מִי נְפַק אֲמַר. הָדָא מִיבַּעֵי מִיתְגָּרֵה תְלַת' אַפְסַדְתְּ עֶשְׂרִ'.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Huna³⁵ handed a document to Rebbi Shammai. Ὸγδοή- was on an erasure, -κοντα was not on an erasure. Rebbi Ḥuna told Rebbi Shammai, find out what is the minimum with which -κοντα is used³⁶. He went out and said, τριάκοντα. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20³⁷.

footnotes:
³⁵ As a born Babylonian, he knew no Greek.
³⁶ Since the amount of the debt stated in the document, ὀγδοήκοντα (80) was partially written on an erasure and the number was not confirmed later in the text, one had to assume that the document was falsified after it had been witnessed. But since κοντα was clearly readable as original text, the document was good to collect τριάκοντα (30), the smallest multiple of 10 whose name is formed with -κοντα.
³⁷ Rebbi Ḥuna had the impression that the original document was for πεντήκοντα (50); instead of an intended gain of 30 the forgery resulted in a loss of 20 (H. M. Pineles). One has to read תלת׳ (i. e., תלתין) instead of תלת, and עשר׳ (i. e. עשרין) instead of עשר.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:1:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:1:10)

חשיב רִבִּי לְקַיֵים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. גּוּפוֹ שֶׁלְּגֵט מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו אִם פָּשׁוּט הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ פָשׁוּט. מָהוּ גוּפוֹ שֶׁלְּגֵט. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. מִדָּמַר רַב הוּנָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין מִלְּמַטָּה עַד שֶׁיִּקְרְאוּ בוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי מְקוּבַּל אֲנִי עָלַי כָּל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב לְמַעֲלָן. וְהָתַנֵּי. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת כֵּן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנִי. טוֹפֶס שְׁטָרוֹת מְקוּשָּׁרוֹת כֵּן הוּא. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבִּין. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר. הוּא פָשׁוּט הוּא מְקוּשָּׁר. בְּפָשׁוּט מְעַכֵּב בִּמְקוּשָּׁר אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. בְּמוֹסִיף עַל הַהֲלָכָה. פָּשׁוּט בִּשְׁנַיִם מְקוּשָּׁר בִּשְׁלשָׁה. וְהֵן עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט מִתּוֹכוֹ מְקוּשָּׁר מֵאַחֲרָיו. וְהֵן עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִתּוֹכוֹ וּמֵאֲחֲרָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Rebbi answered to confirm the words of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel: The main text of the document proves whether it is simple or not simple.³⁹ R. Ḥananiah ben Gamliel’s statement since the regnal year dating conventions for both kinds of documents are different. Also in the statement here, *confirm* somehow means *disprove.*
The Babli’s argument would not apply to the Roman Empire under the Principate when years were still characterized by the names of the Consuls.” What is the main text of a document? Rebbi Abba said, as Rav Huna said: witnesses never sign below unless they first read before them: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.” And did we not state: this is the formula for documents of indebtedness⁴⁰? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness⁴¹. Rebbi Abbin said, even if you say, it is the same for simple and knotted, for a simple document it is indispensable, for a knotted one it is not indispensable⁴². Rebbi Jehudah⁴³ says, if one adds to the practice⁴⁴. A simple document has two [winesses], a knotted one three, but they do it with three. A simple document inside, a knotted one on its back, but they do it inside and on its back.

footnotes:
³⁹ In Tosephta 11:1 and Babli 164 a/b, Rebbi is reported to disprove
⁴⁰ Of all kinds.
⁴¹ But it only has to appear on the second (outer) text.
⁴² Since the witnesses have to be enumerated by name in the inner text.
⁴³ He is R. Yudan.
⁴⁴ While the rules for simple and knotted documents are different, it is easy to write a document in compliance with both sets of rules. Therefore, R. Ḥananiah’s statement can be confirmed (at least in most cases.) In contrast to the Babli, this presupposes that the same naming conventions apply to both kinds of contracts.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:2:1)

**משנה:** גֵּט פָּשׁוּט עֵדָיו שְׁנַיִם וּמְקוּשָּׁר עֵדָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתַב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד וּמְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנַיִם שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּסוּלִין. כָּתוּב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דִי הִימּוֹ סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין אֵין לוֹ אֶלֶּא עֶשְׂרִים. זוּזִין מְאָה דִי הִימּוֹ סִלְעִין תְּלָתִין אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מְנָה. כְּסַף זוּזִין דִּי אִינּוּן וְנִמְחַק אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דִּי אִינּוּן וְנִמְחֲקוּ אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דִּי אִינּוּן וְנִמְחַק אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** A simple document has two witnesses and a knotted one three. A simple [document] in which one [witness] signed or a knotted one where two signed are both invalid. If there is written in it “100 *zuz* which are 20 tetradrachmas,” he only has 20⁴⁵ (denars) equal 25 tetradrachmas, the contract only calls for payment of 20 tetradrachmas.. “100 *zuz* which are 30 tetradrachmas,” he only has a *mina*⁴⁶. “Silver *zuzim* which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two⁴⁷. “Silver tetradrachmas which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “*Dareikos*⁴⁸ 2:3 identifies the Δαρεικός with the Roman gold denar. which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two.

footnotes:
⁴⁵ If a document contains two different amounts, the smaller one is operative. Since 100 zuz
⁴⁶ 100 drachmas (denars).
⁴⁷ Any indefinite plural has to be interpreted as 2, the smallest integer 1.
⁴⁸ A Persian gold coin. The Yerushalmi in Šeqalim


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:2:2)

**הלכה:** גֵּט פָּשׁוּט עֵדָיו שְׁנַיִם כול׳. תַּנֵּי. זוּזִין דִּינוּן וְנִמְחֲקוּ. חֲמִשָּׁה. וַהֲלָהּ אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם. תַּמָּן אָמְרֵי. בֶּן עַזַּאי וְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. חַד אָמַר. נוֹתֵן שְׁנַיִם וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל הַשְּׁאָר. וְחַד אָמַר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאִילּוּ לֹא הוֹדָה לוֹ כָּל עִיקָּר לֹא הָיָה לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבַּע אֶלָּא עַל מַה שֶׁהוֹדָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “A simple document has two witnesses,” etc. It was stated: “*Zuzin* which are” and the rest was erased⁴⁹. Five⁵⁰, but the other says, they were only two. There⁵¹, they say, Ben Azzai and Rebbi Aqiba. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder⁵² 1:1, Note 9).. But the other said, since if this one had not agreed to anything, the other could only have collected two, he should only have to swear on what he conceded⁵³ the debtor did not confess to owing anything for which the creditor does not have documentary proof. Therefore, he should not have to swear. From the Babli, *Bava meṣia‘* 4b, it seems that in its tradition this latter opinion is R. Aqiba’s..

footnotes:
⁴⁹ A document where it is clear that the amount is written in the plural; therefore the IOU is worth at least two. The amount is illegible.
⁵⁰ The amount claimed by the creditor.
⁵¹ In Babylonia.
⁵² Following the principle that in the absence of proof the debtor has to swear that he does not owe more than he admitted. The debtor has to swear only if either the creditor can prove that the debtor owes him something or the debtor admits to part of the creditor’s claim (cf. Bava meṣia‘
⁵³ Since the Mishnah grants the creditor the right to collect two zuzim,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:3:1)

**משנה:** כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָה מְנָה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם מִלְּמַעֲלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מְנָה הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין הָעֶלְיוֹן. שֶׁאִם תִּימָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If at the start⁵⁴ there was written a *mina* but at the end⁵⁵ to the creditor, cf. Halakhah 1, after Note 11. 200, or at the start 200 and at the end a *mina,* everything goes according to the end. If this is so, why does one write at the start? That if at the end a letter should become illegible, one may recoup it from the start.

footnotes:
⁵⁴ The text of the document which states that it is an IOU for the amount of x.
⁵⁵ The debtor’s declaration that he owes x


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:3:2)

**הלכה:** כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְּמַעֲלָה מְנָה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. לְעוֹלָם הַתַּחְתּוֹן יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן בִּמְקוּשָּׁר בְּאוֹת אַחַת אוֹ בִשְׁתֵּי אוֹתוֹת. בֵּין חָנָן לַחֲנָנִי בֵּין עָנָן לַעֲנָנִי בְּאוֹת אַחַת מְקַיְימִין אוֹתוֹ. בִּשְׁתֵּי אוֹתוֹת אֵין מְקַיְימִין אוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. מִמַּעַל כָּתוּב חָנָן וּמִלְּמַטָּן נָנִי. מָהוּ לְלַמֵּד הַתַּחְתּוֹן מֵעֶלְיוֹן חָנָן וְעֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן נָנִי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If at the start there was written a *mina*,” etc. It was stated⁵⁷ is in the Babli, 166b; that *baraita,* however, is formulated for *all* documents.: Always in a knotted document the bottom⁵⁸ should be instructed by the top for one letter (or) [but not]⁵⁶ for two letters. One confirms between Ḥanan and Ḥanani, or Anan and Anani, a difference of one letter; of two letters one does not confirm⁵⁹. Rebbi Isaac asked: At the top it was written Ḥanan, at the bottom Nani. May the top learn from the bottom for Ḥanan and the bottom from the top for Nani⁶⁰?

footnotes:
⁵⁷ A similar baraita
⁵⁸ For a knotted document, the bottom would be the outer text, the top referring to the inner text.
⁵⁶ The following text shows that one has to read אבל לא “but not” instead of או “or”.
⁵⁹ For the Yerushalmi, there remains the possibility that for a simple document even a greater discrepancy could be acceptable.
⁶⁰ The full name was Ḥanani, which was shortened in two ways to current forms of endearment.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:4:1)

**משנה:** כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ וְהַשׁוֹבָר לָאִשָּׁה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלָהּ עִמָּהּ וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּירָהּ וְהַבַּעַל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלּוֹוֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַלּוֹוֶה עִמּוֹ. וְהַלּוֹוֶה נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַלּוֹקֵחַ עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כוֹתְבִין לַלּוֹקֵחַ עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמּוֹכֵר עִמּוֹ. וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֵירוּסִין וְנִישּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְהֶחָתָן נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי אֲרִיסוּת וְקַבְּלָנוּת אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶן. וְהַמְקַבֵּל נוֹתֵן אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין וְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵית דִּין אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶן וּשְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַשָּׂכָר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לִשְׁנֵיהֶן כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנַיִם לָזֶה בְעַצְמוֹ וְלָזֶה בְעַצְמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** One writes⁶¹ a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife not be present⁶², and a receipt⁶³. for the wife even though he husband not be present⁶⁴ on condition that he know her⁶⁵. The husband pays the fee⁶⁶.
One writes⁶¹ a document of indebtedness for the borrower even though the creditor not be present, but one does not write a document of indebtedness for the creditor if the borrower not be present⁶⁹. The borrower pays the fee.
One writes⁶¹ a sale contract⁷³ for the seller even though the buyer not be present, but one does not write a sale contract for the buyer if the seller not be present. The buyer pays the fee.
Documents of preliminary and definitive marriage one only writes⁶¹ on the orders of both parties; the groom pays the fee. Documents of share-cropping and leases⁷⁴ one only writes⁶¹ on the orders of both parties; the tenant pays the fee. Documents of arbitration⁷⁵ and court decisions one only writes⁶¹ on the orders of both parties; both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes⁶¹ them in duplicate, one for each party.

footnotes:
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁶² Since by biblical standards a divorce does not need the wife’s consent.
⁶³ In which she absolves her ex-husband from all future payments due her on account of her ketubah
⁶⁴ Since the receipt is of advantage to the husband and “one may let a person acquire something without his knowledge.”
⁶⁵ The scribe and the witnesses must know the people involved, lest a woman write a receipt and hand it to another man, whose wife’s name is the same as hers, who then may divorce his wife and claim that he does not owe her anything.
⁶⁶ The scribe’s fee for bill of divorce and receipt. In Babylonia they let the woman pay for the bill of divorce (Babli 168a).
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁶⁹ One may write and sign a document for an absentee beneficiary but not to the detriment of an absentee.
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁷³ A contract for the sale of real estate which transfers title. The buyer has no power to transfer the title.
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁷⁴ Agricultural leases for a fixed rental fee.
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁷⁵ Contracts appointing a court of arbitration in a monetary dispute.
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”
⁶¹ “Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:4:2)

**הלכה:** כּוֹתְבִין גֵּט לָאִישׁ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר לִשְׁנֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר לָאִישׁ בְגִיטוֹ וּלְאִשָּׁה בְשׁוֹבְרָהּ. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי בָּא. הִתְקִין רִבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ. אִשָּׁה פְלוֹנִית וְכָל שֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ. מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וַאֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי [ ] לֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה מְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ שֵׁם עִירוֹ וְשֵׁם עִירָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. ⁶⁷ 4:2, explained there in Notes 39–51. Rebbi Abba said: He has to know both of them. Rebbi La said, he has to know the husband for his bill of divorce and the woman for her receipt. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Abba: “Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should write Mr. X and all his names, Mrs. Y and all her names, for the public good.” But even with Rebbi [La]⁶⁸ required by the context. it does not disagree: “In earlier times, his name and her name and the names of his and her towns could change.”

footnotes:
⁶⁷ This is a shortened version of a paragraph in Giṭṭin
⁶⁸ Name missing in the text; supplied from the parallel in Giṭṭin,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:5:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ וְהִשְׁלִישׁ אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא נָתַתִּי לוֹ מִכָּן וְעַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי תֶּן לוֹ שְׁטָרוֹ הִגִּיעַ הַזְּמַן וְלֹא נָתַן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִתֵּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא יִתֵּן. מִי שִׁנִּמְחַק שְׁטָר חוֹבוֹ מַעֲמִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים וּבָא לִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְהֵן עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נִמְחַק שְׁטָרוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵידָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody paid off part of his debt, deposited his bond with a third party,⁷⁸ and told him, if I have not paid him by date *x*, return the bond to him. If the time has passed while he did not pay, Rebbi Yose says, he shall return it; Rebbi Jehudah says, he shall not return it⁷⁹ (Note 70)..
If somebody’s bond became illegible, he presents witnesses about it to the court and they confirm for him: The bond of Mr. X, son of Mr. Y, dated from day Z became illegible; U and V were his witnesses.

footnotes:
⁷⁸ The text of the bond cannot be changed; that would be falsifying it. The partial payment cannot be noted on the bond since everything written after the signature of the witnesses must be disregarded. It would be possible to write a separate receipt, cf. Mishnah 10. The alternative is to hand the bond to a third party as trustee with the instruction to deliver the document to the debtor upon payment of the remainder of the debt.
⁷⁹ R. Yose considers the condition as valid; R Jehudah treats it as asmakhta


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:5:2)

**הלכה:** כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלֹּוֶה כול׳. תַּנֵּי. עִיצּוּמִים. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ גָּבֵי רִבִּי אָחָא גָבֵי רִבִּי אִמִּי גָבֵי. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא גָבֵי. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית רִבִּי יוֹסֵי גָּבֵי עִיצוּמִים מוֹדֶה בָּהוּא דִיהַב בְּרֵיהּ גַּו אוּמְנֻתָּהּ וְעַצְמוֹן בֵּינֵיהוֹן דְּהוּא גָבֵי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “One writes a document of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated, forfaits⁷⁰ contract (cf. *Giṭṭin* 5:9, Note 213) is a subject of controversy already of Tannaïm; Tosephta *Bava meṣia‘* 1:16.. Rebbi Abbahu collected, Rebbi Aḥa collected, Rebbi Immi collected⁷¹ following Roman law; cf. *Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur* vol. 1, 49b, Note 42; Taubenschlag (Note 13) pp. 205 ff... Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose did not collect. ⁷² 5:9, Notes 213–214. Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not collect forfaits, he agrees if one gave his son to artisans and they mutually agreed to forfaits, he collects.

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Whether a private contract containing forfaits automatically is enforceable in court or is to be considered an asmakhta
⁷¹ In the third generation of Amoraïm, forfaits were considered enforceable, following Egyptian and Greek practices. By the fifth generation, practice had changed and forfaits were considered asmakhta,
⁷² Cf. Giṭṭin


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:5:3)

כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַמּוֹכֵר כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי עוּקְבָּה. תַּנָּה בִּכְתוּבּוֹת דְּבֵי לֵוִי. הָאוֹמֵר. אָבַד שְׁטָרִי. בֵּית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם. תַּנֵּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁטָרֵי בֵירוּרִין בֵּית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“One writes a sale contract for the seller,” etc. Rebbi Uqba said, it was stated in *Ketubot*⁷⁶ collection of the school of Levi about *Ketubot*. of the school of Levi: If one said, my document was lost, the court writes him a confirmation⁷⁷. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, even for documents of arbitration one writes him a confirmation.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The baraita
⁷⁷ This is really a commentary on Mishnah 9. Not only if part of a document became illegible can the holder go to court, present witnesses to the court who testify as to the exact wording that was lost, and get a court declaration certifying the text as belonging to the document, but even a lost document can be replaced by a court-issued confirmation if verified by witnesses and agreed to by the other party. The statement is inserted here as preliminary to the next statement about documents of arbitration mentioned in Mishnah 7.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:6:1)

**משנה:** מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר יַחֲלִיף. וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יִכְתּוֹב שׁוֹבָר. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה נִמְצָא זֶה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת שׁוֹמֵר שׁוֹבְרוֹ מִן הָעַכְבָּרִים. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְכֵן יָפֶה לוֹ וְאַל יֵרַע כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody paid off part of his debt, Rebbi Jehudah said, he shall exchange [his bond], but Rebbi Yose said, he shall write a receipt. Said Rebbi Jehudah, but then this one must guard his receipt from the rats! Rebbi Yose answered him, that comes to him rightly⁸⁰, not to impair the other one’s rights⁸¹.

footnotes:
⁸⁰ It gives the debtor an additional incentive to pay off his debt as quickly as possible.
⁸¹ Since a replacement document would have to be dated from the day it was written, the creditor might lose his privileged status if the debtor took on additional debt after the original bond was written. The original first mortgage would now be the second, and the second the first. This is an unacceptable outcome.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:6:2)

**הלכה:** מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ כול׳. רַב אָמַר. עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם בֵּית דִּין. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם בֵּית דִּין. אָמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. אִילּוּ שָׁמַע רַב מַתְנַיָיה לָא הֲוָה מֵימַר הָדָא מִילְּתָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody paid off part of his debt,” etc. ⁸³ Rav said, the court writes him a confirmation. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the court does not write a confirmation. Rebbi Jeremiah⁸⁴ said, if Rav had heard this *baraita,* he would not have said what he did⁸⁵.

footnotes:
⁸³ This refers to Mishnah 9.
⁸⁴ He is Rav Jeremiah, Babylonian of the first generation.
⁸⁵ The Babli confirms that Mishnah 9 never was accepted in Babylonian practice but that a completely new document had to be executed in which the debtor confirmed the original date of the creditor’s foreclosure rights.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:6:3)

שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בְעִיר אַחַת כול׳. וְאֵין יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה כול'. כְּגוֹן דָּמְרִין כֵּן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֵּן פְּלוֹנִי לוֹוֶה מִמְּךָ פְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.”⁸⁹ As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

footnotes:
⁸⁹ This does not belong here but to Halakhah 16, Note 128.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:6:4)

רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַן רִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַן רִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַן רִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. אִם צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַן רִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. עַל הָדָא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְכֵן יָפֶה לוֹ וְאַל יֵרַע כֹּחַ זֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁹⁰ Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document⁹¹. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document⁹². Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one had to mention the earlier date in the second document, would Rebbi Yose have said, “that comes to him rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights”⁹³?

footnotes:
⁹⁰ This refers to Mishnah 10 according to R. Jehudah who requires that a new document be written.
⁹¹ This is also Rav’s opinion in the Babli, 170b.
⁹² Samuel’s opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.
⁹³ In Rav’s version, the problem which R. Yose had with R. Jehudah’s statement (Note 81) could not arise.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:7:1)

**משנה:** שְׁנֵי אַחִין אֶחָד עָנִי וְאֶחָד עָשִׁיר וְהִנִּיחַ לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן מֶרְחָץ וּבֵית הַבַּד. עֲשָׂאָן לִשָׂכָר הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע עֲשָׂאָן לְעַצְמוֹ הֲרֵי הֶעָשִׁיר אוֹמֵר לֶעָנִי קַח לָךְ עֲבָדִים וְיִרְחֲצוּ בַמֶּרְחָץ. קַח לָךְ זֵיתִים וּבוֹא וַעֲשֵׂה בְּבֵית הַבַּד. שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בְעִיר אַחַת שֵׁם אֶחָד יוֹסֵה בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן וְשֵׁם אֶחָד יוֹסֵה בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטָר חוֹב. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵה בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶן פְּרוּעִין. כֵּיצַד יַעֲשׂוּ. יִשַׁלֵּשׁוּ וְאִם הָיוּ מְשׁוּלָּשִין יִכְתְּבוּ סֵימָן וְאִם הָיוּ בְסֵימָנִין יִכְתְּבוּ כֹהֵן. הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ שְׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתַיי פָרוּעַ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵי זֶהוּ שְׁטָרוֹת כּוּלָּם פְּרוּעִין. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד שָׁם שְׁנַיִם הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָרוּעַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Two brothers, one poor and one rich, to whom their father left a bath house and an olive press. If they were built to be rented out, the rental fees are common property. If he built them for his own use, the rich one tells the poor, buy yourself slaves and have them bathe in the bathhouse, buy yourself olives and process them in the olive press⁸².
If two people lived in the same town, both called Yose ben Simeon, they cannot write a bond one on the other or a third party on one of them⁸⁶. If somebody found between his bonds a bond of Yose ben Simeon which was paid off, the bonds of both of them are paid off. What can they do? They write three generations. If their names were identical for three generations, they should write a characteristic mark⁸⁷. If they had identical charateristic marks, they should write “Cohen”⁸⁸.
If somebody said to his son, a bond among my bonds is paid, but it is not known which one it is, all his bonds are paid⁹⁴. If one finds there two [bonds] given by the same [debtor], the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid⁹⁵.

footnotes:
⁸² The poor one cannot force the sale of family heirlooms.
⁸⁶ Since such a document could be used against an innocent third party, it cannot be used at all.
⁸⁷ A bodily characteristic like tall, red-faced, etc.
⁸⁸ If one of them was a Cohen but not the other. This shows that in Mishnaic times it was not common practice to write Cohen or Levi in documents.
⁹⁴ If any debtor mentioned in one of these bonds claims that he has paid off his bond, the heir has to accept his word.
⁹⁵ If the father had used the singular, not more than one bond per debtor became questionable.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:7:2)

**הלכה:** הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ כול׳. תַּנֵּי. לֹא דוֹמֶה אֵימַת שְׁטָר גָּדוֹל לְאֵימַת שְׁטָר קָטָן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody said to his son,” etc. It was stated: The worry caused by a large bond is not comparable to the worry caused by a small bond⁹⁶.

footnotes:
⁹⁶ Everybody will try to pay off his large debt before small debts. Therefore it is almost certain that if a large or a small debt were paid off, the large one was paid.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:8:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרָב לֹא יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב. אִם אָמַר עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר אִם יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ לֹא יִיפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor may not request payment from the guarantor⁹⁷. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may ask payment from the guarantor. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if the debtor has real estate then in no case may he request payment from the guarantor⁹⁸.

footnotes:
⁹⁷ The guarantor may be asked to pay only if the debtor was asked first and is unable or unwilling to pay. (In all three forms of law practices in Roman Egypt, the creditor always had the choice of first suing the surety.)
⁹⁸ In his opinion, the creditor must first foreclose on the real estate before going to the guarantor.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:8:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ עַל יְדֵי עָרָב כול׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה. אֲבָל אֵין נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב. וְאִם אָמַר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֶרְצֶה. יִפָּרַע מִן הֶעָרָב וַאֲפִילוּ יֵשׁ נְכָסִים לַלּוֹוֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the debtor has real estate. But if the debtor has no real estate, he may request payment from the guarantor. If he said, on condition that I may request payment from whom I choose, he may request payment from the guarantor⁹⁹.

footnotes:
⁹⁹ The Babli, 173b, disagrees, also in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, requiring the creditor under any circumstances first to foreclose the debtor’s real estate, except if the debt had been assumed by another person.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:8:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:8:3)

תַּמָּן מָרִין. בְּכָל מָקוֹם הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל חוּץ מֵעָרָב וְצַיידָן וּרְאָיָיה אֲחֲרוֹנָה. אָמְרִין. וּבִלְבַד בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ. רִבִּי אִמִּי בַּר קָרְחָה בְשֵׁם רַב. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ. בְּכָל מָקוֹם הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. שֶׁהֲלָכוֹת קְצוּבוֹת הָיָה אוֹמֵר מִפִּי בֵית דִּינוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
There¹⁰⁰, they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor¹⁰¹10:14., Sidon¹⁰² 5:5., and the last proof¹⁰³ 3:13 (in most Mishnah editions, the *last* statement of Rabban Simeon in Mishnah 3:8 dealing with the right of the parties to submit proof to the court out of order.). They say, only in the Mishnah¹⁰⁴ The Babli agrees, *loc. cit*.. Rebbi Immi bar Qorḥa in the name of Rav: Why did they say, practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel? For he pronounced specific practices decided by his court¹⁰⁵.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁰ In Babylonia (Babli 174a in the name of R. Joḥanan.)
¹⁰¹ The Mishnah here, Bava batra
¹⁰² Mishnah Giṭṭin
¹⁰³ Mishnah Sanhedrin
¹⁰⁴ But not in the baraitot.
¹⁰⁵ His pronuncements have the status of precedents decided by the Supreme Court.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:9:1)

**משנה:** כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הֶעָרָב לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ וְהָיָה בְעָלֶיהָ מְגָרְשָׁהּ יַדִּירֶנּוּ הֲנָיָיה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קָיְנוֹנִיָיא עַל נְכָסִים שֶׁל זֶה וְיַחֲזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say that if a person was guarantor for a woman’s *ketubah* and her husband divorced her, the latter has to make a vow¹⁰⁶ not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership¹⁰⁷ against that person’s property and then he¹⁰⁸ would take back his wife.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁶ The guarantor does not have to pay unless the husband publicly made the required vow. A public vow cannot be annulled.
¹⁰⁷ Greek κοινωνία, in the Talmudim always used in the sense of “partnership in crime”.
¹⁰⁸ The husband. By his vow he is permanently barred from remarrying his divorcee.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:9:2)

**הלכה:** כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כול׳. חָמוֹי דִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי הֲוָה עֲרָבָא בְּפוֹרְנָהּ דִּבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי וַהֲוָה מְבַזְבְּזָה בְנִכְסַיָיא. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אָחָא. אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָיָיה. אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמַה אִילּוּ דְּיַחְזוֹר וְיִסְבִּינָהּ לֵית מָרֵי חוֹבָה אֲתִי וְטָרִף. אֲמַר. דְּלָא יַחְזוֹר. וְיַעַבְדִּינוֹן מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ פָּרָאפֶרְנוֹן וְלָא מַשְׁכַּח מָרֵי חוֹבָא מַה מִתְפַּס. וּנְפַק עוֹבְדָא כְרִבִּי אָחָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say,” etc. The father-in-law of Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter was guarantor for Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter’s *ketubah.* She turned out to be a spendthrift¹⁰⁹. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said that he would have to make a vow not to have usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to make a vow not to have usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but if he would take her back, the creditor would come and seize it¹¹⁰ and then let her property be foreclosed by his creditors.. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables¹¹¹ or paraphernalia¹¹² 7:1 Note 1). which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa¹¹³.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ And therefore her husband divorced her. From the later argument it seems that he had to cover his wife’s debts.
¹¹⁰ They argue that R. Yose should agree with R. Aḥa since otherwise he could pay his debts with his father’s money by remarrying his wife after payment of the ketubah
¹¹¹ Which in general cannot be forclosed.
¹¹² Which never become the husband’s property and cannot be attached by his creditors (Yebamot
¹¹³ Which establishes practice.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:10:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁטָר גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. עַל יְדֵי עֵדִים גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתָב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. עָרָב הַיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם הָעֵדִים גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן נַנָּס אֵינוֹ גוֹבֶה לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ לָמָּה. אָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵי הַחוֹנֵק אֶת אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק וְאָמַר לוֹ הַנַּח וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָוהוּ. וְאֵי זֶהוּ עָרָב שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב לוֹ אָמַר לוֹ הַלְוֵוהוּ וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ חַיָיב שֶׁכֵּן עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָוהוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְחַכֵּם יַעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת שֶׁאֵין לָךְ מִקְצוֹעַ בַּתּוֹרָה גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן שֶׁהֵן כְּמַעְיָין הַנּוֹבֵעַ וְכָל הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property¹¹⁴, by witnesses collects from free property¹¹⁵. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him¹¹⁶, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses¹¹⁷, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property.
Ben Nannas said to him¹³¹, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place¹³² and a third person would say, let him go, I shall pay you, he is not liable since the loan was not made on his faith¹³³. Who is the guarantor who is liable? If he told him, “lend to him and I shall pay you,” he is liable because the loan was extended on his faith. Rebbi Ismael said, anybody who wants to train to become wise should study the laws of money matters since nothing greater is there in the Torah; they are like a flowing source, and anybody wanting to study the laws of money matters should serve Simeon ben Nannas.

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Unless otherwise noted in the contract, a secured loan is a mortgage on any real estate in the possession of the debtor at the moment the bond was executed. A sale by the debtor does not remove the creditor’s lien. The creditor may foreclose from the buyer if no other property be left in the debtor’s hand; the buyer is then left to try to get his money back from the debtor.
¹¹⁵ Since an oral loan before witnesses is a private transaction, it cannot be detected by a prospective buyer. Such a loan can only be used to forclose the debtor’s unencumbered property. These are called “free properties”.
¹¹⁶ An IOU can be collected in court but in the absence of witnesses’ signatures only from the debtor’s actual property.
¹¹⁷ If the guarantor endorsed the bond by a note below the witnesses’ signatures that he would guarantee payment, he executed an IOU, not a witnessed document.
¹³¹ This is a direct continuation of Mishnah 16; in the independent Mishnah mss. they form one Mishnah together.
¹³² A creditor tries to force the debtor to pay his debt by using physical force.
¹³³ The use of “faith” for “credit worthiness” goes back to Latin fides.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:10:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁטָר כול׳. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. הַקְדָּמָה פְסוּלָה וְהַשְּׁטָר כָּשֵׁר. וְהָתַנִּינָן. פְּרוֹזְבּוֹל הַמּוּקְדָּם כָּשֵׁר וְהַמְאוּחָר פָּסוּל. הָדָא דַתָּ מַר. דְּרַב הוּנָה רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים. הָדָא דְרַב הוּנָא רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים כָּשֵׁר וְגוֹבָה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִין. שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְהֵיכִי. אִם בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁהִכְחִישׁוּ עֵדוּתָן. הִכְחִישׁ עֵדוּתָן כְּמִי שֶׁאֵינָהּ וְהַשְּׁטָר כָּשֵׁר. אִם בְּאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא הִכְחִישׁוּ עֵדוּתָן. אָמְרָת. הָא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. עָשׂוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין בַּשְּׁטָר כְּמִי שֶׁנֶּחְקְרָה עֵדוּתָן בְּבֵית דִּין. מַאי כְדוֹן. בְּאִינּוּן דָּמְרִין כֵּן. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֵּן פְּלוֹנִי לָוִויתִי מִפְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid¹¹⁸. But did we not state: “A predated *prozbol*¹ is valid, postdated it is invalid”?¹¹⁹ 10:5. The question is not asked about this sentence, but about the following one: Predated documents of indebtedness are invalid, postdated they are valid. In the Halakhah there (Notes 98–99), R. Joḥanan holds that a predated bond is totally invalid; R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that it only counts from the time of signing, parallel to Rav Huna’s opinion here. As explained in Note 114 (*Ševi‘it* 10:1 Note 2), a bond creates a mortgage lien on behalf of the creditor which is not removed by sale of the property. A predated document may create a false lien; this makes it invalid. That means, Rav Huna, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim¹²⁰. Rav Huna, quoted here. ¹²¹ 9:5 (Notes 69–71).“Rebbi Eleazar¹²² said, it¹²³ is valid even if there are no signatures of witnesses on it if only he delivered it in the presence of witnesses; and she can use it to collect from encumbered property. For the witnesses sign on the bill of divorce only for the public good.” How? If about those who denied their testimony¹²⁴, the denied testimony is as if nonexistent, and the document should be valid? If about those who did not deny their testimony, did not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say¹²⁵ 10:5 Note 96, *Ketubot* 2:3 Note 56, *Giṭṭin* 4:2 Note 46; Babli *Ketubot* 18b, *Giṭṭin* 3a., that they considered witnesses who signed a document as if their testimony had been cross-examined in court¹²⁶ 3:5 Note 72, Babli *Sanhedrin*44b). Therefore the witnesses are not admitted to claim that they did not know the bond was predated.? What about it: As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”¹²⁷

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ A predated document can be made whole by testimony about the exact time it was signed. Then it can serve as basis for foreclosure procedures based on the oral testimony.
¹ Ševi'it 10:3, Note 80.
¹¹⁹ Mishnah Ševi‘it
¹²⁰ Probably one should read instead “R. Simeon ben Laqish”, R. Simeon ben Yaqim’s teacher.
¹²¹ Mishnah Giṭṭin
¹²² R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna.
¹²³ A bill of divorce.
¹²⁴ If the witnesses claim that their signatures were forged, there is no document. Rav Huna cannot declare it valid.
¹²⁵ Ševi‘it
¹²⁶ A witness, once he has testified in court, may not change his story (Bikkurim
¹²⁷ A bond signed by the debtor witout any witnesses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:10:3)

רַב אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַנוֹ שֶׁלְּרִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַזְכִּיר זְמַנוֹ שֶׁלְּרִאשׁוֹן בַּשֵּׁינִי. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל. רַב כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁸ Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document. Rav and Samuel, Rav parallels Rebbi Joḥanan¹²⁹ and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹³⁰.

footnotes:
¹²⁸ This is from Halakhah 12 (Mishnah 10, Notes 90–92).
¹²⁹ Rav holds with R. Joḥanan (Note 119) that a predated bond is absolutely invalid. Therefore, a replacement for a bond which partially became invalid must be executed by a court which is empowered to make the copy retroactively valid to the time of the original as determined by testimony.
¹³⁰ Samuel holds with R. Simeon ben Laqish that a predated bond is valid from the time of signing. Therefore, the replacement can be executed by the witnesses but cannot be made valid from a time before the actual signing of the replacement.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 10:10:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Bava%20Batra/r/10:10:4)

אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן נַנָּס כול׳. רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּילְּסוֹ רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת בֶּן נַנָּס עַל מִדְרָשׁוֹ קִילְּסוֹ. אֲבָל אֵינָהּ כְּבֶן נַנָּס. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר וָוה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַף בְּחָנוּק הֲלָכָה כְּרִבִּי [יִשְׁמָעֵאל]. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאַתְּ שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ. בַּר נַשׁ דַּהֲוָה צַיָיד לְחַבְרֵיהּ בַּשׁוּקָא. אֲתַא חַד וָמַר. שָׁבְקֵיהּ וָנָא יְהַב. מִן אָהֵן גְּבַיי וּמִן אָהֵן לָא גְבַיי.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“Ben Nannas said to him,” etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even though Rebbi Ismael praised Ben Nannas, he praised him only for his argument. But [practice] does not follow Ben Nannas¹³⁵. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael¹³⁶ holds that in such a case a simple statement does not make the third person a guarantor; any guaranty given after the signing of the bond needs an act of acquisition by the creditor. It seems that R. Yose in the following sentence states the same; even for R. Ismael the intervening person does not become a guarantor by simple speech.. Rebbi Yose said, one infers from here that a person who caught another in the market place, when a third person came and said, let him go and I shall give, collects from the one but does not collect from the other.

footnotes:
¹³⁵ Babli 176a.
¹³⁶ The Babli, loc. cit.,