Yerushalmi Bava Batra 10 ירושלמי בבא בתרא י׳

MISHNAH: The witnesses to an simple document¹A normal document whose witnesses sign below the text. sign inside, to a knotted²A knotted document is signed on the verso, between the folds. According to Rashbam (Commentary to Bava batra 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 back³In order to eliminate fraud, witnesses on an open document must start to sign below the text, leaving exactly one line free. and a knotted one whose witnesses signed on its interior both are invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, a knotted one whose witnesses signed inside⁴Following the rules of open documents. is valid since one can turn it into a simple one. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, everything follows local custom.

HALAKHAH: “The witnesses to an open document are inside,” etc. ⁵A similar text is in Giṭṭin 8:12, Notes 107–112. From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed⁶Jer. 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 knotted⁷The text of the document, whose formulation is identical whether sealed or public.. “And the orders and the rules”; orders and rules differ between these, for one is with two [witnesses], the other with three⁸A public document needs two witnesses, a sealed (knotted) one at least three.; one in it, the other on its back⁹A 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..

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.

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 below¹⁰In 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.. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies¹¹How 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?? Rav Huna said, witnesses never sign below unless they first read in the text above: “I X son of Y accept everything written above.”

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The signatures of the witnesses must be two blank lines away from the text¹³The following discussion shows that one must read: “The signatures of the witnesses may not 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 lengthwise¹⁴He 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.; on a simple document the witnesses sign across¹⁵Below the text, as explained later in the following.. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rebbi Mana said, [ ]¹⁶R. Mana’s statement is missing. It is found in Giṭṭin 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 knots¹⁷Since 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.. Rebbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines¹⁸Cf. Note 13..

¹⁹This essentially is a text from Giṭṭin 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]²⁰Since text may be inserted in the document after the witnesses signed.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so²¹Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:8, explained there Note 102.: “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? ²²Tosephta Giṭṭin 7:11–12.“How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it²³The signatures can be read with a text if the first signature be exactly one line away from the text., 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 ולך²⁴The line must accomodate letters extending both above and below the usual writing space; Babli 163a.. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.

Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency²⁵The 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.. 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 small²⁶For practical purposes, the scribe prepares lines on parchment or papyrus before writing the document; his lines determine everything.. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh²⁷This is a repetition of the argument of Note 23; in Giṭṭin 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..

Rebbi Idi in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: One has to expand two lines from an erasure²⁸After an erasure, the text has to continue for at least another two lines.. Rebbi Isaac said, even for a simple document²⁹Even 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.. Rav said, an erasure or an insertion must be confirmed in writing³⁰Both an erasure and an insertion by writing between lines must be referred to in the continuing text.. Rav said, “this is its confirmation”³¹Rav prescribes the formula: “this is confirmation of [erasure/insertion] x”. The same is required in the Babli, 161b, in the name of R. Joḥanan.. 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”³²Cf. Giṭṭin 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 document³³Since they already had formulated all the financial terms of the marriage, they preferred to erase the mention of symphon 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 documents³⁴The insertion would have required another lengthening of the document by a text confirming the insertion..

Rebbi Huna³⁵As a born Babylonian, he knew no Greek. 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 used³⁶Since 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.. He went out and said, τριάκοντα. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20³⁷Rebbi 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..

“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.³⁹In Tosephta 11:1 and Babli 164 a/b, Rebbi is reported to disprove 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 indebtedness⁴⁰Of all kinds.? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness⁴¹But it only has to appear on the second (outer) text.. 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 indispensable⁴²Since the witnesses have to be enumerated by name in the inner text.. Rebbi Jehudah⁴³He is R. Yudan. says, if one adds to the practice⁴⁴While 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.. 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.

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 20⁴⁵If a document contains two different amounts, the smaller one is operative. Since 100 zuz (denars) equal 25 tetradrachmas, the contract only calls for payment of 20 tetradrachmas.. “100 zuz which are 30 tetradrachmas,” he only has a mina⁴⁶100 drachmas (denars).. “Silver zuzim which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two⁴⁷Any indefinite plural has to be interpreted as 2, the smallest integer >1.. “Silver tetradrachmas which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “Dareikos⁴⁸A Persian gold coin. The Yerushalmi in Šeqalim 2:3 identifies the Δαρεικός with the Roman gold denar. which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two.

HALAKHAH: “A simple document has two witnesses,” etc. It was stated: “Zuzin which are” and the rest was erased⁴⁹A 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.. Five⁵⁰The amount claimed by the creditor., but the other says, they were only two. There⁵¹In Babylonia., they say, Ben Azzai and Rebbi Aqiba. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder⁵²Following 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‘ 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 conceded⁵³Since the Mishnah grants the creditor the right to collect two zuzim, 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..

MISHNAH: If at the start⁵⁴The text of the document which states that it is an IOU for the amount of x. there was written a mina but at the end⁵⁵The debtor’s declaration that he owes x 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.

HALAKHAH: “If at the start there was written a mina,” etc. It was stated⁵⁷A similar baraita is in the Babli, 166b; that baraita, however, is formulated for all documents.: Always in a knotted document the bottom⁵⁸For a knotted document, the bottom would be the outer text, the top referring to the inner text. should be instructed by the top for one letter (or) [but not]⁵⁶The following text shows that one has to read אבל לא “but not” instead of או “or”. for two letters. One confirms between Ḥanan and Ḥanani, or Anan and Anani, a difference of one letter; of two letters one does not confirm⁵⁹For the Yerushalmi, there remains the possibility that for a simple document even a greater discrepancy could be acceptable.. 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 Nani⁶⁰The full name was Ḥanani, which was shortened in two ways to current forms of endearment.?

MISHNAH: One writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife not be present⁶²Since by biblical standards a divorce does not need the wife’s consent., and a receipt⁶³In which she absolves her ex-husband from all future payments due her on account of her ketubah. for the wife even though he husband not be present⁶⁴Since the receipt is of advantage to the husband and “one may let a person acquire something without his knowledge.” on condition that he know her⁶⁵The 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.. The husband pays the fee⁶⁶The scribe’s fee for bill of divorce and receipt. In Babylonia they let the woman pay for the bill of divorce (Babli 168a)..
One writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” 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 present⁶⁹One may write and sign a document for an absentee beneficiary but not to the detriment of an absentee.. The borrower pays the fee.
One writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” a sale contract⁷³A contract for the sale of real estate which transfers title. The buyer has no power to transfer the title. 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“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” on the orders of both parties; the groom pays the fee. Documents of share-cropping and leases⁷⁴Agricultural leases for a fixed rental fee. one only writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” on the orders of both parties; the tenant pays the fee. Documents of arbitration⁷⁵Contracts appointing a court of arbitration in a monetary dispute. and court decisions one only writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” on the orders of both parties; both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes⁶¹“Writing” here means “writing and signing by witnesses.” them in duplicate, one for each party.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. ⁶⁷This is a shortened version of a paragraph in Giṭṭin 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]⁶⁸Name missing in the text; supplied from the parallel in Giṭṭin, 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.”

MISHNAH: If somebody paid off part of his debt, deposited his bond with a third party,⁷⁸The 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. 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 it⁷⁹R. Yose considers the condition as valid; R Jehudah treats it as asmakhta (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.

HALAKHAH: “One writes a document of indebtedness,” etc. It was stated, forfaits⁷⁰Whether a private contract containing forfaits automatically is enforceable in court or is to be considered an asmakhta 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 collected⁷¹In 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, 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. ⁷²Cf. Giṭṭin 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.

“One writes a sale contract for the seller,” etc. Rebbi Uqba said, it was stated in Ketubot⁷⁶The baraita 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 confirmation⁷⁷This 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.. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, even for documents of arbitration one writes him a confirmation.

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 rightly⁸⁰It gives the debtor an additional incentive to pay off his debt as quickly as possible., not to impair the other one’s rights⁸¹Since 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..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody paid off part of his debt,” etc. ⁸³This refers to Mishnah 9. Rav said, the court writes him a confirmation. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the court does not write a confirmation. Rebbi Jeremiah⁸⁴He is Rav Jeremiah, Babylonian of the first generation. said, if Rav had heard this baraita, he would not have said what he did⁸⁵The 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..

“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.”⁸⁹This does not belong here but to Halakhah 16, Note 128. As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”

⁹⁰This refers to Mishnah 10 according to R. Jehudah who requires that a new document be written. Rav said, one has to mention the earlier date in the second document⁹¹This is also Rav’s opinion in the Babli, 170b.. But Samuel said, one does not have to mention the earlier date in the second document⁹²Samuel’s opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.. 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”⁹³In Rav’s version, the problem which R. Yose had with R. Jehudah’s statement (Note 81) could not arise.?

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 press⁸²The poor one cannot force the sale of family heirlooms..
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 them⁸⁶Since such a document could be used against an innocent third party, it cannot be used at all.. 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 mark⁸⁷A bodily characteristic like tall, red-faced, etc.. If they had identical charateristic marks, they should write “Cohen”⁸⁸If 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..
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 paid⁹⁴If any debtor mentioned in one of these bonds claims that he has paid off his bond, the heir has to accept his word.. If one finds there two [bonds] given by the same [debtor], the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid⁹⁵If the father had used the singular, not more than one bond per debtor became questionable..

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 bond⁹⁶Everybody 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..

MISHNAH: Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor may not request payment from the guarantor⁹⁷The 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.). 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 guarantor⁹⁸In his opinion, the creditor must first foreclose on the real estate before going to the guarantor..

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 guarantor⁹⁹The 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..

There¹⁰⁰In Babylonia (Babli 174a in the name of R. Joḥanan.), they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor¹⁰¹The Mishnah here, Bava batra10:14., Sidon¹⁰²Mishnah Giṭṭin 5:5., and the last proof¹⁰³Mishnah Sanhedrin 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 Mishnah¹⁰⁴But not in the baraitot. 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 court¹⁰⁵His pronuncements have the status of precedents decided by the Supreme Court..

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 vow¹⁰⁶The guarantor does not have to pay unless the husband publicly made the required vow. A public vow cannot be annulled. not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership¹⁰⁷Greek κοινωνία, in the Talmudim always used in the sense of “partnership in crime”. against that person’s property and then he¹⁰⁸The husband. By his vow he is permanently barred from remarrying his divorcee. would take back his wife.

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 spendthrift¹⁰⁹And therefore her husband divorced her. From the later argument it seems that he had to cover his wife’s debts.. 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 it¹¹⁰They 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 and then let her property be foreclosed by his creditors.. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables¹¹¹Which in general cannot be forclosed. or paraphernalia¹¹²Which never become the husband’s property and cannot be attached by his creditors (Yebamot 7:1 Note 1). which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa¹¹³Which establishes practice..

MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property¹¹⁴Unless 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., by witnesses collects from free property¹¹⁵Since 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”.. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him¹¹⁶An IOU can be collected in court but in the absence of witnesses’ signatures only from the debtor’s actual property., he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses¹¹⁷If 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., one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property.
Ben Nannas said to him¹³¹This is a direct continuation of Mishnah 16; in the independent Mishnah mss. they form one Mishnah together., he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place¹³²A creditor tries to force the debtor to pay his debt by using physical force. 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 faith¹³³The use of “faith” for “credit worthiness” goes back to Latin fides.. 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.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who lent to another by a document,” etc. Rav Huna said, predating is invalid but the document is valid¹¹⁸A 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.. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol^118*Ševi'it 10:3, Note 80. is valid, postdated it is invalid”?¹¹⁹Mishnah Ševi‘it 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 Yaqim¹²⁰Probably one should read instead “R. Simeon ben Laqish”, R. Simeon ben Yaqim’s teacher.. Rav Huna, quoted here. ¹²¹Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:5 (Notes 69–71).“Rebbi Eleazar¹²²R. Eleazar ben Shamua‘, the Tanna. said, it¹²³A bill of divorce. 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 testimony¹²⁴If the witnesses claim that their signatures were forged, there is no document. Rav Huna cannot declare it valid., 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 say¹²⁵Ševi‘it 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 court¹²⁶A witness, once he has testified in court, may not change his story (Bikkurim 3:5 Note 72, Babli Sanhedrin44b). 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.”¹²⁷A bond signed by the debtor witout any witnesses.

¹²⁸This is from Halakhah 12 (Mishnah 10, Notes 90–92). 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 Joḥanan¹²⁹Rav 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. and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹³⁰Samuel 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..

“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 Nannas¹³⁵Babli 176a.. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael¹³⁶The Babli, loc. cit., 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.