Yerushalmi Ketubot 13:9 ירושלמי כתובות י״ג:ט׳

MISHNAH: If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other, Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?”¹²⁶The one whose note is dated later claims that his own indebtedness was paid off even though he has no receipt in his possession, since the other party could have taken its money back instead of taking out a loan. But the Sages say, each collects the amount of his note.

HALAKHAH: “If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other,” etc. If one borrowed a mina from the other, but the other borrowed from him 200 [zuz]. Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rab Sheshet disagree. One says, one counts one mina against the other mina, but the other says, each one collects the amount of his note¹²⁷In the Babli, 110a, Rav Naḥman is identified as holding that each one collects the amount of his note, Rav Sheshet that one counts mina against mina. Rav Naḥman’s opinion is then restricted to the case that neither of the parties has money to satisfy his obligation and that the average quality of their respective real estate holdings is unequal. This means that in the Babli, Rav Naḥman agrees with Rav Sheshet except in the case where such a mutual accounting would be to the detriment of one party. This interpretation is excluded by the Yerushalmi’s examples at the end of this paragraph.. He who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, learns it from tame oxen who injured one another, where half of the excess damage is paid¹²⁸If a steer which has no history of injuring other animals gores another steer, Ex. 21:35 requires the owner of the animal to pay half of the damages caused by his steer. If two such steers fight with one another and injure one another, Mishnah Baba qama 3:9 prescribes that money changes hands only for the amount for which one injury was estimated to be larger than the other. Since the fighting steers create obligations for their owners, it is seen that mutual obligations can be counted one against the other.. He who says, each one collects the amount of his note, learns it from the Sages and Admon¹²⁹Most commentators want to correct the text from מֵרַבָּנִין וְאַדְמוֹן to מֵרַבָּנִין דְּאַדְמוֹן “the rabbis opposing Admon.” But since מֵרַבָּנִין וְאַדְמוֹן can be interpreted as “the rabbis in their discussion with Admon”, the readings of ms. and editio princeps can be upheld as lectio difficilior.. Can the Sages and Admon not agree that one counts one mina against the other mina? Because we have stated: Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?” Therefore it was necessary to say, each one collects the amount of his note¹³⁰It is not necessary to read the Mishnah as prescribing that the notes have to be paid in cash and cannot be liquidated by accounting. Since Admon would allow one of the note holders to contest the other note without producing a receipt, all the rabbis say is that nobody can claim that a valid note was paid unless he produces a receipt.. If the holder of the note of 200 forgave a mina, but the holder of the note of a mina did not forgive. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted¹³¹No money changes hands since the two notes cancel one another out.. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, then what he forgave he cannot collect but what was not forgiven he can collect. If the note for 200 was written in a document but the loan for a mina was not written. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, the holder of the written note can collect but the recipient of the oral promise cannot collect¹³²If one loan was given as a mortgage but the other as a loan before witnesses, the mortgage can be foreclosed from any property the debtor had but the loan before witnesses could be foreclosed only from property not otherwise encumbered. If there are any other mortgages outstanding on the debtor’s property, the holder of the loan before witnesses cannot foreclose..