Creditor and Debtor Chapter 23

שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמֻּקְדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי טוֹרֵף בָּהֶן לָקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין וּלְפִיכָךְ קָנְסוּ אוֹתוֹ חֲכָמִים וְלֹא יִגְבֶּה בִּשְׁטָר מֻקְדָּם אֶלָּא מִבְּנֵי חוֹרִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְרֹף בּוֹ מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ:

Promissory notes that are predated are invalid, because they will be used to expropriate property from purchasers in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, our Sages penalized the lender, ruling that he may expropriate only property in the debtor's possession with a predated promissory note. This is a decree, enacted lest he expropriate property from the first, earlier, date.

שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּרַע כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף אֶלָּא מִזְּמַן הַשְּׁטָר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתְבוּ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְאֻחָר הֲרֵי זֶה כָּשֵׁר:

Postdated promissory notes are acceptable. For the legal power of the possessor of the promissory note has been diminished, for the lender can expropriate only property from the date of the promissory note. Even if the document does not state that it was postdated, it is acceptable.

שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתָבוּהוּ בַּיּוֹם וְנֶחְתַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֻקְדָּם. וְאִם הָיוּ עֲסוּקִים בָּעִנְיָן עַד שֶׁנִּכְנַס הַלַּיְלָה וַחֲתָמוּהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר:

When a promissory note is written during the day and signed in the night that follows it, it is unacceptable, because it is predated. If, however, the borrower and the lender were involved in negotiating the matter until night fell and then they signed, it is acceptable, even when the kinyan was made at night.

שְׁטָר שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ כָּתוּב בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה בְּתִשְׁרֵי שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר הוּא וְכָשֵׁר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מֻקְדָּם הוּא וּבְאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ בְּי"א בְּתִשְׁרֵי נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מַעֲמִידִין הַשְּׁטָר עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין בְּשַׁבָּת וּלְפִיכָךְ אִחֲרוּהוּ:

When a promissory note is dated on the Sabbath or on the tenth of Tishrei, we assume that it was postdated and that it is acceptable. We do not suspect that perhaps it is predated and that it was written on Sunday or on the eleventh of Tishrei. Instead, we accept the presumption that the promissory note is acceptable. The rationale is that it is known that legal documents are not composed on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was postdated.

כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַמַּלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְאֵין כּוֹתְבִין לַמַּלְוֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֶֹה עִמּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִנְיָן שֶׁהֲרֵי מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ נְכָסָיו. אֲבָל שְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קִנְיָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין אֲפִלּוּ לַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מַלְוֶה עִמּוֹ וְיִתֵּן הַשְּׁטָר בְּיַד הַמַּלְוֶה בְּפָנֵינוּ שֶׁמָּא יִכְתֹּב עַתָּה לִלְווֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בְּנִיסָן וְלֹא יִלְוֶה מִמֶּנּוּ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי וְנִמְצָא הַמַּלְוֶה טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטָר זֶה מִנִּיסָן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ עַד תִּשְׁרֵי:

We may compose a promissory note for the borrower even though he is not accompanied by the lender. We do not, however, compose a promissory note for the lender unless he is accompanied by the borrower. When does the above apply? With regard to a promissory note that was affirmed by a kinyan For from the time the kinyan was carried out, the borrower's property was on lien. When, however, a promissory note was not affirmed by a kinyan, we do not compose the note even for the borrower, unless he is accompanied by the lender and he gives the note to the lender in our presence. The rationale is that we suspect that the borrower may have the document composed at this time so that he can take a loan in Nissan, but in fact the loan will not be given until Tishrei. Thus, the lender will be able to use this promissory note to expropriate property that was in the borrower's possession unlawfully from Nissan, although the promissory note did not enter his possession until Tishrei.

עֵדִים שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיַּד הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת הַשְּׁטָר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה אִם יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין בַּשְּׁטָר זְמַן הַקִּנְיָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ זְמַן חֲתִימָתָן. וְאֵין צְרִיכִין לוֹמַר וְנִתְאַחֲרָה כְּתִיבַת יָדֵינוּ עַד יוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. וְאִם לֹא יָדְעוּ יוֹם שֶׁקָּנוּ בּוֹ כּוֹתְבִין זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה. וְכֵן מִי שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לָהֶן הָעֵדוּת בִּמְדִינָה אַחַת וְכָתְבוּ הָעֵדִים בִּמְדִינָה אַחֶרֶת אֵין מַזְכִּירִין בַּשְּׁטָר מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה בּוֹ הָעֵדוּת אֶלָּא מָקוֹם שֶׁכָּתְבוּ בּוֹ חֲתִימַת יָדָן:

The following rules apply when witnesses performed a kinyan with the borrower, the seller, or another person involved in a business agreement, but the composition of the legal document was delayed extensively. If they remembered the date on which the kinyan was established, they should write the date of the kinyan in the legal document, even though it was not the date that they signed the legal document. It is not necessary for them to state in the document: "Our signatures were delayed until this-and-this date." If the witnesses do not know the date on which the kinyan was performed, they should date the legal document from the day on which it was composed. Similarly, witnesses who observed a business transaction in one country and composed a legal document in another country should not record the place where they observed the testimony in the legal document. Instead, they should record the place where they signed the legal document.

שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁלֹּא נִכְתְּבוּ בִּזְמַנָּן אֲפִלּוּ הַמְאֻחָרִין פְּסוּלִין שֶׁהֲרֵי אֶפְשָׁר לִטְרֹף בָּהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁחָזַר הַמּוֹכֵר וְקָנָה הַשָּׂדֶה מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיֹאמַר חָזַרְתִּי וּלְקַחְתִּיהָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה מִמְּךָ וְנִמְצָא טוֹרֵף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. וְלָמָּה לֹא נָחוּשׁ כֵּן לִשְׁטַר חוֹב הַמְאֻחָר שֶׁמָּא יִפְרָעֶנּוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיוֹצִיא הַשְּׁטָר הַמְאֻחָר וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁטָר מְאֻחָר תַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב הַשּׁוֹבֵר סְתָם שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַשְּׁטָר יִשְׁבֹּר אוֹתוֹ זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. וְאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵן וְכָתַב הַשּׁוֹבֵר בִּזְמַן הַפֵּרָעוֹן הוּא הִפְסִיד עַל עַצְמוֹ:

When deeds of sale are not dated with the date of the transaction, even those that are postdated are not acceptable. The rationale is that the purchaser may use them to expropriate property in an unlawful manner. What is implied? For example, the seller could have repurchased the field from the purchaser before the date of the postdated deed of sale. The purchaser could then produce the postdated deed of sale and say: "I returned and purchased it from you a second time." He could thus expropriate property from a purchaser unlawfully. Why don't we harbor the same suspicions with regard to a postdated promissory note? It is possible that the borrower paid the lender before the date stated in the promissory note, the lender will write him a receipt, and then produce the promissory note and expropriate property unlawfully. We do not harbor such suspicions, because whenever a person composes a postdated promissory note, he can protect himself by having the receipt composed without a date. Thus, whenever the lender will produce the promissory note, the borrower can nullify it by producing this receipt. If the borrower did not do this and allowed the receipt to be composed dated the day when the debt was repaid, he caused himself a loss.

מִי שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֵהוּ בְּאֹנֶס וּמָסַר מוֹדָעָא. אוֹ שֶׁקָּדַם וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן לְאַחֵר קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר לְאַנָּס. הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת שֶׁל אַנָּס אֵצֶל הַמּוֹכֵר כְּמִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרֵף בִּשְׁטַר מֶכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ כְּלוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין דִּין שְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב וְלֹא נִכְתַּב אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

When a person was compelled to sell his field against his will and issued a protest, or hurried and sold the field or gave it away to another person before he sold it to the person who compelled him to sell it, the money that the person who compelled him to sell it gave him is considered to be a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. He may not use that deed of sale to expropriate any property that had been sold by the seller to others. This law was stated, because this deed of sale should not have been written, and it was written only under compulsion. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

אֶפְשָׁר לַטּוֹרֵף שֶׁיִּטְרֹף בְּלֹא שְׁטָר אֶלָּא בְּעֵדוּת עַל פֶּה. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֵדוּת שֶׁזּוֹ גְּזוּלָה מֵאָבִיו הֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ לְהוֹצִיא בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ וְאֵין כָּאן שְׁטָר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִידוּ לוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמַר הַדִּין לְאָבִיו לִטְרֹף מִנִּכְסֵי פְּלוֹנִי בְּכָךְ וְכָךְ מִזְּמַן פְּלוֹנִי וּמֵת אָבִיו וַעֲדַיִן לֹא טָרַף הֲרֵי הַבֵּן טוֹרֵף בְּעֵדוּת זוֹ:

It is possible for a person to expropriate property without a legal document, merely on the basis of verbal testimony. What is implied? If a person has witnesses who will testify that property was stolen from his father. He can expropriate the property on the basis of this testimony, although there is no legal document. Similarly, if witnesses testify that a judgment was concluded for his father to expropriate property from so-and-so, for this-and-this amount, at this-and-this time, and his father died without expropriating the property, the son may expropriate property on the basis of this testimony.

לְפִיכָךְ אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שִׁטְרוֹת מֶכֶר עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשֶׂה הַלּוֹקֵחַ קְנוּנְיָא עִם בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. כֵּיצַד. יָבוֹא זֶה וְיִטְרֹף שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּעֵדוּת שֶׁהֵעִידוּ לוֹ מֵחֲמַת אָבִיו וְיַחְזֹר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְיִטְרֹף בִּשְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת שֶׁלָּקְחוּ אַחֲרָיו וְיִקְרַע שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ וְיַחְזֹר בִּקְנוּנְיָא וְיַעֲמֹד בַּשָּׂדֶה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְיָבוֹא הוּא שֶׁטְּרָפָהּ בְּעַצְמָהּ וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בְּעֵדוּת עֵדָיו וְיוֹצִיא הַלָּה שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר הַשֵּׁנִי וְיִטְרֹף בּוֹ לָקוֹחוֹת אֲחֵרִים שֶׁלֹּא כַּדִּין. אִם כֵּן מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱבַד לוֹ שְׁטַר הַמֶּכֶר וְעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יִכְתְּבוּ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי וְיֹאמְרוּ בּוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְלֹא כְּתַבְנוּהוּ אֶלָּא לְהַעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיַד פְּלוֹנִי הַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיאָהּ מִיָּדוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר וְלֹא יוֹרְשָׁיו:

Therefore, we should never compose two deeds of sale for the same property, lest the purchaser perpetrate deception together with the creditor and expropriate property unlawfully. What is implied? This person will expropriate this field from the purchaser based on testimony that his father had the right to expropriate it. The purchaser will then use one deed of sale that he possesses to expropriate property from people who purchased property after he did from the borrower who sold him the property. The court will tear up the deed of sale that the initial purchaser possesses. For the sake of deception, the person who expropriated the field will allow the purchaser to take possession of it again. He will then expropriate it again on the basis of the testimony of his witnesses. The purchaser will then produce the second deed of sale and expropriate property from other purchasers unlawfully. If so, what should a person who has lost his deed of sale to a property do if the witnesses to the sale are still alive? A second deed of sale should be composed, saying: "This deed of sale may not be used to expropriate property that has been sold, or property that is in the possession of the seller. We have composed it only to establish so-and-so, the purchaser, as the owner of the field, so that the seller or his heirs cannot expropriate it from him."

בְּשִׁטְרֵי הַחוֹבוֹת אֵינוֹ כֵן. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדָיו קַיָּמִין וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ וְחָזַר בִּשְׁעָתוֹ וְאָמַר שְׁטָר שֶׁכְּתַבְתֶּם לִי עַתָּה אָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי שֶׁמָּא פְּרָעוֹ אוֹ מְחָלוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַחוֹב לִזְמַן וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה בְּעֵדִים אֵלּוּ כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם הַלּוֶֹה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיוּ דְּבָרִים מֵעוֹלָם שֶׁזֶּה הֻחְזַק כַּפְרָן בְּעֵדוּתָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

This principle does not apply with regard to promissory notes. Even though the witnesses to the loan are alive and entered into a kinyan with the borrower, if the lender returns immediately and tells the witnesses: "The promissory note that you composed for me is now lost or was burnt," they should not compose a second promissory note for him. We suspect that the debt was paid or that he waived payment. The above applies even if the loan was given for a period of time. The lender cannot collect any money on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, unless the borrower states: "The loan was never given." In that instance, he is established as a liar through their testimony, as will be explained.

מִי שֶׁבָּלָה שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא הוֹלֵךְ לְהִמָּחֵק מַעֲמִיד עָלָיו עֵדִים וּבָא לְבֵית דִּין וְהֵם עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם. אֲבָל עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר עַצְמָן אֵין כּוֹתְבִין לוֹ שְׁטָר אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּמְחַק בִּפְנֵיהֶם. אֲבָל בָּאִין לְבֵית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם:

When a promissory note in a person's possession is worn and it is beginning to become effaced, the lender should have witnesses look at it. He should then come to the court, and the court will validate it. The witnesses who signed the promissory note itself, however, may not compose another promissory note on their own initiative, even when the promissory note was blotted out in their presence. Instead, they should go to the court, and the court will validate the promissory note.

כֵּיצַד מְקַיְּמִין שְׁטָר זֶה. כּוֹתְבִין שְׁטָר אַחֵר וְאוֹמְרִים אָנוּ בֵּית דִּין פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי הוֹצִיא פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי שְׁטָר מָחוּק לְפָנֵינוּ וּזְמַנּוֹ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. וְאִם כָּתְבוּ וְהֻזְקַקְנוּ לְעֵדוּתָן שֶׁל עֵדִים וְנִמְצֵאת מְכֻוֶּנֶת גּוֹבֶה בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתְבוּ לוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ קִיּוּם אַחֵר. וְאִם לֹא כָּתְבוּ כֵן צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה עַל הָעֵדִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עַד שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם עֵדוּתָן:

How should this promissory note be validated? The court composes a new document that states: "We the court composed of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, saw how so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, produced a promissory note that was effaced in our presence. It was dated on this-and-this date. So-and-so, and so-and-so are his witnesses." If they composed such a document and required the testimony of the witnesses, and their testimony was corroborated, the lender may collect the debt with this document that was composed for him. No further validation is required. If the court did not compose such a document , if the debtor protests that the document is a forgery, the lender must also bring proof regarding the signatures of the original witnesses, so that their testimony will be validated.

שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁנִּתְקָרֵעַ כָּשֵׁר. נִמְחַק אוֹ נִתְטַשְׁטֵשׁ אִם רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִכָּר כָּשֵׁר. נִקְרָע קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֵיזֶהוּ קֶרַע בֵּית דִּין שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב:

When a promissory note is torn, it is acceptable. If its wording is in the process of being rubbed out or muddled, as long as the form of the original letters are recognizable, it is acceptable. If it is torn as the court tears a legal document, it is unacceptable. In which manner does the court tear a legal document? Both horizontally and vertically.

מִי שֶׁפָּרַע מִקְצָת חוֹבוֹ אִם רָצָה מַחְלִיף וְכוֹתְבִין לוֹ בֵּית דִּין שְׁטָר אַחֵר בִּשְׁאָר הַחוֹב מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן אֲבָל לֹא עֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר. וְאִם רָצָה יִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר:

The following laws apply when a person repays a portion of a debt recorded in a promissory note. If the lender desires, he may exchange the original promissory note, and the court composes a new document for him for the remainder of the debt, with the lien beginning on the original date. The witnesses to the original promissory note may not take this initiative. If he desires, he may write the borrower a receipt.

הַבָּא לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹ וְאָמַר הַמַּלְוֶה אָבַד לִי הַשְּׁטָר הֲרֵי זֶה יִכְתֹּב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר וְיִפְרַע כָּל חוֹבוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לַלּוֶֹה לְהַחֲרִים סְתָם עַל מִי שֶׁכּוֹבֵשׁ שְׁטָרוֹ וְטוֹעֵן שֶׁאָבַד. וְאִם טָעַן הַלּוֶֹה טַעֲנַת וַדַּאי וְאָמַר הַשְּׁטָר אֶצְלוֹ וְעַתָּה הִנִּיחוֹ בְּכִיסוֹ הוֹרוּ רַבּוֹתַי שֶׁיִּשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה הֶסֵּת שֶׁאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפְרַע חוֹבוֹ וְיִכְתֹּב שׁוֹבֵר:

When a person comes to pay his debt, and the lender tells him: "I lost my promissory note," the lender should compose a receipt for him and then the borrower should pay the entire debt. The borrower may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who hides his promissory note and claims that it is lost. If the borrower lodges a definite claim, saying: "The promissory note is in his possession. He just placed it in his pocket," my masters have ruled that the lender should take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note was lost. Afterwards, the borrower should pay the debt and a receipt should be composed.

מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמָנֶה וְאָמַר עֲשׂוּ לִי מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנַיִם בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים אֵין עוֹשִׂין שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת הַכּל בִּשְׁטָר אֶחָד שֶׁאִם יִפְרָעֶנּוּ מִקְצָת נִמְצָא שְׁטָרוֹ פָּגוּם. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת בַּחֲמִשִּׁים חֲמִשִּׁים וְאָמַר עָשׂוּ לִי אוֹתָן בְּמֵאָה אֵין עוֹשִׂין לוֹ אֶלָּא עוֹשִׂין לוֹ קִיּוּם לְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שֶׁזְּכוּת הוּא לַלּוֶֹה לִהְיוֹת שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלֹּא יָכֹף אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין בְּפַעַם אַחַת לִגְבּוֹת הַכּל:

When a lender produces a promissory note for a maneh and asks that two promissory notes for 50 zuz be composed, we do not comply. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have the entire debt recorded in a single promissory note. For if he pays him a portion of the debt, the legal power of the promissory note will be impaired. Conversely, if the lender produced two promissory notes, each one for 50 zuz, and asks that one promissory note for 100 be composed, we do not comply. Instead, we validate both of them individually. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have two promissory notes, so that the lender cannot compel him to pay the entire sum at one time.

הוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּמֵאָה וְאָמַר קְרָעוּהוּ וְכִתְבוּ לִי שְׁטָר אַחֵר בַּחֲמִשִּׁים אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא פָּרְעוּ הַכּל וְכָתַב לוֹ שׁוֹבֵר עַל שְׁטָר שֶׁל מֵאָה וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר וְיוֹצִיא קִיּוּם זֶה עַל שְׁטַר חֲמִשִּׁים וְיוֹצִיא הַלּוֶֹה הַשּׁוֹבֵר יֹאמַר לוֹ זֶה שְׁטָר אַחֵר הוּא:

When a lender produces a promissory note for 100 zuz and says: "Tear it up and compose another promissory note for 50," we do not heed his request. We fear that perhaps the borrower repaid the entire amount, and the lender wrote a receipt for him. If the lender authenticated the new promissory note for 50 zuz and the borrower produced the receipt, he would tell the borrower: "This is another promissory note."