Today’s daf raises the question of documentation in a case in which someone pays back a portion of a loan. Here’s the mishnah:
In the case of a debtor who repaid part of his debt, Rabbi Yehuda says: The creditor should exchange the promissory note for a new one stating the current balance and tear up the first promissory note.
Rabbi Yosei says: The creditor may keep the original promissory note, and he should write a receipt for the payment he has received and give it to the debtor as proof of his partial payment of the sum recorded in the old note.
Rabbi Yehuda said: It is found that this debtor must now guard his receipt against being destroyed by mice (as if he no longer has the receipt, he will have to pay the entire sum recorded in the promissory note).
Rabbi Yosei said to him: This situation is fitting for him.
Let’s say Rachel loans Leah $100 and gives her a promissory note for the full amount. A month later, Leah pays Rachel back half of the debt: $50. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the onus is on Rachel, the lender, to exchange the old promissory note for a new one stating that the amount now owed is $50. Rabbi Yosei disagrees, arguing that Rachel can keep the original note while providing Leah with a receipt that confirms partial payment.
Rabbi Yehuda, whose primary concern seems to be for the debtor, doesn’t like this solution, since the onus is now on Leah to prove that she has already paid back half the loan to Rachel. What if the receipt is eaten by mice, or otherwise destroyed (in my case, by spilling any one of my emotional support beverages on it)? If the only document remaining is in Rachel’s possession, and it’s for the original amount, she might try to collect the full amount and Leah would have no recourse.
Rabbi Yosei, however, whose primary concern seems to be for the creditor rather than the debtor, has no problem with this plan. He even suggests that mice chewing up the receipt might be a kind of cosmic justice for Leah making only a partial payment.
It’s up to the Gemara to reconcile these two views, ensuring that the lender is paid back in full while protecting the borrower from overpayment.
Rav Huna says that Rav says: The halakhah is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, nor is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Rather, the halakhah is that the court tears up the original promissory note and writes a different promissory note for the creditor, listing the new sum owed, dated from the time of the first document.
Rav, perhaps seeing flaws with both positions in the mishnah, offers a third solution. He rules that the court should destroy the original note and write a new one for the balance, backdated to when the loan was originally made, and leave it with the creditor rather than the debtor. This option will presumably alleviate the debtor’s fear that she’ll have to prove she has already made a partial payment. It also puts the onus on the court, a neutral entity, to write the new document. Tomorrow, we’ll learn that another reason the court is brought in is because they have the power to confiscate the money if it’s being withheld.
Read all of Bava Batra 170 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on December 12, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
