Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat · Siman 52

Shulchan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 52 — English translation

Translation: Sefaria Community Translation. Section numbers match the Hebrew text above.

1. 11. A Document That Contains Interest or a Ripped Document, 2 Seifim: A document that contains explicit interest cannot be used to collect the interest but may be used to collect the principal, even from encumbered properties. If, however, the lender included the principal with the interest, the document is invalid because the lender will come to also collect the interest. RAMA: If the defendant confesses, however, he must pay back the principal. (Maharik Shoresh 17) And there are those that say that he is exempt because we fine the lender and therefore the borrower does not have to pay. (Ibid, in the name of the Mordechai; and so also writes Tosefos there and in other places) If, however, the lender lent the money via a messenger and the messenger made the document and included the principal with the interest, the lender may collect the principal because he can say to the messenger, “I sent you to benefit me and not to harm me by including the principal with the interest.” (Maharik there) See Yoreh Deah Siman 161 for more on these laws. If a document is brought in front of us with a tear made by a court, which is a tear in the place of the witnesses, date and the substantive parts of the document or if it was torn vertically and horizontally, the document is invalid. If it is evident that the tear was done with a knife, the document is invalid even if it was not done vertically and horizontally. If the document was torn into two, it is worse than a court-made tear and would be invalid. RAMA: If there are witnesses that the document was torn accidentally, the document has the same rules as a case where the document was erased, as was explained above in Siman 41. If the tear was not court-made but [version of the Sma] it appears to the judge that the court tore it and a party added to the tear in order to hide the court-made tear, one could not collect with it. Otherwise, we would not be concerned. (Baal HaTerumos there 57)
2. 22. If a document was erased or blurred out and the form was still recognizable, the document is valid. Otherwise, it would be invalid. If the document rotted or was made like a sieve, it is valid. RAMA: If a moth or mice ate the document at the top, so long as the names of the lender and borrower and the primary part of the context is at the end, the document is valid. (Teshuvos HaRosh Klal 68 Siman 29; Teshuvos Maimoni on Mishpatim Siman 62)

License: CC0