MISHNAH: The witnesses to an simple document sign inside, to a knotted 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 back and a knotted one whose witnesses signed on its interior both are invalid. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Gamliel says, a knotted one whose witnesses signed inside 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. 8:12, Notes 107–112 . From where that a document can be knotted? Rebbi Immi said: “I took the sale document and the sealed 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 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.
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 below. But should one not be afraid that maybe he falsifies? 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 text 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 lengthwise; on a simple document the witnesses sign across. The first one on the outside, the latter one on the inside. Rebbi Mana said, [ ] 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 knots. Rebbi Idi said, but between witnesses’ signatures and the document there may not be space for two lines.
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]. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said: The Mishnah says so 9:8 , explained there Note 102. : “One Hebrew- and one Greek-writing witness …” Is not Hebrew combined with Greek one item? 7:11–12 . “How far from the text should the witnesses sign? That they can be read with it, 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 ולך. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Sabbatai: the width of the witnesses’ handwriting.
Ḥizqiah said, only for leniency. 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 small. Rebbi Isaac says: If his name was, e. g., Yose ben Yannai one estimates as if it were Melekh ben Melekh 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 erasure. Rebbi Isaac said, even for a simple document. Rav said, an erasure or an insertion must be confirmed in writing. Rav said, “this is its confirmation”. 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” 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 document 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 documents.
Rebbi Huna 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 used. He went out and said, τριάκοντα. After they left, he said, this one wanted to gain 30 and lost 20.
“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. 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 indebtedness? Rebbi Mani said, this is the formula for knotted documents of indebtedness. 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 indispensable. Rebbi Jehudah says, if one adds to the practice. 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 20 (denars) equal 25 tetradrachmas, the contract only calls for payment of 20 tetradrachmas. . “100 zuz which are 30 tetradrachmas,” he only has a mina . “Silver zuzim which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “Silver tetradrachmas which are” and the rest is erased, is for no less than two. “ Dareikos 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 erased. Five, but the other says, they were only two. There, they say, Ben Azzai and Rebbi Aqiba. One of them said, he pays two and swears about the remainder 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 conceded 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 start there was written a mina but at the end 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 stated is in the Babli, 166b ; that baraita, however, is formulated for all documents. : Always in a knotted document the bottom should be instructed by the top for one letter (or) [but not] for two letters. One confirms between Ḥanan and Ḥanani, or Anan and Anani, a difference of one letter; of two letters one does not confirm. 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 Nani?
MISHNAH: One writes a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife not be present, and a receipt. for the wife even though he husband not be present on condition that he know her. The husband pays the fee. One writes 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 present. The borrower pays the fee. One writes a sale contract 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 writes on the orders of both parties; the groom pays the fee. Documents of share-cropping and leases one only writes on the orders of both parties; the tenant pays the fee. Documents of arbitration and court decisions one only writes on the orders of both parties; both of them pay the fee. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one writes them in duplicate, one for each party.
HALAKHAH: “One writes a bill of divorce for a man,” etc. 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] 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, 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 it ( 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, forfaits 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 collected 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. 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 Ketubot 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 confirmation. 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 rightly, not to impair the other one’s rights.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody paid off part of his debt,” etc. Rav said, the court writes him a confirmation. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: the court does not write a confirmation. Rebbi Jeremiah said, if Rav had heard this baraita, he would not have said what he did.
“If two people lived in the same town,” etc. “They cannot write a bond one on the other.” As one formulates, “I, X ben Y, am taking a loan from you, Z, and U is guarantor.”
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. 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”?
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 press. 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 them. 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 mark. If they had identical charateristic marks, they should write “Cohen”. 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 paid. If one finds there two [bonds] given by the same [debtor], the larger one is paid, the smaller one is not paid.
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 bond.
MISHNAH: Somebody who gives a loan to another person with a guarantor may not request payment from the guarantor. 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 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 guarantor.
There, they instruct that practice everywhere follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel except for the guarantor10:14 . , Sidon 5:5 . , and the last proof 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 Mishnah 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 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 vow not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership against that person’s property and then he 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 spendthrift. 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 it and then let her property be foreclosed by his creditors. . He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables or paraphernalia 7:1 Note 1 ). which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa.
MISHNAH: Somebody who lent to another by a document collects from encumbered property, by witnesses collects from free property. If he presents a note in his own handwriting that he owes him, he collects from free property. From a guarantor who endorsed after the signature of the witnesses, one collects from free property. This case came before Rebbi Ismael who said, he collects from free property. Ben Nannas said to him, he collects neither from encumbered nor from free property. He asked, why? He answered, if one would strangle another in the market place 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 faith . 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 valid. But did we not state: “A predated prozbol is valid, postdated it is invalid”? 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 Yaqim. Rav Huna, quoted here. 9:5 (Notes 69–71 ). “Rebbi Eleazar said, it 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 testimony, 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 say 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 court 3:5 Note 72 , Babli Sanhedrin 44b ). 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.”
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 Joḥanan and Samuel parallels Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.
“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 Nannas. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael 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.