Bava Basra - Daf 171
- A שטר whose recorded date corresponds to Shabbos or Yom Kippur (שטר מאוחר)
A Baraisa discusses a שטר whose recorded date falls out on Shabbos or Yom Kippur (e.g., the solar date was written), so the date is clearly inaccurate. Rebbe Yehudah says: שטר מאוחר הוא וכשר – it is assumed to be a postdated שטר, and therefore valid. Rebbe Yose says it is invalid. Rebbe Yehudah asked him that he himself once validated such a שטר, and Rebbe Yose replied that he only validated it in this case, where the date fell on Shabbos or Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks that Rebbe Yehudah was discussing the same case, and Rebbe Pedas explains that if the שטר’s date corresponds to Shabbos or Yom Kippur, all agree it is valid, because it is self-evident that the שטר’s date is inaccurate. Their argument is בשטר מאוחר בעלמא – an ordinary postdated שטר with no indication that it is postdated. Rebbe Yehudah, who holds we do not write receipts for payments (rather, the שטר is returned), validates a שטר מאוחר because it cannot cause any harm. Rebbe Yose invalidates it, because he holds we write a שובר, so a postdated loan document enables the lender to collect a second time, claiming it is a different loan.
- Writing a שובר for an entire debt, and the rationale for writing a שובר
Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua says that even according to Rebbe Yose, that we write receipts, הני מילי אפלגא – this is only for partial payment, אבל אכוליה לא – but for the entire [debt], we do not write a שובר, so he can refuse to pay if the lender claims to have lost the שטר. However, the Gemara concludes that we do write a שובר on the entire amount, as evidenced by an incident in which Rebbe Abba owed money to Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, who had lost his שטר but offered to write a שובר (for the full amount). Rebbe Abba objected that Rav and Shmuel ruled we do not write a שובר to enable collection, but Rav Yitzchak replied that Rebbe Yochanan, Reish Lakish, and Rebbe Ila’a ruled we do write a שובר.
The Gemara says it is logical to write a שובר, because otherwise, if the lender loses the שטר, יאכל הלה וחדי – the [borrower] should “eat” the money and rejoice over his exemption from paying? Abaye asked that the same injustice befalls a borrower who loses his שובר, but Rava responds that this is appropriate, because "עבד לוה לאיש מלוה" – the borrower is a slave to the lender.
- Justifying the current practice to validate a שטר מאוחר despite writing שוברים
Rav Hamnuna says that a שטר מאוחר is only valid for a loan, but postdated documents of sale are invalid, because someone may sell property in Nissan, and write a date of Tishrei in the שטר. Later, the seller may buy back the land before Tishrei, and the original buyer can present his שטר afterwards and (falsely) claim: הדר זבנתה מינך – “I bought it from you again!” The Gemara asks that the same concern applies to a postdated loan document, if the borrower receives a שובר where the lender says he lost the שטר, and it answers that Rav Hamnuna holds we do not write a שובר. Rav Kahana was asked that nowadays, we write postdated שטרות and receipts!? He answered that we write explicitly that the שטר is postdated. However, Rav Kahana was asked that we do not follow that policy, and he answered that we follow Rav Safra’s policy to tell the scribes that if they know the loan document’s date, they should record it in the שובר, and if not, they should leave the שובר undated, so whenever the lender will present the שטר, the borrower can counter with the שובר.
