רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף שִׁטְרֵי מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר אֵין כּוֹתְבִין וְכֵן הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהֶחְזִיר לוֹ אֶת הַשְּׁטָר חָזְרָה מַתְּנָתוֹ וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מַתְּנָתוֹ קַיֶּימֶת The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The court may not write a replacement document even for deeds of buying and selling land. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says as well: With regard to one who gives a gift of land to another, and the recipient returned the deed to him, his gift of land returns to him as well. But the Rabbis say: His gift of land remains in the possession of the recipient.
אָמַר מָר חוּץ מֵאַחְרָיוּת שֶׁבּוֹ מַאי טַעְמָא The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master says in the baraita: With regard to deeds of buying and selling land, the court may write a replacement document, excluding the guarantee that was in the first document. What is the reason that the guarantee may not be written?
אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת דִּלְמָא אָזֵיל בַּעַל חוֹב טָרֵיף לֵיהּ לְהַאי וְאָזֵיל הַאי וּמַפֵּיק חַד וְטָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת וְאָמַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב שׁוּף לִי דְּאֵיקוּם בַּהּ וַהֲדַר תָּא טִירְפַן וּמַפֵּיק אַחֲרִינָא וַהֲדַר אָזֵיל טָרֵיף לָקוֹחוֹת אַחֲרִינֵי Rav Safra says: It is because the court may not write two deeds of sale for the same sale of one field, lest a creditor of the seller go and repossess the field sold to this purchaser, and that purchaser go and take out one deed, and in accordance with the guarantee clause of the sale, repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller at a later date, and say to the creditor: Remain quiet [shof ] about this matter for a few years, while I become established in the property I repossessed. And then, come and claim your loan again, and then you will repossess this property from me. And then, after it is taken from him a second time, the purchaser will then take out the other document of sale, the replacement that the court had written for him, and then go and repossess land from other purchasers who purchased land from the same seller. In short, a replacement document with a guarantee will enable double collection on that guarantee.
וְכֵיוָן דִּקְרַעְנֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא דְמַלְוֶה בְּמַאי הָדַר טָרֵיף לַהּ The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Safra’s scenario: How would it be possible for this to occur? But once the creditor repossessed the land the first time as payment of the debt, we, the court, tore the promissory note of the seller’s creditor; with what document could the creditor repossess the purchaser’s land again?
וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא קְרַעְנֵיהּ וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן כֹּל טִירְפָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ קְרַעְנֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרָא דְמַלְוֶה לָאו טִירְפָא הוּא וְכׇל אַדְרַכְתָּא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּהּ קְרַעְנֵיהּ לְטִירְפָא לָאו אַדְרַכְתָּא הִוא וְכׇל שׁוּמָא דְּלָא כְּתִיב בַּיהּ קְרַעְנֵיהּ לְאַדְרַכְתָּא לָאו שׁוּמָא הִיא And if you would say that we did not tear the creditor’s promissory note in the course of the first collection, that cannot be. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that any document of authorization to repossess liened property from its purchaser in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s promissory note, is not a valid document of authorization to repossess liened property; and any document of authorization used to seize a debtor’s property in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s document of authorization to repossess liened property, is not a valid document of authorization; and any document of appraisal of an article’s value in which it is not written: We have torn the creditor’s document of authorization, is not a valid document of appraisal.
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ אֲבָהָתֵיהּ The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to explain Rav Safra’s case as follows: The concern is not that a creditor will repossess the field, but that someone will come to repossess it based on his claim to the land as the property of his ancestors. That is, he proved that the field had belonged to his ancestors, and by extension belongs to himself as their heir, and the one who sold the field was in fact a thief. It was for this reason that he repossessed the field from the purchaser, and the concern is that the purchaser will seek reimbursement, as stipulated in the guarantee, from other property sold subsequently by the seller. If the purchaser has two deeds of sale with guarantees, he can collect payment twice.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא וּלְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר לֵיהּ לְבַעַל חוֹב שׁוּף לִי בְּהַאי אַרְעָא וְאֵיקוּם בַּהּ תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּכֵיוָן דְּנָקֵיט תְּרֵי שְׁטָרֵי טָרֵיף וַהֲדַר טָרֵיף The Gemara presents another question pertaining to Rav Safra’s case. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: And why did Rav Safra have to include in his case that the purchaser will say to the creditor: Remain quiet about this matter for a few years while I become established in this land I repossessed, and then come and claim your loan again? Why did he devise a case in which the seller’s creditor collects payment twice? Let the problem derive from the fact that since the purchaser holds two deeds he will be able to repossess land based on his guarantee once and then repossess land again, even if the creditor does not collect his debt twice.
אִם כֵּן נְפִישִׁי עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲלֵי דִינִין Ravina answered: If so, if the purchaser attempts to repossess land twice based on a single repossession of the creditor, he will have too many litigants to deal with at once, and his dishonest dealings will be discovered.
וְלִכְתּוֹב לְהַאי שְׁטָרָא מְעַלְּיָא וְלִכְתּוֹב תְּבָרָא לְמוֹכֵר כֹּל שְׁטָרֵי דְּיִפְּקוּן עַל אַרְעָא דָּא פְּסוּלִין לְבַר מִן דְּיִפּוֹק בְּזִמְנָא דָּא The Gemara asks further: But let the court write a proper bill of sale, one that includes a guarantee, for this purchaser, and then let the court write a receipt for the seller, stating: All documents that are issued with regard to the purchase of this field are not valid, except for the one issued on this date, referring to the replacement document written by the court. This will prevent double collection, as if the purchaser attempts to collect on his guarantee with a second document, the seller will foil this attempt by showing this receipt.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין כּוֹתְבִין שׁוֹבָר The Rabbis said before Rav Pappa in response to this question, and some say it was said before Rav Ashi: Is that to say that the tanna of the baraita holds that in general the court does not write a receipt in such cases?