You will find the subject matter in Thoughts at the end of 40a. "Tosfos in Kesuvas cites the RIF who maintains that the ceditor may collect with a handwitten note of the debtor only when the debtor completely denies ever borrowing money. If he claims, however, that he borrowed money but the he paid it back, then he IS believed.) (Y. Marcus)"
It would seem to me that if the debtor has the chutzpah to completely deny the debt then he CAN be believed. On the other hand if he claims he borrowed but paid back maybe he's stalling for time and should NOT be believed. Could you please comment on my reasoning and why it is not correct?
Wishing Rav Mordecai Shlitah and his family, and all the members of the
kollel and their families, a Kesiva v'Chasima Tova. Many thanks for your
fantastic work in bringing some of the Gemorah's depth to those like myself
who otherwise would not garner and understand the beautiful concept that you
so aptly elucidate.
The reason the debtor cannot deny the debt entirely is because his own signature testifies to the contrary. Since his signature has been confirmed in Beis Din, it can be held as legal proof that the loan took place. If, however, he claims that the loan was paid back, the self-signed document does not contradict his claim. (Since it is not a full-fledged Shtar, he does may not have bothered to tear it up upon repayment of the debt.)
Thanks, and Kesivah Vachasimah Tovah!
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Thank you for your comments!