1 - redemption lamb for questionable bechor of a donkey
The Gemara works out that only in the case of 9 lambs plus
the 1 redemption lamb of a questionable bechor it works out that the Yisrael gives 1 lamb to the Kohen, and if the donkey was a bechor, then the 9 were not subject to tithing, and the lamb was owed to the Kohen, otherwise, its 10 lambs tithed.
Has anyone worked out whether the reasoning holds true for any multiple of 10 plus 9 plus 1 doubtful, such as 19 lambs in the pen?
My Chavrusa thinks it doesn't work at 19 since the first group of 10 could not have been tithed if it included a doubtful one, but I am not convinced since the Mishna told us that the redemption lamb goes into the pen to be tithed, and I take this to mean that the Yisrael owes a lamb, any lamb, or the value of a lamb, and not that specific lamb.
2 - authentication of contract document vs substantiation of current debt
The Gemara apparently rules that the debtor's agreement that there once was a valid contract of a debt represented by this authentic contract is not sufficient for the creditor to now collect the debt.
If the debtor claimed that the contract were a forgery it would be even weaker corroboration.
If the posession of the document were wholly with one and not the other, then authentication might be a necessary part of any judgement.
Does anyone discuss these terms for authentication (of the contract itself) and substantiation (of the debt it represents being current) so that I can learn the proper vocabulary to phrase some additional questions, such as:
- since earlier we learned that there cases where the admission of his own mouth is stronger than that of witnesses, and we learned about partial admission, I would like to think that we can use the debtor's acceptance of the contract's former validity as proof of its authenticity eventhough we do not let the creditor collect the full amount since the debtor at the same time calls it an unsubstianted loan.
- a person with satisfiction of prior debts according to secular credit principles is a better credit risk than someone with no credit history. Therefore to get new a loan from a potential new creditor a debtor might want a former creditor to authenticate a promisory note of a past debt -- one purpose served by today's credit bureaus.
Have either of these come up as part of discussion on this Gemara, or otherwise in modern applications of these Halachos?
1) The Gemara concludes that the only problem is with the last nine, because on the earlier sets of ten, there is no problem even if the Safek lands on number ten, since the remaining nine are exempted through the Halachah of Minyan ha'Rauy. As long as there are ten sheep which must be tithed in the pen, they become exempted by being counted. The only problem arises on the last nine, for Minyan ha'Rauy only creates an exemption when -- at the time that the counting commenced -- there were ten liable sheep; however if there were only nine, one must join them with other sheep rather than count them now.
2) The basic issue which you are dealing with is the subject of a Machlokes Tana'im: when one authenticates the validity of a Shtar but claims that it is paid, does the Shtar still need to be authenticated by Beis Din? Rebbi Asi holds that "Modeh b'Shtar she'Kasvo Ein Tzarich l'Kaimo," and his reasoning is, as you pointed out, that the only real question about the document is whether or not it is a forgery, once the borrower has admitted to the loan. Rebbi, on the other hand, holds that even though one has admitted to the loan, if he claims to have paid, then the lender must substantiate the Shtar, for the borrower has a "Migo": he could have claimed that the Shtar was false and have required the lender to make Kiyum. Therefore, although generally we treat the possession of a Shtar as absolute proof that the loan is still outstanding, still, though, we accept claims against the Shtar so long as it has not been Mekuyam.
(Regarding the modern practical application of these principles, there is discussion among the contemporary authorities about it, although only inasmuch as it is practical to loans between Jews who submit to Halachic law; credit bureaus, and most transactions of significant loans, are conducted in accordance with civil law.)
Dov Zupnik