Dear Rav Kornfeld and Rav Weiner:

There seems to be a discussion following Rav Assi's position in which the gemara says that it is not proper to pre-write a note of indebtedness with witnesses since it establishes a lien for the lender.

I think there is a difference between a potential lien and an actual lien --- but perhaps I am associating the term lien more with modern practice of a registry of deeds.

For example, if I take out a mortgage for $100K, and a lien is recorded against my home for the full principal amount of that mortgage, but each month I make a principal payment, at some point I might have paid it down to $50K, yet the lien remains recorded at $100K, the original promisory note amount.

The lender surely has a lien, but its only enforcable up to the remaining amount of principal.

And for a "home equity line of credit" surely there is a lien for more than the debt amount particularly if no checks have been written against that line of credit.

And it would be wrong (illegal, unenforcable, immoral) for a lender to try to enforce a lien which is for a loan which was never made... how can we be worried about righteous Yidden to call a pre-written note as an actual lien.

Here are a few scenarios in which this concept of a pre-written note might have parallel to show that its not a problem... If I'm way off base on what the Gemara means by lien, then these (potential) scenarios are probably not worth reading...

+ suppose a borrower knows that one of two possible lenders are coming into town, but is not sure which one. Perhaps he might write up two "offers" to borrow, and whichever one is accepted, or gives the better terms, will be turned into a transaction.

He could thus request the same scribe and same set of witnesses to write their parts of the contract eventhough as soon as one loan became realized, the other offer could no longer be made since it is backed by property which now has a lien against it.

Perhaps the witnesses are attesting that the offer was written up by an owner of property with unencumbered value to put a lien against, with a known contengecy that the loan has to have happened for it to be valid.

And as soon as one lender accepted the "offer" to borrow, the borrower would likely want to tear up the other one, or rescind the offer to borrow, since the property who's value would back the loan was no longer available.

+ in a sealed-bid auction, eventhough each bid is probably a complete purchase offer, yet we know only one such bid can be accepted.

+ one might pre-write a few checks from their (empty) checking account in hopes of someone giving them cash, with the expectation that there will be funds in the account by the time. The check can be written without sufficient funds to be used only after the funds have been given, and then put into the account.

+ if there are multiple brothers to a yevama's dead husband who are each willing to perform yibum, apparently more than one can send in a "mimer", which if she accepts from one brother, she becomes unavailable to any other brother.

Would there be anything wrong, even for an Ashkenazi Jew, to dispatch two messengers to each of two eligible women, each with an engagement ring?

Its not a marriage until it really is, however an engagement ring would seem to be a potential marriage...

Perhaps even if two were accepted, isn't it easy to break off an engagement? No harder than tearing up an unused contract offer?

+ biologically we seem to offer multiple potential fertilizers, knowing that as soon as one is accepted, all other potential fertilizers are destroyed. While each potential fertilizer has such recognized potential; "tearing up" surplus pre-prepared contracts as "potential liens" no longer needed since the one lender came through for the borrower is not taking away any actual lien from any lender... the contract was still the borrower's property, and the lender never established the lien.

Thank you and Gut Chodesh.

Robert