Mishna says if found among his documents, the act according to the receipt. But gemora brings in Rav Safra 'found among torn..' and therefore 'here too' - limits the mishna to a case when document is found among torn documents. That is according to Rashi, but can't there be an understanding that 'among torn documents' actually should be applied to rabi Yermiahu's opinion that the found receipt is just a joke? Where is that line from Rav Safra about 'found among torn...' located, anyway? I can not find it.
eliezer bogatin, long beach, ny, 11561
The line from Rav Safra is 2 lines from the bottom of 20b Wishing you a Kesivah uChasimah Tovah
Dovid Bloom
I was looking again at this question and thought I would add one or two comments. The reason why Rebbi Yirmeyahu says that the receipt is a joke is that one would expect to find that it is the debtor who is holding the receipt to prove that he paid back. There seems to be no logical reason why the creditor should be holding the receipt. That is why Rebbi Yirmeyahu says that it must be that the receipt was prepared by the creditor so that it should be ready for immediate use, but has not actually been used yet.
Because of the compelling logic that one does not expect to find a valid receipt held by the creditor, the Gemara is forced to limit the scope of what Mishnah says (that one follows the receipt even if it is found with the creditor) to a specific case where it was found among torn-up documents, which suggests that these debts have already been paid up. It is only because it was found among torn-up documents that we have a strong proof that the deeds of debt have actually been paid up, and therefore we may say that the receipt has also been used and is not a joke. Therefore, we do not say that Rebbi Yirmeyahu claims that the receipt is a joke even if found among torn-up documents, because, if so, we would have no way of understanding the Mishnah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dovid, thanks for your reply. But, I would say, that the receipt in the 'torn docs' pile was likely thrown out as not used (the intended recipient of the receipt , the borrower, never came up with the payment, and that's why the creditor deposed of the prepared receipt by throwing it away into his 'torn doc' pile. But, if the borrower did pay, and failed to pick up his receipt, then the creditor would likely keep it in his active file together with the loan doc itself, indicating to himself that it is paid of as per the receipt, and as per Mishna. To me this sounds more reasonable than the other way, wouldn't you agree? Because, if u throw away the valid receipt, and never go through the ,'torn-up' file, how would the creditor remember that the loan is paid up already. The borrow obviously doesn't have the receipt, counting on creditor's record or memory & justice.
Eliezer, I think one can say that there are three possibilities: (a) the "active file" and (b) the "inactive file" of the torn documents, and (c) the garbage.
1) If the borrower does not come up with the payment, the creditor will not despair so quickly. Do not forget that the Gemara says that he may have had the receipt written by a scribe, no doubt for a fee, so that it will be ready immediately when the borrower eventually decides to pay up, so one does not expect the creditor to throw it away so readily. However, when the creditor does finally despair of ever seeing the money again, I should have thought that he will throw the useless receipt into the garbage, not into the inactive file.
2) The point about the "torn docs" pile is that these are documents which were valid at one time, but have now been used up. This, as far as the creditor is concerned, is also the status of the receipt which was written for the creditor but was afterwards granted to the borrower when he paid back. That is why it is logical to place this receipt together with the torn-up documents of the creditor.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom