Siman 239

Even though it was explained in siman 41 regarding a deed of loan, that for one who says that he lost his deed and requests the witnesses to write another deed for him, they do not write it for him; however, in a sale, one who comes and says that he lost his deed that he had for such-and-such field which he bought from so-and-so, and the witnesses know of this, they write another deed for him. For in a loan there is a concern lest he collect twice, but in a sale there is no concern. And even though there is a concern lest a creditor of the seller seize it from him and he will need to collect from the seller or from the purchasers of the seller and he will collect twice, there is a remedy for this: that they write in the deed that "with this deed one may not collect from encumbered properties nor from unencumbered properties, and we have only written it to establish in his hand such-and-such field so that the seller shall not remove it from his hand, and likewise the heirs of the seller." And there is one who says that they only write from the original date, because there is reason to concern lest after his purchase he went back and sold it to the seller, and he will later produce this deed whose date is after the sale that he sold to the seller and say, "I went back and bought it from you." And even though it is recognizable from within the deed that there was another deed—since they write in it that one may not collect with it as I have written—nevertheless, he would be able to say that at the time of the sale they wrote two deeds for him; for even at the beginning of the sale, when he requests to have two deeds written for him lest one be lost, they write for him in such a manner since there is no concern in this [Sma]. And nevertheless, one should not increase deeds for no reason, for the one who hears will not know and they will say that there are many deeds against the seller and his properties will be depreciated (Shach). And if the witnesses desire to write from the second date, they may write, provided that they write "this deed we have post-dated and written" [ibid.], for then there is no longer a concern that he will say "I bought it afterwards," since it is recognizable that it is post-dated. And all that I have written in this section does not require a beit din, and the witnesses themselves, when they know of the purchase of the land, may make such a deed [ibid.], and specifically regarding a deed of loan is a beit din required, as I have written in siman 41.

And there is a matter in which a debt document is more lenient than a document of sale, for postdated debt documents are valid, as written in siman 43, but postdated documents of sale are invalid when it is not specified in the document that it is postdated, for the reason that has been explained: perhaps he sold it to him in Nisan, and in Iyar the seller returned and purchased it from him, and if they write the time from Sivan, the buyer will say that after he sold it to the seller in Iyar, he returned and purchased it from him in Sivan. And if it is difficult, for when the seller buys it from him in Iyar, why does he need the writing of a document of sale at all—let the seller request from the buyer his document of sale back and tear it? Because in truth, by the return of the document the sale is not voided, as written in siman 243 regarding a gift, and consequently it is necessary that he write him a document, and it would not occur to the seller to request his document back, for why would he need this? Therefore, they must be careful not to write a postdated document in a sale, but rather they should write from the time of the kinyan. And the Tur wrote that even if they delayed a long time after the time of the kinyan, if they remember the time of the kinyan they can write from the time of the kinyan, and if not, they should write from the time of the writing. Thus far his words. And there is no concern in this when they write from the time of the writing that perhaps the seller returned and purchased it from him in the interim, for if he had returned and purchased it, the witnesses would know of this now as a rumor would have gone out. This is not the case if at the beginning of the kinyan they write a postdated time, where there is a concern that afterwards he will purchase it from him, as written [Sma]. And even though in section 1 we are concerned even for this when he requests to write another document and we do not say that the witnesses would have known, it is different there, for since he says that he lost his document, there is a flaw in this, and there is a concern even in such a case, which is not so when there is no flaw before us [Perisha].