Siman 48

A scribe who comes to write blank forms of documents so that they will be ready before him, the authority is in his hand, and he may even write the essential part of the document—that is, the name of the lender, the borrower, and the money—when he knows that he will borrow such a sum from him. And we do not say that it appears like a falsehood, that he writes that he borrowed when he has not yet borrowed, for regarding writing we are not concerned with it appearing like a falsehood as long as there are no witnesses signed upon it, for writing is nothing. And the scribe shall leave the place of the date blank so that it will not be predated. And there are those who say that he must also leave the essential part blank, and in a place where there is no custom to also write the essential part, one should be concerned for this opinion [see in the Shach].

A document that was written for a single loan and the borrower repaid it, he cannot borrow from him again on this document, even if it is not postdated, such as if he repaid it on the day of the loan. In any case, the status of a document is not upon it, for its lien has been removed, and he cannot collect with this document even from unencumbered properties [Shach and Taz] by means of this document, for it is like mere shard, and he can also claim "I repaid," and this loan is only like a loan by word of mouth. And some say that regarding unencumbered properties it has the law of a complete document and he is not believed to say "I repaid" [Sma and Netivot HaMishpat]. And likewise, if he repaid part of his debt, he cannot go back and borrow that part again with it, for the lien was forgiven regarding the part that he repaid. And all this is specifically regarding a document with witnesses through which one collects from encumbered properties; then we say that its lien has been removed, and according to the first opinion, he cannot collect even from unencumbered properties. But a document with the handwriting of the borrower, he may go back and borrow with it even when it was repaid, since it contains no lien on the properties of purchasers. And all the more so regarding a document written to "any bearer of this" in which the name of the lender is not written, that he may go back and borrow with it even at a time later than the writing of the document, for there is no ruin in this that it was written at an earlier time, unless the loan was with witnesses, for then he may not go back and borrow with it except on that same day of the writing of the document. And the reason is because in siman 104 it will be explained that an earlier loan by word of mouth precedes to collect from a later loan by word of mouth regarding the collection of unencumbered properties, and now perhaps there will be another debt upon the borrower earlier than this loan, and the borrower will not have properties sufficient for the repayment of both debts, and when they see in the document that this one is earlier, they will collect for him unlawfully [Shach]. But when the loan was without witnesses, he does not precede to collect with the handwriting of the borrower even if it is earlier, because we fear a conspiracy that perhaps he handed it to him now and they wrote it with an earlier date.

Some say that this which the sages prohibited, to borrow with a document that has witnesses a second time because its lien has been removed, the explanation is that the first acquisition was removed. Therefore, if he went back and performed an acquisition on that same day, he may borrow with it again; and even if he did not go back and grant him an acquisition, but only when he went back and delivered it before witnesses on the day of the signing according to the one who says witnesses of delivery effect the legal act even regarding documents. And specifically that he delivers it to him before the witnesses of the signing, or that there are no witnesses of signing on the document at all and they relied only on witnesses of delivery. But if there are witnesses signed on the document and now he delivered it to him before other witnesses, it is not effective. And the reason is that since these signed witnesses testify that he owes him from the first loan, and in truth the first was canceled and the witnesses of the signing do not know of this, it is like a forgery from within and is invalid (Shach). However, in siman 51 it will be explained that several poskim hold that witnesses of delivery are not effective at all regarding documents; see there.

That which we explained in section 1, that regarding a shtar with the handwriting of the borrower where the loan was without witnesses, he may borrow with it another time even not on that same day, this is specifically when it is not written therein for how long he is lending to him. However, when a time is written therein—for example, if he lent to him in Nisan and it is written therein that he is lending to him until Tammuz—he cannot borrow from him again on this shtar except in a manner where the second loan does not extend beyond Tammuz. According to this, one must protest against those who are accustomed to borrow according to a heter iska with a fixed profit so that he will not need to swear how much he profited or lost, as is the custom in our times, and when the borrower pays, he lends to him once more on this iska shtar. It is forbidden to do so, for in most iska shtars it is written that it shall continue until a certain time, and how can he lend to him for a longer duration of time? But if it is not clarified in the iska until when the iska shall continue, or if it is written therein "and if it shall continue longer, the iska remains in its force," if the loan was without witnesses, he may borrow from him several times on this shtar after he paid the past loan. However, when the loan was with witnesses, even if the witnesses are not signed on the shtar, it is forbidden to borrow another time on this shtar, as I wrote in section 1. And all the more so if the witnesses are signed upon it, that it is forbidden even when it is written therein "and if it shall continue longer etc." And the law of marmurot will be explained in siman 69, see there, for the majority of the great authorities agreed that one may not collect with a blank signature without writing upon it; and see there where we explained that with a wechsel one collects, see there section 8.