Siman 50

A document in which the name of the lender is not explicitly written, but rather it is written therein, "I, So-and-so, borrowed a maneh from you," and witnesses are signed below on the confirmation of the matter—the law of this document is like a document with witnesses, as will be explained in siman 69. Anyone who produces it may collect with it, for presumably the one who produces it is the lender, and we do not fear that perhaps another person lent to him and it fell from him and this one found it, for everything that is in a person's hand is in the presumption of being his. This is specifically when the one producing this document claims thus, that he is the lender; but when he claims that he purchased it from another, it requires writing and delivery like all documents, as I wrote in siman 66, because the language "from you" does not imply from anyone who produces it, but from the lender specifically. And this is specifically when witnesses are signed upon it; but with the signature of the borrower alone, or even when witnesses are signed only to confirm his signature—where the borrower is believed to say regarding such a document "I paid," as I wrote there—therefore he is also believed to say, "I did not borrow from you, but rather from another, it fell, and you found it," by way of a migo that if he wanted, he could have said "I paid," and he would take a shevuat hesset regarding this. And even though there are those who say that he is not believed to say "I paid" regarding a personal signature, nevertheless the primary ruling is that he is believed, as I wrote there. And similarly, if there is a legal ruling written therein that "So-and-so is liable to his counterpart," which does not specify to whom he is liable, anyone who produces it may collect with it, for presumably he is the man to whom he became liable. And this too is specifically according to the opinion explained in siman 39 that he is not believed to say "I paid" against a legal ruling; but according to the opinion cited there that he is believed to say "I paid," he is also believed with a hesset to say that it belongs to another, by way of a migo of "I paid." And a personal signature in which trustworthiness is written, such that he is not believed to say "I paid," as I wrote in siman 69, anyone who produces it may collect with it just as with a document with witnesses, for behold, he has no migo.

A document in which it is written that so-and-so is indebted to so-and-so or to anyone who produces it, the intention is not that he has encumbered himself to anyone who produces it even if he does not come through the power of that so-and-so. Rather, the intention is that when the one producing it comes through the power of that so-and-so, the benefit of this writing is that he does not require another authorization. For since it is written thus, it is as if he wrote to so-and-so and those coming through his power. And since the one producing it claims that he purchased it from so-and-so or that he is an agent of so-and-so, he collects with it and does not require another writing as with all documents, which require writing and delivery. But if he does not come through the power of that so-and-so, he does not collect with it, for since the name of the lender is written in the document, he is the primary [party] and one must specifically come through his power.

But a deed in which it is written that he subordinates himself to anyone who produces it, as is our custom to write "to any bearer," that anyone who produces it collects with it, even though it is known that he did not borrow from him—since he subordinated himself to anyone who produces it, for a person can obligate himself to another even when he did not borrow from him, as I wrote in siman 40. And such a deed that was lost from the hand of the lender, the borrower is not obligated to pay him, for behold, whoever finds it will collect with it, unless the lender provides him such a guarantee that no damage will reach the borrower if another finds it [Netivot HaMishpat]. And if the beit din sees that proclamations will be effective in this, that anyone who does not bring such a deed to beit din loses his right, they shall do so if they know that no damage will reach the borrower when he pays the lender. But a shover is not effective against such a deed, for it has no specific owners and whoever holds it is its owner, and what will the shover of another avail? And if, despite this, a shover was issued against it, such as witnesses testifying that the lender held this deed written "to any bearer" on such-and-such a day for such-and-such an amount and the borrower is such-and-such a person, and this borrower settled with the lender the entire debt in this deed, and afterwards the deed was produced from the hand of another and he claims with it, the borrower is obligated to pay the producer everything he gave for it, for he is not liable in the matter, as such a deed is capable of being purchased. And this law is like one who took an object and it became known that it was stolen, where the owner of the object must pay the buyer everything he gave for it because of the "enactment of the market," as I wrote in siman 356. Therefore, if it was publicized that the borrower paid for this deed and afterwards another bought it, he does not need to pay him anything, for he should not have bought it, and it is like one who took from a famous thief where they did not apply the "enactment of the market," as is explained there. And all the more so if he found this deed and witnesses testify that he explicitly paid for this deed, that he collects nothing with it; even though he subordinated himself to any bearer, nevertheless he only subordinated himself for one payment and no more. And if witnesses do not testify explicitly that he paid for this deed, he is obligated to pay the producer everything written in the deed, whether he bought it or found it, since it was not clarified that he paid for it; it turns out that the owner of the deed is whoever produces it. And even if the true lender claims from him, he shall not pay him without the deed, as I wrote, and the lender caused his own loss. But nevertheless, when the borrower claims that he already paid for this deed, he can administer an oath to the producer that he does not know that this deed is paid [Shach and later authorities]. And all this is when the deed is with witnesses, but a deed with his signature alone, even though witnesses testify to his signature, since they do not testify to the matter itself, the borrower is believed with an oath to say "I paid," as I wrote in siman 69, for regarding a signature he is believed to say "I paid." But he is not believed to say "I did not borrow from you" with a migo of "I paid," for behold, even if he did not borrow from him, he is obligated to pay him since it was written "to any bearer," as I wrote. And in siman 65, section 9, it will be explained that even though when it is written "to any bearer" anyone who produces it collects with it, nevertheless if he found it and collects with it, he commits a prohibition against the lender. And a shover regarding the deeds mentioned in the previous sections: it is a simple matter that regarding the deed explained in section 1, since the borrower produces a shover from one person, the deed is void since it was written to a specific person, as I wrote there. And specifically when witnesses testify that in their presence the owner of the shover paid for this deed, for if not so, he could receive a shover from any man and cause loss to the lender. And regarding the deed in section 2, the shover must specifically be from the lender explained in the deed, or that witnesses testify in the shover that this one who gave the shover comes by the power of the lender. But if the shover is from another man, even if the borrower says that this one comes by the power of the lender in the deed, it is nothing, and he is not believed without proof, and the lender or his representative can claim from the borrower with this deed. And know that all these things that we explained regarding the laws of the shover in all types of deeds are only regarding a shover written on a separate paper, but when the shover is written on the deed at the bottom or the back of the deed, since it is written that this deed is paid, we are not exacting in any way to whom he paid, and the deed is void in all types of deeds explained in this siman [see the end of the first chapter of Bava Metzia].