Siman 52

A document that contains ribbit: if the ribbit is explicit in the document, he does not collect the ribbit, but he collects the principal with it even from encumbered properties. We do not say that the document is invalid due to the disqualified witnesses, because the world thinks that the prohibition is only upon the lender and the borrower and not upon the witnesses, and the witnesses thought that they did not commit a prohibition in this. In their view, there is no stumbling block in this document, since the ribbit is explicit in it, he will certainly not collect the ribbit. And there are those who disagree and hold that the witnesses are disqualified and the document is invalid, and he does not collect even the principal with it; therefore, it is a legal doubt [Shach]. And if the ribbit is not explicit in the document but rather included with the principal, if the witnesses knew of this, it is obvious that it is an invalid document, for behold the witnesses are disqualified even according to the first opinion; since the ribbit is not explicit in it, it certainly could lead to a stumbling block where he would collect the ribbit with it as well. However, if the witnesses did not know of the ribbit, as the lender and the borrower told them that it was all principal, if the document has not yet been seen in beit din, the lender can write on the document that it was not given to collect anything but the principal, and it is valid to collect with it even from encumbered properties. But when the document has been seen in beit din in its invalidity, it no longer has a remedy, and it is only like an oral loan if the borrower admits or if other witnesses testify about the principal, or if those same signed witnesses testify about the principal having found out afterwards from the admission of the borrower and the like. And this is not like "there are those who say" who hold that we penalize the lender even on the principal, and the borrower does not need to pay him anything, for we established as the law that we do not penalize the permitted because of the prohibited, as has been explained in siman 43 regarding a post-dated document. And it is not similar to what will be explained in siman 414 regarding a stone where they penalized the body because of the improvement, for there the sages were forced to penalize him, for otherwise he would not refrain from doing so, as is written there in section 3. But here there is no concern that he will do so another time to lend with ribbit, for who says that the borrower will agree to borrow with ribbit [so it seems according to the opinion of the Shach]. Furthermore, there, if they penalized him, the sinner loses, but here, if we penalize the lender, the borrower will benefit, and behold he too is a sinner. Our teacher, the Rema, brought the opinion of these "there are those who say," and it must be said that he holds that this is like in siman 414, and also here there is reason to fear that if we do not penalize him he will do so another time, and many borrowers who are pressed for money will be found who will borrow from him with ribbit. Therefore we are not concerned even though through the penalty the borrower will benefit, for since he is pressed and squeezed, his sin is not as great as the lender's. This is not so in siman 43 regarding a post-dated document, where one will not find someone who would agree to this for the sake of the small profit from advancing the time, and also the lender himself is unlikely to do so for the sake of such a small profit. Nevertheless, the great later authorities decided according to the first opinion, and the one in possession cannot say "I am certain" like these "there are those who say" [Urim VeTumim]. And even according to the "there are those who say," our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if the lender lent through an agent and the agent made a document and included principal with ribbit, he collects the principal in any case, for he can say "I sent you to benefit me and not to harm me" by including the principal with the ribbit. Thus far his words. And it means: even if he commanded him to lend with ribbit, nevertheless he can say "I did not command you to include the principal with the ribbit and cause me to lose by law." However, according to the decision of the later authorities like the first opinion, there is no practical difference in this [and see Tosafot Bava Metzia 72a, starting with the word "Shtar" etc., for there it is regarding the body of the money etc.].

A document that comes before us torn, and the creditor says it was torn on its own: if the tear is at its folds, in the place where the paper was folded, and it is evident that it occurred on its own because it was laid for a long time or because of the handling of hands, even if it was torn completely lengthwise and crosswise and is not attached even slightly, it is valid [Taz]. And even if the fold was in the place of the toref, which is the place of the witnesses, the date, the money, and the names of the creditor and the debtor—for this is the tear of a beit din, as when a beit din tears a document they tear it in these places—nevertheless it is valid, since it is evident that it occurred on its own through the folding of the paper. This is unlike the one who says that in the place of the toref it is invalid even at its folds, on the grounds that he should not have left it until it was torn completely and should have gone to a beit din to validate it before it was torn completely, and therefore it was certainly done intentionally. For in truth, this is no proof, as a creditor is not particular about this since it is evident that it occurred on its own [Sma and the Acharonim, unlike the Shach]. And if it is evident that it was done by hand, it is invalid even if only a part of it was torn, for it is proven that it is paid, as otherwise the creditor would not have allowed it to be torn. And if it is not evident whether it was by hand or was torn on its own: if the tear is like the tear of a beit din that has been explained, or if it is torn lengthwise and crosswise not in the place of the fold even if it is still attached, or if it was torn into two not in the place of the fold and is not attached at all, it is invalid even if not in the place of a tear of a beit din, for it is evident that it was done by hand. And even if the creditor swears that it was torn on its own or by some cause, it does not avail, for we do not extract money through an oath except in places where the sages instituted it, unless he brought witnesses that it was torn on its own by some cause, for then it is valid and its law is like one whose promissory note was erased in siman 41. And if the tear is in a place where the document is not invalidated, such as in the tofes, he collects with this document and the beit din does not need to make him another document. But if the tear is in the toref, they make him another document [ibid.]. And even if the tear was not in the place of a tear of a beit din, if it appears to the judge that there was a tear of a beit din in it and they added to the tear in order to hide the tear of the beit din, they do not collect with it. But otherwise we are not concerned; for example, if a large hole was found in the document, we do not say it was a tear of a beit din and this person removed its surroundings to hide the tear of the beit din, for it is not the way to do so, and we do not invalidate a document because of such a doubt. And this matter depends on the assessment of the eyes of the judge, and the words of the debtor in this regard neither add nor subtract unless he brings witnesses [as mentioned above].

If a shetar was erased or blurred, if its impression is recognizable it is valid, and if not it is invalid, unless the lender brings witnesses that it was erased or blurred due to a specific cause. If its impression is recognizable and the beit din sees that in a short time it will be completely erased, they make him another shetar as in siman 41. A shetar that rotted or became like a sieve full of holes is valid. If moths or mice ate it at its top, as long as the name of the lender and the borrower and the essence of the matter are recognizable at its end, we validate it. Nevertheless, such a shetar requires much inquiry and investigation. Similarly, a shetar upon which a long time has passed, we do not invalidate it, only that it requires much inquiry and investigation; and if it appears to the dayan in his intellect that it has been paid, one does not collect with it.