Siman 53

One who holds a document against his fellow for a maneh, and the creditor comes and says, "Make me a document for fifty zuz because the debtor paid me fifty," we do not listen to him. For perhaps he paid him the entire maneh, and the creditor told him that he lost his document and gave him a shover for the maneh, and now he will produce against him a document for fifty and say that it is a different loan and collect with it. Furthermore, even when it is known by witnesses that it is so, that he paid him half, we do not make him another document without the knowledge of the debtor; rather, they write for him upon the document that he paid fifty. In this way, no loss will reach the debtor in any manner, since this document is in its completeness, and if there is a shover against it, he will not collect with it at all anymore. Similarly, when it is known by witnesses that he did not pay at all, and he requests that they make him two documents of fifty, or if he has two documents of fifty and it is known by witnesses that he has not yet paid at all and he requests that they make him one document of a maneh, we do not listen to him unless the debtor also commands it. The reason is that for the debtor, there is sometimes a benefit when the entire debt is in one document, because when he pays him part of the debt and the creditor writes him a shover for that part, then when the creditor requests the remainder of the debt and the debtor claims "I paid," beit din administers an oath to the debtor, as will be explained in siman 84, for regarding a defective document, when he claims "I paid," beit din administers an oath to him. This is not the case with a document that is not defective, where they do not administer an oath to him unless the debtor claims "Swear to me," as written in siman 82. And sometimes it is better for him when the debt is in two documents, for when he pays him one document, he will tear it up; this is not the case when the entire debt is in one document and he pays him part and the creditor gives him a shover, for the choice is in the hand of the creditor as written in siman 54, and he will need to guard his shover so as not to lose it, for the debtor cannot compel him to write the payment upon the document, as written there. And the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [Chapter 23 of Malveh] that it is a merit for the debtor that they be two, so that he does not compel him in law at one time to collect everything. Thus far his words. And his intention is that when they are in two documents and the debtor requests of him to accept now for one document and regarding the second document he should wait for him, the creditor will not be stubborn in this; this is not the case when they are in one document, for the creditor will not agree to defect his document and become obligated in an oath when the debtor claims "I paid," as I have written, and therefore he will compel him to pay in full. Since in every side there is a benefit to the debtor, we do not act without his knowledge, but with the will of both of them, we act. And even though there is a concern of collusion, that perhaps the debtor owes others as well and does not have enough to pay everyone in full, and he makes for the creditor two documents so that he may collect two portions, as written in siman 104, nevertheless we do not concern ourselves with this, for in any case, this collusion is always within the power of the debtor to do, to give him another document [the Gra]. And even with the will of both of them, the witnesses can only write from the present time and not from the time of the first document, as written in siman 54; and this too is specifically when it was written in the first document "d'iknei," for if not so, it is invalid, as written in siman 43 [ibid.]. And if it is known by witnesses that he did not pay at all, and the creditor requests to waive part of his debt and make him a smaller document than this, we listen to him [Sma] even without the knowledge of the debtor.

If the lender requests from the beit din that they compel the borrower to give him a document in a manner that will enable him to collect in the secular courts, such as a promissory note or the like, so that he will be more secure in his money, the beit din sees: if the borrower is such a person who might not obey Jewish law, and now the beit din has the means to compel him to this, they should compel him to this. They shall act in a manner such that the lender cannot claim with the Jewish document alone and with the secular court document alone, such as writing on the document of indebtedness that for additional security the borrower also gave him other securities and the like. But if the borrower is a proper man and will certainly listen to the ruling of a beit din, they do not listen to the lender, since at the time of the loan he consented to a Jewish document alone [Radbaz]. And even if the borrower is a proper man, only that his situation is pressed and he is also indebted to others who have securities from the borrower that they are able to collect in the secular courts, and they will not obey Jewish laws and this lender will come out empty of his debt, the beit din commands the borrower that he should also give to this lender securities like those the other lenders have. Except when they have a collateral, this law is not applicable, for they are as if already collected. And the general principle of this law is that it depends on the assessment of the beit din [it appears to me]: