Mr. Halperin was reviewing his files. He found a loan document, signed by witnesses, stating that Mr. Stein borrowed $600 two years ago; the loan was already a year past due.
“I have a signed document that you owe me money,” Mr. Halperin said to Mr. Stein. “The loan was due a year ago.”
“I remember,” replied Mr. Stein, “but I paid you back when the loan came due.”
“I never received money back from you,” said Mr. Halperin. “Do you have a copy of your check or any receipt?”
“No, I paid you cash,” replied Mr. Stein. “You were supposed to have returned the loan document the following day, but we forgot about it.”
“No such thing happened,” said Mr. Halperin. “You didn’t pay me back. You still owe me the $600.”
“Six hundred dollars?” asked Mr. Stein. “That certainly is a mistake. It was only five hundred; there must have been a typo.”
Mr. Halperin thought for a minute. “On that point you’re right,” he said. “It was only five hundred. Even so, you owe me five hundred dollars. I still have the loan document and you have no receipt or proof of payment.”
“If your document is unreliable, I also can’t trust that it was not paid,” said Mr. Stein. “I am certain that I paid.”
“I don’t see what one thing has to do with the other,” replied Mr . Halperin. “I admit there was a typo in the loan document, but you also admit that there was a loan of five hundred dollars. You have no proof of payment, so pay the amount you agree that you borrowed!”
The two came before Rabbi Dayan. “Does Mr. Stein have to pay?” asked Mr. Halperin.
“Mr. Stein is believed that he repaid,” answered Rabbi Dayan, “since the loan document is invalid.”
“Halacha, he continued, “distinguishes between three cases in which the loan document does not reflect the true sum and the borrower claims he repaid the full amount. First, when the correct amount was written, but there is proof, or the lender admits, that part was already repaid. In that case, the document remains valid, so that the borrower is not believed that he repaid everything. However, the lender is required to take a serious oath to collect the remainder. Since part was repaid, there is concern that perhaps the rest was also repaid.” (C.M. 87:1; Sma 87:2)
“What about our case?” asked Mr. Stein.
“When the lender acknowledges the amount listed was in error, the borrower is believed that he repaid everything,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Since the lender admitted that the document is incorrect, his admission is like evidence – hoda’as ba’al din k’meah eidim dami. As such, the loan document is void. It remains like a loan without documentation, so that the borrower is believed that he repaid with a light oath – heses.” (C.M. 47:2; 84:4)
“What is the third case?” asked Mr. Halperin.
“When the lender acknowledges the amount listed was not the actual amount given, but was written with the authorization of the borrower,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “For example, he planned to borrow more, or for tax purposes wanted a greater amount listed. In this case, the document is not void, since the sum was written with the borrower’s authorization. The lender is believed to collect the amount he claims, since he could have collected the full amount with his document. There is no need for an oath, unless the borrower demands one.” (Sma 84:11)
“In accordance with nature of the oath,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “beis din will usually impose a compromise in lieu of the oath.”