Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a legalism in regard to contracts. Ordinarily, a contract needs to be ratified by two witnesses testifying that they recognize the signatures of the witnesses who signed on the document. However, there are certain situations where the debtor in the contract inadvertently ratifies it while actually attempting to discredit it. For example, instead of claiming that the contract is false, he claims something like, the loan was already paid, or “we drafted the contract assuming the loan would be made, but it never took place.“ In such a situation, because he inadvertently granted validity to the actual text of the contract and to the witnesses in the contract, we believe him enough that the contract now becomes valid, and his seemingly unlikely claim is disregarded in the face of a ratified contract.
The Talmudic idiom is modeh beshtar shekasvo eyno tzarich lekaymo.
The Gemara (Kesuvos 19a) has an extended discussion regarding the application of this principle of modeh beshtar, and Noam Elimelech (Shemos Bo 15) interprets the discourse as a meditation on the status of sin and repentance, which are spiritual debts. Let us study the actual text of the Gemara, with the allegorical interpretation interwoven:
The dialogue can be divided into seven sections (marked with numerals), and be read as follows, with the word in CAPS representing the text that serves the allegory.:
- If one claims that the document is a valid document but that no loan actually took place, and instead the borrower TRUSTED and gave him the document in order to borrow money in the future, HE IS NOT DEEMED CREDIBLE.
The allegory is :
If one sins but asks of God to trust him that he will eventually repent, this is not a credible claim.
- The Gemara asks, who is making the claim about this loan contract ? If you say that it is the BORROWER who is saying so, it is obvious that he is not deemed CREDIBLE , as why should we believe him when the lender who presents us with a ratified contract?
- rather, say it is the lender who is claiming that it is a document of trust. In that case, it is also obvious that he is credible, as let a blessing come upon him for admitting that a debt may not be collected with this document.
The allegory is:
If the sinner is asking God to trust him that he will eventually repent, this is not a credible claim as who knows the future, and he may not live long enough to repent. If God Himself chooses to grant him more time, this is a blessing that he somehow merited this.
- Rather, say it is the WITNESSES who signed the contract who are saying that it is a document of trust. If so, the question arises: If this is the case, we have already learned that when their handwriting can be authenticated separately from ANOTHER SOURCE THAN their own testimony, they cannot invalidate their own contract, as it counts as an independent and prior testimony which cannot be retracted. And if it is a case where their handwriting was not authenticated from ANOTHER SOURCE, and the witnesses themselves testify that it is their signatures on the document and also claim the loan did not occur, why are they not deemed credible?
The allegory is:
Witnesses are the righteous persons. If they have sins committed due to indiscretions of youth and immaturity (ANOTHER SOURCE), they may not delay and must repent immediately. If they are minor attitudinal sins (such as arrogance) that happen as a result of the limitations of their current nature, of course they should be trusted and allowed time to improve as no human is without sin.
- Rava said: Actually, it is the borrower who is saying it, and it can be explained in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: In the case of a borrower who ADMITS with regard to a document that he wrote it, the lender NEED NOT RATIFY the document in court, AS THE CLAIM OF THE LENDER IS NOW SUPPORTED BY THE CONTRACT.
The allegory is:
If a person (the borrower) admits his sins he will be forgiven immediately (NEED NOT RATIFY) but must do his penance, fasting and other deprivations promptly to fully pay his debt.
- Abaye said: Actually, it is the lender who said it, and it is in a case where he causes LOSS TO OTHERS by invalidating the document and relinquishing his debt. If the lender owes money to others and lacks funds to repay his debt, then his invalidation of the document creates a situation where his creditor is unable to collect the debt. When the debtor of the first who is the creditor of the third invalidates the document, he causes a loss to his own creditor.
The allegory is:
If the person causes harm to others such as a turncoat who betrays a Jew to a hostile government, he will not receive divine patience and he will soon lose everything while the merits will be transferred to his victim. This is similar as paying a creditor from debts owed to the debtor.
- Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is the witnesses who are saying it, and it is a case where the contact was not ratified. . And with regard to that which you are saying: Why are they not deemed credible, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana, as Rav Kahana said: It is TRUST for a person to keep a document of TRUST in his house, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). This false document is likely to engender injustice when the lender seeks to collect payment with it, since the loan may never happen.
The allegory is:
It is forbidden to hold onto such a spiritual contract in your home, that is it is forbidden to ask God to trust you to repent later. Rather you must promptly eliminate the debt, i.e. repent and make amends.
As we have discussed in prior articles, the intense legalistic back-and-forth of Talmudic debate, at times, leaves an opening to understand the dialogue in an allegorical way. Much as when one listens to musical symphony one can imagine and project various narratives and passions, victories, and defeats within the musical score, so too litigation, admissions of guilt, claims of innocence and adjudication, can represent a heavenly court, repentance and judgment. This may seem far-fetched or some strange genre of chassdish derush, but it is important to understand that for the mystic, this is much more than allegory. The physical world is merely a small manifestation and representation of greater spiritual realities. For example, as we have discussed many times, romantic love (the need to be attached and whole) is a physical world manifestation of a deeper truth that all matter yearns to reattach to God. Therefore these legal ideas in the Torah regarding debt are reflections of an invisible spiritual world of litigation and accountability for sins committed and repentance owed. We can look at the rules and regulations of the Torah for its purpose as a legal code but also delve into reflections of greater truths beyond financial responsibility and restitution.
Previous
