הלכות מלוה ולווה

The following laws apply when a lender dies and his heir comes and demands payment from a borrower, because of the promissory note for which he is liable. If the borrower claims: "I paid your father," and the heir says: "I don't know whether you did or not," we tell the borrower: "Arise and pay him."
If the borrower demands: "Take an oath for me," the heir should take an oath, while holding a sacred object, that his father did not instruct him via another person that the debt was paid, that he did not tell him this verbally, and that he did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among his father's legal documents. After taking this oath, he may collect the debt.

If the borrower died after the lender died, and the lender's heir comes and demands payment from the borrower's heir, he may not collect payment unless he takes an oath. We tell him: "Take an oath that 'My father did not instruct me...,' 'My father did not tell me...,' 'I did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among my father's legal documents.'"
Even if the heir was a baby lying in a cradle when his father died, he must take this oath and collect. If the lender made a statement immediately before his death that this promissory note has not been paid, the lender's heir need not take an oath before exacting payment. This applies even if he is collecting payment] from the heir.

If, however, the borrower died first and then the lender died, the lender's heirs may not collect anything from the borrower's heirs. The rationale is that when the borrower died, the lender became obligated to take an oath before collecting, as we have explained in the previous halachah. He has already died, and a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons. For they are unable to take an oath that their father was not paid anything.
Nevertheless, if a judge transgressed and required the lender's heirs to take an oath and enabled them to collect their debt, the money that they collected should not be expropriated from their possession. Therefore, a promissory note that is used as the basis for a claim by the heirs of a lender who seek to collect from the heirs of a borrower when the borrower died first, should not be torn, nor should it be used to expropriate money.
It should not be used to expropriate money, because a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons, as explained. It should not, however, be torn, lest there be a judge who will expropriate money because of it.

In the situation described above, even if the debt was secured by a guarantor, the lender's heirs should not expropriate the debt from the guarantor. The rationale is that if they are told to collect the debt from the guarantor, the guarantor will go and seek payment from the borrower's heirs.

Extrapolation is not made from this law to a similar instance. Instead, when a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note then dies -although he is not entitled to collect the debt unless he takes an oath - his children may take an oath that their father did not instruct them..., their father did not tell them..., they did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid in its entirety among his father's legal documents. They may then collect the remainder of the sum stated in the promissory note from the lender or from his heirs.

When a lender's heir comes to collect payment of a promissory note from the borrower's heirs and the latter say: "Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'" the lender's heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath. The rationale is that whenever a person says "I did not borrow," it is as if he says: "I did not pay."
Similarly, when the lender himself comes to collect payment from the heirs of a borrower, and they say: "Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'" the lender may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even if in the promissory note the lender stated that he would accept the borrower's word whenever he claims to have paid the debt. For in this instance as well, we follow the rationale that whenever a person says "I did not borrow," it is as if he says: "I did not pay."

The following laws apply when the lender's heir comes and demands payment from a borrower on the basis of a promissory note that contains a stipulation that the borrower's word will be accepted, whenever the borrower says: "I paid the debt." He is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid this debt and is freed of liability. This applies even if the stipulation does not state: "Your word will be accepted against a claim issued by my heirs." The rationale is that the very basis of the promissory note depends on this stipulation.
If the stipulation states that the borrower's word would be accepted without an oath, he is not required to take an oath, even to the lender's heirs.

The following laws apply when the lender's heir is below majority, he possesses a promissory noted owed to his father, but a receipt for this note was produced after the father's death. We do not rip up the promissory note, nor do we allow payment to be expropriated on its basis until the heir reaches majority. The rationale is that it is possible that the receipt is a forgery. That possibility is reinforced by the fact that the borrower did not produce it during the lender's lifetime.

When a person produces a promissory note against a colleague, stating that it was composed in Babylonia, he collects the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If the promissory note was written in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. This is not the case with regard to a ketubah
The following rules apply when the promissory note did not state the place where it was composed. If the lender produced it in Babylonia, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If he produced it in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. If the lender sought to collect the debt in the coinage of the place where he produced the promissory note, and the borrower protested, claiming that he is obligated to pay in a coinage that is worth less than the local coinage, the lender should support his claim with an oath. He may then collect the debt. If the promissory note states that money is owed without any more specifics, the lender may collect only what the borrower agrees to pay.
From these laws, we can derive the following principles: A legal document that does not mention the place where it was composed is acceptable for all matters. Similarly, a legal document that is not dated is acceptable, even though it is testimony that cannot be nullified through hazamah. The rationale is that in financial laws, we are not stringent and do not subject the witnesses to precise cross-examination and interrogation, as will be explained. This leniency was adopted so as not to prevent loans from being granted. For this reason, post-dated promissory notes are acceptable, although the testimony of the witnesses who signed cannot be nullified through hazamah as will be explained in the appropriate place.