Bava Metzia 21A

דשיילינן להו לסהדי אי פרוע אי לא פרוע.

as we ask the witnesses whether the loan was repaid or whether it was not repaid.

תא שמע: סמפון שיש עליו עדים ⁠– כשר. מאי עדים? עדי קיום.

Come and hear another challenge from a baraita: A simpon upon which witnesses are signed is valid. Apparently, it is valid even if it is found in the possession of the creditor, as no distinction is made. The Talmud answers: To what witnesses is the baraita referring? It is referring to witnesses of ratification. The fact that the simpon was ratified by the court proves its validity.

הכי נמי מסתברא, מדקתני סיפא: ושאין עליו עדים ⁠– פסול. מאי ״אין עליו עדים״? אילימא דליכא עלויה עדים כלל, צריכא למימר דפסול?! אלא לאו עדי קיום.

The Talmud notes that this too stands to reason, from the fact that the baraita teaches in the latter clause: And a simpon upon which witnesses are not signed is invalid. What is meant by the expression: Upon which witnesses are not signed? If we say that it means that there are no witnesses signed on it at all, does it need to be said that it is invalid? Rather, is it not referring to a simpon on which witnesses are signed, just not witnesses of ratification?

גופא. סמפון שיש עליו עדים ⁠– יתקיים בחותמיו. אין עליו עדים ויוצא מתחת ידי שליש, או שיוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות ⁠– כשר.

The Talmud discusses the baraita itself cited above: A simpon upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. If there are no witnesses signed on it, but the simpon emerges from the possession of a third party serving as a trustee, or if it emerges after the signing of the documents, i.e., the simpon was written on the promissory note beneath the content of the note and the witnesses’ signatures, it is valid.

יוצא מתחת ידי שליש, דהא הימניה מלוה לשליש. יוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות נמי, דאי לאו דפריע לא הוה מרע ליה לשטריה.

The Talmud explains: The reason that it is valid if it emerges from the possession of a third party is that the creditor granted credibility to the third party by placing the simpon in his possession. So too, the simpon is valid in a case where it emerges after the signing of the documents, as, if not for the fact that the debt was repaid, the creditor would not have undermined his note by allowing the simpon to be written on it.