Bava Metzia 72B

מודה בשטר שכתבו ⁠– אינו צריך לקיימו, וגובה מנכסים משועבדים.

In the case of a debtor who admits that he wrote a promissory note, the creditor is not required to ratify it in court in order to collect the debt, and he can therefore use the document to collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold. In the present case as well, the seller admits that he received the money; therefore the document of sale should enable the buyer to collect his money from liened property.

אמר ליה רבא: מי דמי? התם ניתן להכתב. הכא לא ניתן להכתב.

Rava said to him: Are these cases comparable? There, the matter detailed in the document may be written, as it is a substantive matter; the document attests to true events and it is therefore possible to use the promissory note to collect the debt. But here, the matter detailed in the document may not be written, as the entire sale was not genuine since it was done against the will of the seller. Consequently, this document is completely invalid and cannot be used to collect from liened property.

יתיב מרימר וקאמר להא שמעתא. אמר ליה רבינא למרימר: אלא הא דאמר רבי יוחנן גזירה שמא יגבה מזמן ראשון, נימא: לא ניתן ליכתב! אמר ליה הכי השתא. התם נהי דלא ניתן ליכתב מזמן ראשון, אבל ניתן ליכתב מזמן שני. הכא לא ניתן ליכתב כלל.

Mareimar sat and stated this halakha. Ravina said to Mareimar: But if Rava’s answer is accepted, then with regard to that which R' Yoḥanan said concerning an antedated loan document, that there is a rabbinic decree invalidating the document lest he collect from the first date, let us say that there is a better rationale, as Rava stated: The antedated document is invalid, as it may not be written. Mareimar said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the antedated document, granted, it may not be written from the first date, but it may be written from the second date. Here, it may not be written at all.