THE JERUSALEM INSTITUTE OF JEWISH LAW
Rabbi Emanuel Quint, Dean 

Lesson # 67 (1st of 2 parts) Admitting a Debt 

This is the first of two lessons dealing with admissions and recanting of admissions. In this lesson we shall discuss how an admission of debt is made and in the next lesson we shall IYH discuss how an admission may be recanted by the debtor. 

There is no one set way that an admission must be made. However, some ways will be more binding than others and less subject to the possibilities of being recanted. 

An admission made by a kinyan in the presence of two witnesses is the strongest type and cannot be recanted. This is effected by the creditor asking the debtor to admit in the presence of two witnesses that he owes the creditor $100 and to designate the witnesses to witness the admission. The debtor then takes hold of a handkerchief belonging to the creditor or one of the witnesses and declares that by this kinyan he admits the indebtedness to the creditor and wants the witnesses to serve as witnesses to record his admission. The witnesses may reduce the admission to writing and sign as witnesses. If the debtor did not make a kinyan and did not tell the witnesses to be his witnesses on he note of admission, they may not reduce the admission to writing. 

An admission in the debtor’s handwriting delivered by the debtor to the creditor cannot be recanted. If the debtor did not think that the instrument was valid he should not have delivered it to the creditor. 

An admission made before three persons in a community in which there is no regular Beth Din cannot be recanted.

A few of the many other forms of admission that are strong but not as strong as those stated above may be as follows: The creditor in the presence of two persons states that the debtor owes him $100 and the debtor says, “Yes, I do and I want the two persons to be my witnesses that I make this admission”. Or the creditor states in the presence of two persons that the debtor owes him $100 and the debtor says “Yes, I do” and the creditor asks the two persons to be witnesses to the admission and the debtor remains silent. 

The words must be spoken with the intent to make an admission rather than a jest or to make it appear that the debtor is not wealthy. 

It is the function of the Beth Din to review each contested admission to see whether the admission was indeed made, and if so, whether it can be recanted. 

There may be times where the creditor cannot produce the persons who were designated to be witnesses to the admission. He may produce two other persons who were there who may testify that they saw the debtor designate two persons as witnesses to hear the admission and that the debtor did make the admission in the presence of those designated witnesses. 

If there is only one person as the designated witness, then the testimony of one witness is treated the same as any other testimony of one witness. 
If the debtor denies the facts as testified to by the one witness, he may take a Torah oath of denial and win the case, or he may make payment. 

Reuven says to Shimon, “I owe you $100, and here is $50 of it”, and he does not state to the persons who are present that they should be his witnesses as to the admission; the admission regarding the balance is not binding. But their testimony is binding as to the $50 which Reuven gave to Shimon.

Reuven has secreted witnesses behind a screen and then Shimon enters the room, not knowing that there are witnesses hiding. Reuven states to Shimon that Shimon owes Reuven money and Shimon replies, “Yes.” Reuven Asks Shimon if he will admit the debt in the front of witnesses, and Shimon replies “I would have admitted the debt in front of witnesses, but if I should do so, then you will immediately make demand for repayment.” The secreted witnesses hear the entire conversation. Shimon’s admission may not be introduced as evidence in Beth Din. If Reuven loans money to Shimon and there are witnesses to the loan who have been hidden by Reuven and Shimon is not aware that they are hiding, they may testify since they are testifying to what they saw. In the case at the beginning of this paragraph, however, they did not see the loan but only heard Shimon make what may have been an admission.

The creditor hides witnesses against the debtor behind the curtains of his bed and says to the debtor, “You owe me $100,” and the debtor replies, “Yes.” The creditor asks the debtor “May all those present, whether awake or asleep, be witnesses against you?” The debtor replies, “No.” The witnesses cannot testify as to the admission, since the debtor had answered no. If, however, the debtor remained silent to the last question, suspecting that there were witnesses present, the witnesses can testify. Why would the creditor raise the question of witnesses whether awake or asleep, if there were no witnesses hidden here? The debtor, based on this question could well suspect that there were hidden witnesses present. If, however, the debtor has no idea that there are witnesses present hidden by the creditor, then his admission is not binding. 

An admission made in favor of a third party may not be relied upon by the third party to sue the admitter. For example, Reuven sues Shimon to recover an object that he alleges Shimon holds and belongs to Reuven. Shimon pleads that the article belongs to Levi. (Shimon’s pleading that the object belongs to Levi is superfluous. He could have pleaded that the object was not Reuven’s.) After judgment is rendered in favor of Shimon against Reuven, Levi cannot thereafter sue Shimon solely on the basis of the admission that Shimon made when he stated that the object belonged to Levi. There is an opinion that if the admission is made in Beth Din then Levi can sue as a third part beneficiary of the admission, unless Shimon later pleads that he made a mistake in the first trial and the object belongs to another party. Shimon may not plead that he made a mistake and the object is really his. If Reuven and Levi jointly sue Shimon to recover the object, and Shimon in Beth Din states that the object belonged to Levi, this admission will be binding on him, even according to the opinion that the admission is not binding on Shimon as concerns Levi, when Levi is not a party to the lawsuit.

Reuven says to Shimon that Shimon owes $100 to Levi, and Shimon says, ”Yes.” Reuven tells two persons who are present that they are to be witnesses to the admission. Thereafter Levi may sue on the basis of the admission. 

Reuven states to Shimon and Levi,” You owe me $100,” and Shimon admits the debt, and Levi remains silent. Reuven told the two persons present to be his witnesses to the admission, and Shimon remains silent. It is a valid admission as concerns Shimon but not as concerns Levi, even if Shimon and Levi were partners. Shimon will have to pay the entire $100.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully discussed in Volume III, Chapter 78 of A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law by E. Quint and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. Questions to quint@inter.net.il