אעולה לא חתמי - They will not sign on a wrongdoing OVERVIEW The גמרא states that if עדים claim that כת״י הוא, however it is a שטר אמנה (the לוה did not borrow any money from the מלוה when we signed the שטר); then, even if אין כת״י יוצא ממ״א, they are not believed. The reason is that a שטר אמנה is considered an עולה, and עדים will not sign on an עולה. ----------------– תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דכותבין שטר ללוה אף על פי שאין מלוה עמו – And how are we to understand the ruling that it is permissible for עדים to write and sign a note for the לוה stating that he owes a sum of money to the מלוה even though the מלוה is not with the לוה when the שטר is being written and signed. The עדים do not see any money transferred to the לוה from the מלוה. There should be a concern that this may be a שטר אמנה. Why are the עדים permitted to sign this note. תוספות responds: היינו למוסרו ללוה ולא למלוה – That permission is granted only to deliver the שטר to the לוה but they do not have permission to deliver it to the מלוה. There is an עולה only if the מלוה is in possession of a שטר אמנה. He may forget that it is a שטר אמנה and attempt to collect with it. Therefore if the עדים do not see the מלוה actually giving the monies to the לוה, they should not sign the שטר if they intend to give it to the מלוה. However (when there is no מלוה present) they are permitted to give the שטר to the לוה. When the שטר is in the possession of the לוה there can be no עולה; the מלוה cannot collect with it. SUMMARY עדים may sign a שטר for a לוה not in the presence of the מלוה, provided that they deliver the שטר to the לוה and not to the מלוה. THINKING IT OVER Is the prohibition of signing a שטר אמנה, refer to the signing with the intent of delivering it to the מלוה; or is the prohibition limited to actually delivering it to the מלוה, but not the signing per se?
אם און בידך הרחיקהו זה שטר פסים ושטר אמנה - ‘If there is an iniquity in your possession, distance it from you’; this refers to a שטר פסים and a שטר אמנה. OVERVIEW In מערבא they interpreted the פסוק of אם און בידך הרחיקהו to refer to a שטר פסים ושטר אמנה and the end of the verse אל תשכן באהליך עולה to refer to a שטר פרוע. תוספות is puzzled that we derive two שטרות from און and one שטר from עולה. Seemingly we can derive them all from the same phrase. In addition why are שטר פסים ושטר אמנה derived from און and שטר פרוע from עולה. ------------– דהכי משמע לשון און דמעיקרא היה שקר – For the expression of און indicates that it was initially false. A שטר פסים and a שטר אמנה were never proper שטרות; there were no monies borrowed with them – ואל תשכן באהליך עולה זה שטר פרוע שעתה הוא עולה אבל מעיקרא היה אמת – And the end of the verse ‘do not let a wrongdoing rest in your tent’ this refers to a paid up note for (only) now it is an עולה (to retain it); since it was paid up; however initially it was a true שטר; there was a loan made with this שטר. SUMMARY The etymology of און refers to something which is initially false; thus the association with שטר פסים ושטר אמנה; while (אל תשכן באהליך) עולה refers to something that evolved into a falsehood, thus the connection with a שטר פרוע. THINKING IT OVER Concerning און, תוספות explicitly states that the word און means that it was initially false. Concerning עולה, however, תוספות does not state explicitly that the word ׳עולה׳ means that now it is an עולה and before it was אמת; but rather תוספות states that the [entire] phrase of ׳אל תשכן באהליך עולה׳ indicates that. Is it possible that concerning עולה it is necessary for תוספות to cite the entire phrase in order to support his contention?
זמנין דמשהי ליה אפשיטי דספרא - Occasionally he retains it, in lieu of the coins paid to the scribe OVERVIEW The גמרא records a dispute whether it is considered an עולה if a מלוה retains a שטר פרוע in his possession. One opinion claims that it is not an עולה, since occasionally a מלוה retains a שטר פרוע in order that he (the מלוה) be reimbursed (by the לוה) for advancing the scribe’s fee for writing the שטר חוב (which is the obligation of the לוה). This תוספות will explain that this dispute is not in a situation where the שטר was retained for פשיטי דספרא; but rather in a case where no פשיטי דספרא was owed by the לוה. -------------------– תוספות explains that since occasionally this מלוה retains the שט״ח for פשד״ס – ועל ידי אותה שהייה אישתלי ליה שהותא פעם אחרת הלכך לא קרי ליה עולה – And on account of that retention, where the מלוה legally retained the שטר for the פשד״ס, he inadvertently retained it another time, when there was no פשד״ס due therefore (even) this second incorrect retention cannot be called a wrongdoing (according to this opinion). The מלוה was accustomed, from previous times, to retain the שטר for the פשד״ס; inadvertently he retained it this time (mistakenly thinking perhaps that the פשד״ס were not paid up). תוספות explains the dissenting opinion: ומאן דאמר שטר פרוע היה לו ליזהר – And the one who maintains that retaining a שטר פרוע is considered an עולה, will argue that the מלוה should have been careful. The מלוה should take note that the פשד״ס is not due, and return the שטר at the time the loan was paid. תוספות explains why we cannot interpret this dispute in a case where פשד״ס was due: אבל אין לפרש דמשום שהייתו אפשיטי דספרא קרי ליה עולה דמה פשע: However, we cannot interpret that the argument whether retention of a שטר פרוע is considered an עולה, is in a case where פשד״ס was due; because a retention in lieu of פשד״ס cannot be called an עולה on the part of the מלוה, for what was his wrongdoing! He is retaining the שטר until he is reimbursed for the פשד״ס. SUMMARY All agree that retaining a שטר for פשד״ס is not considered an עולה. The dispute is whether the מלוה can be excused for retaining a שטר when no פשד״ס is due. THINKING IT OVER May a מלוה initially retain a שטר, for פשד״ס?
אמר רב נחמן עדים שאמרו אמנה היו דברינו אין נאמנים - ר״נ stated: Witnesses that claimed, our testimony was concerning a trust document, they are not believed. OVERVIEW רב נחמן maintains that if the עדי השטר claim that אמנה היו דברינו or מודעא היו דברינו,they are not believed (even with a מגו), and it is a שטר כשר. This seems to contradict our משנה which states that if עדים claim that they were קטנים ואנוסים when they signed the שטר they are believed (with a מגו). This ruling of ר״נ also contradicts a previously mentioned ruling of ר״נ that (even) a לוה is believed to claim פרוע במגו דמזוייף; why are two עדים not believed with this (same) מגו?! Our תוספות will differentiate between these various claims. -----------------– תוספות first sets the parameters of sר״נ׳ ruling: על כרחך באין כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר איירי – You are compelled to say that we are discussing a case where their handwriting is not released from elsewhere; we cannot authenticate this שטר based on other signatures. These עדים themselves must authenticate their own signatures. דאי כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר פשיטא דהכי פריך לעיל – For if their כת״י is available from elsewhere; if we can be מקיים this שטר without their explicit testimony, then it is obvious that the עדים are not believed to claim אמנה היו דברינו for this is what the גמרא asked previously. Why would ר״נ find it necessary to teach us this ruling! תוספות offers an additional proof that we are discussing a case where אין כת״י יוצא ממקו״א: ועוד דמר בר רב אשי קאמר דאין נאמנים משום דלא ניתן לכתב – And furthermore; מר בר רב אשי maintains that the עדים are not believed to claim אמנה היו דברינו, because a שטר אמנה is not permitted to be written; it is an עולה. תוספות continues with his proof. ואי בכתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר אפילו ניתן לכתב פשיטא דאין נאמנים – And if we are discussing a case where כת״י is יוצא ממקו״א how can מר בר רב אשי claim that the reason אין נאמנים is because לא ניתן לכתב; it is not so, for even if it is permitted to write a שטר אמנה it is obvious that the עדים are not believed to claim אמנה היו דברינו. תוספות asks; now that it is established that ר״נ is discussing a case where אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א there is a difficulty: וקשה דאמאי לא מהימני במגו – And there is a difficulty! Why are these עדים not believed, since they have a מגו. They had the option of claiming that it is not our handwriting; in which case the מלוה could not collect with it. Therefore we should also believe them now that אמנה היו דברינו or מודעא היו דברינו and the מלוה should not be able to collect with this שטר. תוספות anticipates a rebuttal to his question and rejects it. It is possible that ר״נ is of the opinion (like ר״מ [and ר״ה]) that we cannot invalidate a שטר through a מגו. Once we know that a שטר is not מזוייף, it is then deemed to be a שטר כשר. No claim can invalidate it, regardless whether there is a מגו to substantiate the claim. According to this view once the עדים admit that it is not a שטר מזוייף they are not believed that it is a מודעא\אמנה. Perhaps this is also the view of ר״נ. תוספות says that this is not true – דהא רב נחמן גופיה אית ליה לעיל מגו לפסול את השטר – For ר״נ himself previously maintains that a מגו is effective to void a שטר – דקאמר כי אתו לקמן לדינא אמרינן להו זילו קיימו שטרייכו וחותו לדינא – For ר״נ stated that when they come before us for a ruling we say to them (the claimants with the שטר), first go to authenticate the signatures on your שטרות to prevent the (טענה or) מגו of מזוייף and afterward go down to the court case. The reason ר״נ required them to be מקיים the שטר is – דמהימן לומר פרוע במגו דמזוייף – Because the לוה is believed to claim the loan was paid when he has a מגו of claiming מזוייף. It is evident that even if the לוה claims פרוע, which implies that it is a proper שטר, nevertheless since he has a מגו he is believed to claim פרוע and prevent the מלוה from collecting with this שטר (without first being מקיים the שטר) – וכל שכן עדים דאלימי לאורועי שטרא כדאמר במי שמת (בבא בתרא קנד, א) – And how much more so should this be true by two עדים who are more powerful than an individual לוה, as the גמרא states in פרק מי שמת; they certainly should be able to discredit the שטר. These עדים have a מגו. Therefore even though they agree it is not מזוייף, nevertheless they should be believed that אמנה\מודעא היו דברינו with the מגו that they could have claimed that it a שטר מזוייף. In summation the question is: Why when a לוה claims פרעתי he is believed (even though the מלוה is in possession of the שטר), because he has a מגו; and why are the עדים, who claim אמנה\מודעא היו דברינו, not believed, even though they also have a מגו. תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו יצחק דהיינו טעמא דמודעא הואיל ומודים שהשטר נכתב ונמסר כהלכתו – And the ר״י answered that this is the reason why the עדים are not believed to claim מודעא היו דברינו; since the עדים admit that the שטר was written and delivered (to [the מלוה or] the buyer) properly – שוב לא אתי על פה ומרע לשטרא אפילו במגו – An oral declaration cannot subsequently come and discredit the שטר even if this declaration is substantiated through a מגו. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this concept of לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא, and justifies it: ולא דמי לאנוסים וקטנים דמתניתין – And this case of מודעא היו דברינו is not comparable to the cases of our משנה which states that the עדים are believed if they claimed אנוסים היינו or קטנים היינו, if אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א. Seemingly there too we should apply this rule of לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. תוספות now explains the difference between these cases: שאין מודים שהיה שטר כשר כלל אלא סותרין אותו הלכך מהימני במגו – For there, in the משנה, the עדים do not admit that there ever was a שטר כשר at all, but rather the עדים contradict the שטר. A שטר which is signed by קטנים or אנוסים is no שטר at all! Therefore the עדים are believed that they were אנוסים וקטנים with a מגו that they did not have to be מקיים the שטר – דלא שייך כאן לומר דלא אתי על פה ומרע לשטרא שהרי אינם מודים שהיה שטר – For it is not applicable to say here in this case that ‘an oral declaration cannot come and discredit a שטר’, for the עדים do not admit that there was a שטר. The difference between קטנים ואנוסים (where the עדים are believed) and מודעא (where the עדים are not believed), is that by מודעא the עדים testify that the שטר was executed properly; however they claim that there was an issue which disqualifies the transaction described in the שטר. In such a case the rule is that לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא, even if there is a מגו to substantiate the claim. In the cases of קטנים ואנוסים, however, the עדים are stating that there never was a (proper) שטר since they were קטנים ואנוסים; therefore there is no ע״פ that is מרע לשטרא, for there is no שטר. The עדים are believed since they have a מגו. תוספות goes on to explain why by אמנה היו דברינו they are also not believed: ואמנה נמי נראה דהיינו טעמא דלא מהימני לרב נחמן דלא מרעי לשטרא – And concerning the claim of אמנה it also appears that this is the reason that the עדים are not believed, according to ר״נ for the עדים are not empowered to discredit the שטר – הואיל ומודים שהשטר נכתב כדין מדעת הלוה – since the עדים admit that the שטר was properly written with the consent of the borrower. תוספות maintains that according to ר״נ, the claims of both מודעא היו דברינו and אמנה היו דברינו are not believed on account of לא אתי ע״פ ומרעי לשטרא. תוספות anticipates that one can challenge this assumption that the reason for מודעא ואמנה is the same. Perhaps the reason for אמנה is different than מודעא. The reason why אמנה is not believed may be as מר בר רב אשי stated, that אמנה is לא ניתן לכתב; it was never permitted to be written. A שטר אמנה is an illegal document. It is אסור for עדים to sign on such a document. When the עדים say אמנה היו דברים there are declaring themselves רשעים. The rule is that אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. This is the reason why אמנה is not believed according to מר בר רב אשי. תוספות maintains that according to ר״נ this is not the reason for אמנה. דלא מפרש טעמא דאמנה משום דלא ניתן לכתב אלא מר בר רב אשי – For the גמרא did not universally explain that the reason אמנה is not believed is on account that it is not allowed to be written; this reason does not apply to all the opinions but rather this explanation expresses the view of מר בר רב אשי only – אבל לרב נחמן טעם אמנה ומודעא שניהם שוה – However, according to ר״נ the reason for disbelieving the עדים in the cases of אמנה ומודעא are the same in both; namely that לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. There still remains the original question of why an individual is believed to claim פרעתי במגו דמזוייף (even though לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא), and עדים are not believed to claim אמנה ומודעא with the מגו of not being מקיים the שטר. תוספות addresses this issue: והא דאית ליה לרב נחמן דנאמן לומר פרוע הוא במגו דמזוייף – And regarding that which ר״נ maintains that the לוה is believed to claim the loan was paid, with the מגו that he could have claimed that the שטר was forged; seemingly it is case of אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא – תוספות answers: התם נמי לא מרע לשטרא כלל הלכך מהימן במגו – There too (by פרוע במגו דמזוייף), the לוה is not discrediting the שטר at all! Therefore the לוה is believed to claim פרוע when he has the מגו of מזוייף. The לוה agrees that it is a proper שטר. He simply claims that he paid up (and did not retrieve the שטר in lieu of his payment). In summation: When a claim is מרע לשטרא, it discredits a שטר; the rule is that לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. Therefore in the cases of אמנה ומודעא, where there is a valid שטר (even) according to the עדים, and the עדים are being מרע this שטר, they are not believed even with a מגו. In cases where there is no שטר or where there is no discrediting of a שטר, a מגו is effective to be believed. Therefore in the cases of אנוסים וקטנים where there is no שטר, the עדים are believed with a מגו. In the case of פרוע (there is a שטר, however) there is no מרע לשטרא; no one is denying the validity of the שטר, therefore the לוה is believed with a מגו. ואתי שפיר רב נחמן כרבנן דרבי מאיר – And ר״נ can properly follow the opinion of the רבנן who argue with ר״מ and maintain that by אנוסים וקטנים (as well as פרוע במגו דמזוייף) they are believed (with a מגו), since they are not מרע לשטרא; however by אמנה ומודעא (where they are מרע לשטרא), they are not believed. וההיא ברייתא דמי שמת (גם זה שם:) דשטר אמנה הוא זה דאינו נאמן – And concerning that ברייתא in פרק מי שמת which states that if the מוכר claimed that this is a שטר אמנה where the ruling is that he is not believed – דבעי לוקמי כרבי מאיר רב נחמן מוקי לה כדברי הכל: which the גמרא there wanted to establish that it follows the opinion of ר״מ; ר״נ maintains that the ruling of the ברייתא is according to all opinions, including the רבנן (for לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא). SUMMARY According to ר״נ: עדים who claim מודעא\אמנה היו דברינו are not believed since לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. עדים who claim אנוסים וקטנים היינו are believed (if אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א), since there is no valid שטר for they claim אנוסים וקטנים היינו. A לוה who claims פרוע is believed במגו דמזוייף for he is not מרע לשטרא, since he admits that it is a valid שטר. THINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות claims that by מודעא the עדים are not believed, since לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. Seemingly in the case of מודעא there is (also) no שטר at all. A שטר must be written with the consent of the מתחייב (the one who is being obligated by the שטר). In the case of מודעא there is no consent on behalf of the מתחייב (the לוה or the מוכר) for they are being coerced. The עדים should therefore be believed! 2. What would be the ruling if other עדים testified that it was a שטר מודעא\אמנה (either when כת״י יוצא ממק״א or אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א)? 3. What can עדים do to protect the מוכר if he claims he is being coerced into this sale? 4. Why is תוספות adamant that the reason of אמנה is on account of לא אתי ע״פ וכו׳ and not because of לא ניתן ליכתב? 5. תוספות writes that since ר״נ distinguishes between אמנה ומודעה and אנוסים ופרוע, we can say that ר״נ agrees with the רבנן דר״מ. Seemingly we must say that ר״נ agrees with the רבנן דר״מ regardless, since ר״נ ruled that the בעל השטר must be מקיים the שטר before the די״ת (for מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו)!
או דלמא תנאי מילתא אחריתי הוא - Or perhaps a stipulation is a separate issue. OVERVIEW תוספות previously explained that (according to ר״נ) לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. If the עדי השטר discredit the שטר through their testimony (as in the cases of אמנה\מודעא) they are not believed. רבא followed this up with a query to ר״נ; what is the ruling if the עדים stated (כת״י הוא זה, however) there was an oral stipulation concerning this transaction (which was not yet fulfilled). On one hand it seems that they are מרע לשטרא since according to their testimony the שטר (as is), is not valid (unless the stipulation is fulfilled). On the other hand perhaps they are not מרע לשטרא since the תנאי is a מילתא אחריתי. There are two ways how to interpret this concept of תנאי מילתא אחריתי. תוספות will explain that only one is acceptable. ------------------- פירוש לדבר אחר הן באין ולא לעקירת השטר אלא תוספת בעלמא – The explanation of תנאי מילתא אחריתי הוא and that therefore it is not discrediting the שטר, is that the עדים are testifying תנאי היו דברינו for a different purpose and the עדים do not intend to uproot the שטר entirely but rather the עדים intend to merely add details – שמפרשים עדותן היאך ועד השתא קיים השטר ואינו נעקר אם יתקיים התנאי – They are defining in what manner their testimony in the שטר is effective, and until now the שטר is valid and the שטר will not be voided if the stipulation is fulfilled – הלכך אין כאן הורעת השטר – Therefore there is no discrediting of the שטר; that we should say לא אתי ע״פ ומרע לשטרא. תוספות will now mention the rejected explanation: אבל אין לפרש מילתא אחריתי היא לגמרי ולא שייך לעדותן ראשונה – However, we cannot interpret the phrase מילתא אחריתי to mean that the תנאי is a completely separate issue and it has no connection to their first testimony of כת״י הוא זה. Rather we should view their testimony of תנאי היו דברינו – כמו שאם היו מעידין שהוא פרוע שהן נאמנים – As if they were testifying that the שטר was paid up where they would obviously be believed. We should (perhaps) view תנאי the same as פרוע, and believe them. תוספות rejects this interpretation. תוספות will now explain why this last interpretation is incorrect: דאם כן מאי פריך בסמוך אי הכי אפילו תרי נמי – For if it were so; that תנאי is similar to פרוע; it is totally irrelevant to their original testimony of כת״י הוא זה, then we have the following difficulty; what does the גמרא shortly ask, ‘if this is so, then it should also be the same by two עדים who say תנאי היו דברינו’. The עדי התנאי should not be believed. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. תוספות will now explain the difficulty with the אין לפרש; namely, that the sגמרא׳ question (that the עדי התנאי should not be believed) is not understood: דכיון דתנאי מילתא אחריתי היא לגמרי – For since the אין לפרש maintains that the testimony concerning a תנאי is a totally different issue, then – תרי נאמנים אפילו בכתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר – Two עדים are believed to testify on a separate issue even if their signatures are available from elsewhere; the שטר can be מקויים without them, nevertheless the עדים will be believed to testify on a מילתא אחריתי, such as פרוע. Therefore they should also be believed to claim תנאי היו דברינו, since according to the אין לפרש the claim of תנאי is similar to the claim of פרוע. The sגמרא׳ question is not understood. How can the גמרא compare two עדים to one עד?! If two עדים claim תנאי, they are believed just as they would be believed if they claim פרוע (since they are not in conflict at all with the שטר). It is a regular testimony of two עדים. There is no cause not to believe them – אבל חד לעולם אימא לך דלא מהימן כי היכי דלא מהימן לומר פרוע הוא – However when one עד claims תנאי, I will certainly say that he is not believed just as one עד is not believed to claim the שטר is paid up if the מלוה is in possession of a שטר מקויים. לכך נראה כדפירשנו: therefore it appears that מילתא אחריתי means as we explained it; that it is merely a modification of the שטר, but not that it is totally unrelated to the שטר as the אין לפרש maintained. SUMMARY עדים who maintain תנאי היו דברינו are believed, since תנאי מילתא אחריתי. The תנאי is not discrediting the שטר, but rather it is merely a modification of the שטר. (However the תנאי is not considered to be something irrelevant to the שטר as, for instance, the claim of פרוע). THINKING IT OVER 1. What is the ruling if one עד claims תנאי; according to תוספות and according to the ׳אין לפרש׳? 2. תוספות proved from the גמרא that the אין לפרש is incorrect. However, why indeed did the גמרא not accept the view of the אין לפרש?!
ואם כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר אין נאמנים - And if their handwriting is verifiable from elsewhere, they are not believed. OVERVIEW The ברייתא stated that if (current) עדים testify on a שטר מקוים that the עדי השטר are פסולין, etc. they are not believed. תוספות will discuss whether this means that they are testifying that the עדי השטר are still פסולים now, or that they were פסולים when they signed the שטר, but now they are כשרים. -------------– ופסולי עדות דקתני לא שאומרים שעדיין פסולים דאם כן אמאי אין נאמנים – And concerning the testimony regarding unqualified witnesses which the ברייתא mentions; it stated that עדים currently claim that the עדי השטר [were] (are) פסולין, it does not mean that the current עדים are testifying that the עדי השטר are still פסול (they are relatives or רשעים); even after the שטר was signed until (immediately preceding their death) now, for if that were the case; that they are testifying that the עדי השטר are still פסולים why are the current עדים not believed, If the עדי השטר were present and the current עדים would testify that they are פסולים לעדות, they would be believed and the שטר would be nullified. The signatures on the שטר cannot be stronger than the עדי השטר themselves. אלא פסולי עדות הוו אז ועתה מודים שהם כשרים – But rather the current עדים are testifying that the עדי השטר were פסול then when they signed the שטר but as of now, the current עדים admit that the עדי השטר are כשרים (the relationship was severed; they did תשובה, etc.). Therefore they are not believed. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ומכל מקום אמאי אין נאמנים להימנו במגו – And if you will say; that notwithstanding the fact that they are testifying that the עדי השטר were פסול (only) initially (and not that they are פסול now), why are they not believed that the שטר is פסול, let us believe the current עדים with a מגו – דאי בעו אומרים עדיין הם פסולים – For the current עדים could have said that the עדי השטר are still currently פסול. If the current עדים would testify that the עדי השטר are currently עדים פסולים they would be believed, as תוספות stated previously, and the שטר would be פסול. Let us believe them with this מגו that they were עדים פסולים when they signed, and the שטר should be פסול. תוספות asks an additional question in the same vein: [וכן בכל] שתי כתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו – [And similarly by all cases] of two groups of עדים that contradict each other – אמאי לא מהימני בתראי במגו דאי בעי פסלי לקמאי בגזלנותא – Why is the last group to testify, not believed with a מגו that they could have disqualified the first group of עדים by accusing them of (currently) being robbers!? If the latter group would testify that the former group are גזלנים (instead of contradicting their testimony) they would be believed, and the testimony of the former group would be discarded. Therefore their actual current testimony should be believed on account of this מגו, and the testimony of the former group should be discarded. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דבשני עדים לא שייך מגו דאין אחד יודע מה בלב חבירו: And the ר״י says that (the concept of) מגו is not applicable by two עדים because neither of the group knows what is in the other’s heart. The idea of a מגו is that we should believe the current claim since he had the option of presenting a superior claim (where he would have surely been believed). In the case of two עדים however we cannot say that we should believe each עד because he could have claimed the superior claim. It is possible that each עד individually is reluctant to claim the superior claim, for he is not sure that the other עד will claim it as well. Perhaps they colluded with each other only concerning the actual claim that they are presenting. Each עד wants to be certain that he and his partner (in crime) are offering the same (false) testimony. SUMMARY If עדים claim that the עדי השטר (of a שטר מקוים) are currently פסולים, they are believed. However if they claim they were פסולים, they are not believed, even though there is a מגו of גזלנותא; because a מגו is not effective by two עדים. THINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות is discussing whether the current עדים intend to be פוסל the עדי השטר now, or at the time of the signing. Seemingly it cannot mean that they wish to be פוסל them now, for the ברייתא clearly states ׳ומתו׳! 2. If a מגו is not effective by two עדים, then why are they believed in the רישא (of the משנה and the ברייתא)?
אמר רב ששת זאת אומרת הכחשה תחלת הזמה היא - רב ששת said this ברייתא teaches us that a contradiction is the beginning of a repudiation OVERVIEW Our ברייתא stated that if two עדים claim that the עדי השטר on a שטר מקויים are פסולי עדות, they are not believed and we can (seemingly) collect with this שטר. The גמרא asked how can we validate such a שטר; there is contradictory testimony from two groups of עדים (the עדי השטר and the עדים הפוסלים)?! רב ששת sought to resolve this difficulty by stating that הכחשה תחילת הזמה היא; and just as by הזמה the עדים must be present to be repudiated, so too by הכחשה the עדים must be present to be contradicted. Since the עדי השטר are not present; their testimony cannot be contradicted. Therefore it is a valid שטר. Our תוספות will show that even by a שטר מקויים, the עדי השטר can be contradicted (and even refuted). ---------------– תוספות asks: ואם תאמר תקשי לרב ששת ברייתא דמי שמת (גם זה שם) דקתני אם אמר שטר אמנה הוא – And if you will say; the ברייתא in פרק מי שמת contradicts ר״ש for the ברייתא teaches, ‘if the seller claimed, ‘it is a trust document; the seller claims he never sold this field. He gave the purported buyer the שטר מכירה because he trusted him. The ברייתא continues – אם יש עדים פירוש דשטר אמנה הוא הלך אחר עדים – If there are עדים; meaning, there are עדים who will testify that it is a שטר אמנה, then go according to these עדים and believe the seller that it is a שטר אמנה – ואם לאו הלך אחר השטר – However, if there are no עדים to substantiate the seller’s claim, go according to the שטר’, which states that the seller sold the field to the buyer. This concludes the ברייתא. תוספות continues with his question: אלמא אף על גב דאין השטר צריך קיום – It is evident from this ברייתא, that even though we are discussing a case where there is no requirement to be מקיים the שטר; the שטר is considered מקויים. תוספות will now prove how we know that the שטר requires no קיום: כדאמר התם הלך אחר השטר שמודה הלוה שכתבו כדאיתא התם – As the ברייתא states there that if there are no עדים, then go according to what is written in the שטר; the שטר to which the לוה admits to writing, (and therefore does not require קיום) as it is mentioned there in the name of רבי יוחנן. If it would not be considered a שטר מקויים, then the מוכר should be believed that it is a שטר אמנה with a מגו of מזוייף. The fact that he is not believed indicates that this שטר is considered a שטר מקויים through the admission of the מוכר that he wrote it. תוספות has proven so far that the שטר there is considered a שטר מקויים. תוספות continues with his question:. [ואפילו הכי] אם יש עדים הלך אחר עדים ולא אמרינן הכחשה תחלת הזמה – [And nevertheless] even though it is considered a שטר מקויים, if there are עדים who testify that it is a שטר אמנה, we follow the עדים and the מכירה is nullified, even though these עדים who claim אמנה, contradict the עדי השטר who claim that it is a valid מכירה and we do not say that ‘הכחשה is תחלת הזמה’; that we cannot believe the עדי אמנה since they are being מכחיש the עדי השטר not בפניהם. Rather we believe them even though it is a הכחשה. How can רב ששת maintain that we cannot have a הכחשה שלא בפניהם?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דזאת אומרת קאמר אבל ההיא פליג: And one can say; that רב ששת merely stated that this ברייתא maintains that הכחשה תחלת הזמה and therefore you cannot be מכחיש שלא בפניהם; however that ברייתא in מי שמת argues on our ברייתא here in כתובות. SUMMARY It is only our ברייתא that maintains הכחשה תחלת הזמה, according to רב ששת. The ברייתא in ב״ב maintains that עדים can be מכחיש עדי השטר שלא בפניהם even though the שטר is considered מקויים. THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks, that (in ב״ב) since the שטר is considered מקויים by the לוה (מוכר), how can the עדים contradict the עדי השטר, according to רב ששת. Perhaps ר״ש maintains his rule only when there can actually be a הזמה as in our ברייתא. In the ברייתא of ב״ב however, there can never be a הזמה; for the עדי השטר can claim we never signed it. Perhaps in such a case ר״ש agrees that you can be מכחיש the עדים שלא בפניהם?!
