MUST THE LAST WOMAN SWEAR? [last line of previous Amud]
(Gemara) Question: What is the basis of the argument (about whether or not the last woman must swear)?
Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, (after three women collected they found out that) one of the husband's fields was not really his. They argue about whether or not collection out of order (a later creditor before an earlier creditor) is a valid collection;
The first Tana holds that the collection is invalid (so there is no harm if the fourth woman collects without an oath). Ben Nanas holds that the collection stands.
Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): (The case is, they found out that one of the husband's fields was not really his.) All agree that collection out of order is invalid. They argue about whether or not we are concerned lest the fourth woman decrease the value of the field.
The first Tana is not concerned. Ben Nanas is concerned (for she expects that it will be taken from her).
Answer #3 (Abaye): (The case is, adult orphans want the fourth woman to swear.) They argue about Abaye Kashisha's law.
(Abaye Kashisha): The orphans (to whom one must swear to collect from them) are adults, and all the more so, minors.
The first Tana holds (that one need not swear to adults,) unlike with Abaye Kashisha. Ben Nanas holds like Abaye Kashisha.
(Rav Huna): If two brothers or partners have a case against someone, and one of them took him to Beis Din and received a verdict, the other brother or partner cannot say 'I was not party to that ruling.' Rather, his partner acted on his behalf.
Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): The first woman swears to the second, and the second to the third, but the first need not swear to the third.
Suggestion: This is because when the second made the first swear, she acted on behalf of the third woman.
Rejection: No, it is because an oath to one is like an oath to 100;
In Rav Huna's case, the partner could say that he would have argued better.
This is only if the partner was not in the city. If he was in the city, he should have come to Beis Din. (By not coming, he accepts whatever verdict his partner receives.)
TWO DOCUMENTS WITH THE SAME DATE [line 25]
(Rav): If two documents (of sale (Tosfos - or gift) for the same property) have the same date, the recipients split the property.
(Shmuel): We apply Shuda (Rashi - we estimate to whom he wanted to sell the property; Tosfos - the judges give it to whichever they want).
Suggestion: Rav holds like R. Meir, who says that the witnesses who sign on a document empower it (therefore, both documents take effect simultaneously from the date written). Shmuel holds like R. Elazar, who says that the witnesses who see a document given to the recipient empower it (therefore, only the one that was given first is valid).
Rejection: No, all hold like R. Elazar;
Rav holds that it is better to divide the property. Shmuel holds that Shuda is better.
Objection: Rav does not hold like R. Elazar!
(Rav Yehudah citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Elazar in Gitin.
(Shmuel): The Halachah follows R. Elazar even regarding monetary documents.
Inference: Rav does not hold like R. Elazar regarding monetary documents.
Conclusion: We must say that Rav holds like R. Meir, and Shmuel holds like R. Elazar.
Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa): If two documents have the same date, they divide the property!
Answer #1: The Beraisa is like R. Meir. Shmuel holds like R. Elazar.
Objection (Seifa): If he wrote to Levi, and then wrote and gave over to David, David acquires.
If it is like R. Meir, why does (only) David acquire? He holds that the witnesses who sign empower the document (both should acquire equally)!
Answer #2: (The Beraisa is like R. Elazar.) Tana'im argue about whether division or Shuda is better;
(Beraisa - Chachamim): (If Reuven sent a gift to Shimon, and Shimon died before the gift reached him and Reuven died before the gift returned,) the heirs of Reuven and Shimon divide the property;
Here (in Bavel) they said the Shali'ach does as he wants (i.e. Shuda).
Rami bar Chama's mother wrote her property to him in the morning. In the afternoon, she wrote it to Mar Ukva bar Chama. Rami bar Chama went to Rav Sheshes, who ruled that Rami bar Chama receives the property. Mar Ukva bar Chama went to Rav Nachman, and he ruled in his favor.
Rav Sheshes: Why did you rule like you did?
Rav Nachman: Why did you rule like you did?
Rav Sheshes: Rami's document was written first.
Rav Nachman: We care which document was written earlier in the day only in Yerushalayim (where they write the hour in the document)!
Rav Sheshes: Why did you rule like you did?
Rav Nachman: The Halachah is Shuda. I ruled based on my estimation (or preference).
Rav Sheshes: My ruling may also be considered Shuda!
Rav Nachman: No. Firstly, I am ordained to judge by the Exilarch and the Yeshivah, and you are not.
Secondly, your ruling was not intended to be Shuda.
A DOCUMENT WITH A VAGUE DATE [line 28
Two sale documents for the same property came in front of Rav Yosef. Reuven's was dated Nisan 5. Shimon's said only 'Nisan'. Rav Yosef gave the property to Reuven.
Shimon: Why should I lose?
Rav Yosef: You have the lower hand. Perhaps your document was given on Nisan 29.
Shimon: (I bought with Acharayos.) Write for me a document authorizing me to take property (for compensation) sold from Iyar and onwards.
Rav Yosef: Buyers can dispel you. Perhaps your document is from Nisan 1, and you deserved the property given to Reuven!
The solution is for Reuven to give to Shimon power of attorney to collect from buyers.