1)

(a)What reason does Rav Chisda suggest to explain why Rebbi Meir does not believe the witnesses, even when they claim 'Anusim Hayinu Machmas Nefashos'?

(b)Rava queries Rava Chisda however by pointing out that, based on a statement of Mar, even if witnesses who were ordered to sign a document falsely under pain of death, came to ask what they should do, they would be told to sign. How much more so should they not be branded Resha'im for having done so b'Di'eved? What did Mar say?

(c)We ultimately establish Rebbi Meir like Rav Huna Amar Rav. What does Rav Huna Amar Rav say regarding 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo' (when a debtor concedes that the document was written)?

(d)How does that explain Rebbi Meir?

1)

(a)To explain why Rebbi Meir does not believe the witnesses even when they claim 'Anusim Hayinu Machmas Nefashos' - Rav Chisda suggests that they are forbidden to sign a document falsely even on pain of death. Consequently, when by subsequently claiming that they were forced into signing, they make themselves Resha'im and 'Ein Adam Mesim Atzmo Rasha'.

(b)Rava queries Rava Chisda however by pointing out that, based on a statement of Mar, even if witnesses who were ordered to sign a document falsely under pain of death, came to ask what they should do, they would be told to sign. How much more so should they not be branded Resha'im for having done so b'Di'eved. Mar said - that the only three things that override threat to one's life are idolatry, adultery and murder.

(c)We ultimately establish Rebbi Meir like Rav Huna Amar Rav - who says 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo', Ein Tzarich Lekaymo' (once the debtor concedes that the document was written - i.e. that the loan took place - it is no longer necessary to substantiate it. Nor will he be believed should he claim that he has already paid).

(d)Rebbi Meir too, speaks in a case when the debtor admits that he wrote the document. Consequently, the testimony of the witnesses substantiating the document is not required, it is no longer a case of 'Peh she'Asar', and the witnesses are not believed.

2)

(a)On what grounds did Rav Nachman query Rav Huna (with regard to the Din of 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo')?

(b)Rav Huna countered by asking Rav Nachman for his opinion in this regard. What was his reply?

2)

(a)Rav Nachman queried Rav Huna - in that, seeing as it is Rebbi Meir who holds 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo, Ein Tzarich Lekaymo', why did he not simply say that he holds like Rebbi Meir?

(b)Rav Huna countered by asking Rav Nachman for his opinion regarding this issue. He replied - that, whenever creditors came before him without the witnesses who had signed on the document, he would instruct them to verify it, even if the debtor had conceded that he wrote it (because he held like the Chachamim (who maintain that 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo, Tzarich Lekaymo').

3)

(a)What is a 'Shtar Amanah'?

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rejects the claim of someone who states 'Shtar Amanah Hu Zeh'. On what grounds do we initially refute the contention that that someone is ...

1. ... the borrower?

2. ... the creditor?

3. ... the witnesses?

3)

(a)A 'Shtar Amanah' - is a document that the debtor writes and hands to the intended creditor in anticipation of a loan, before any loan has actually taken place. He trusts that he will not claim unless the loan actually materializes.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rejects the claim of someone who states 'Shtar Amanah Hu Zeh'. We initially refute the contention that that someone is ...

1. ... the borrower - because it is obvious that he is not believed.

2. ... the creditor - because, if he is sufficiently honest to admit that he did not lend the debtor money, why should he not be believed ('Tavo Alav Berachah')?!

3. ... the witnesses - because, if it speaks when their signature appears on other documents, then it is obvious that they are not believed (as we learned above); whereas if it speaks when it does not, then, seeing as they have a 'Peh she'Asar', why should they not be believed.

4)

(a)According to Rava, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is referring here to the borrower, and he is following his own reasoning above (with regard to 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo'). What is he then saying?

(b)Abaye establishes Rav Yehudah with regard to the creditor. How does he resolve the Kashya we asked earlier ('Tavo Alav Berachah')?

(c)What does Rebbi Nasan learn from the Pasuk in Naso "v'Nasan la'Asher Asham Lo"? What would the Pasuk otherwise have written?

4)

(a)According to Rava, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav is referring here to the borrower, and he is following his own reasoning above (that 'Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kosvo', Ein Tzarich Lakaymo'). Here too, he speaks in a case when the borrower admitted to having written the document. Consequently, the document is as good as substantiated, and when he claims that it is a Shtar Amanah, he is not believed.

(b)Abaye establishes Rav Yehudah with regard to the creditor, in a case when the creditor himself owes money to someone else. Consequently, by claiming that the document is a Shtar Amanah and denying himself the right to claim it, he is causing his creditor (who could have subsequently claimed his debt from him) a loss.

(c)Rebbi Nasan learns from the Pasuk "v'Nasan la'Asher Asham Lo" (and not "la'Asher Hilveihu") - that a debtor pays, not necessarily to his creditor, but to the person whom his creditor owes (should he claim from him).

5)

(a)Rav Ashi establishes Rav Huna Amar Rav by the witnesses - like Rav Kahana. What does Rav Kahana learn from the Pasuk in Iyov "Al Tashken b'Ohalecha Avlah"?

(b)What does Rav Sheshes Brei d'Rav Idi extrapolate from Rav Kahana's Derashah, connecting it to our case?

5)

(a)Rav Ashi establishes Rav Huna Amar Rav by the witnesses - like Rav Kahana, who learns from the Pasuk 'Al Tashken b'Ohalecha Avlah" - (the prohibition of retaining a Shtar Amanah in one's house).

(b)Rav Sheshes Brei d'Rav Idi extrapolates from Rav Kahana's Derashah - that witnesses who claim that the document on which they signed is a Shtar Amanah, are not believed, seeing as signing on such a document is unjust, such a claim renders them Resha'im, and 'Ein Adam Mesim Atzmo Rasha'.

19b----------------------------------------19b

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the Pasuk "Al Tashken b'Ohalecha Avlah" refers to a paid document. In Eretz Yisrael, they quoted Rav too, as saying that. What does the Pasuk there "Im Ein b'Yadcha, Harchikeihu" then refer to, according to them?

(b)Why did Rav Kahana establish the Pasuk "Al Tashkein ... " by a Shtar Amanah, and not a Shtar Paru'a? What will he hold by a Shtar Paru'a?

(c)Rebbi Ami establishes the Pasuk with regard to an uncorrected Sefer-Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim. What is the maximum period that one may retain such a Sefer?

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the Pasuk "Al Tashken b'Ohalecha Avlah" refers to a paid document. In Eretz Yisrael, they quoted Rav too, as saying that. According to them - the Pasuk there "Im Ein b'Yadcha, Harchikeihu" then refers to a Shtar Amanah and a Shtar Pasim (where one person persuaded another to lend him an official document).

(b)Rav Kahana establishes the Pasuk "Al Tashken ... " by a Shtar Amanah, and not a Shtar Paru'a - because, in his opinion, it is sometimes necessary for the creditor to retain a paid document, such as where the creditor laid out the Sofer's fee for writing the document (in lieu of the debtor, who is initially obligated to pay the Sofer), in which case he will hold on to the document as a security until the debtor reimburses him.

(c)Rebbi Ami establishes the Pasuk with regard to an uncorrected Sefer-Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim - which one is not permitted to retain for more than thirty days.

7)

(a)Everyone agrees that witnesses who state 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' are not believed. According to Rav Nachman, if they say 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (meaning that the debtor informed them that he was being forced to write the document, even though no debt had taken place), they are not believed either. Why not?

(b)Mar bar Rav Ashi maintains that they are believed. Why is that?

(c)Rav asked Rav Nachman whether witnesses who said 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu' are believed or not. Why might 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu' be better than 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' or 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (both of which are not believed, according to Rav Nachman)?

(d)What did Rav Nachman reply? What would he instruct the parties to do whenever the witnesses said 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu'?

7)

(a)Everyone agrees that witnesses who state 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' are not believed. According to Rav Nachman, if they say 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (meaning that the debtor informed them that he was being forced to write the document, even though no debt had taken place), they are not believed either - because a verbal denial does not have the power to overturn a written document.

(b)Mar bar Rav Ashi however, maintains that they are believed - because whereas a Shtar Amanah should never have been written (because it is an injustice), a Shtar Moda'ah should (to save the debtor from the threat that looms over him).

(c)Rav asked Rav Nachman whether witnesses who said 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu' are believed or not. 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu' might be better than 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' or 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (both of which are not believed, according to Rav Nachman) - because whereas the first two intrinsically contradict the document, the latter does not (since it is external to the contents of the document itself).

(d)Rav Nachman replied - that whenever the witnesses said 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu', he would instruct the parties concerned to fulfill the relevant condition (in other words, he believed the witnesses).

8)

(a)If one of the witnesses claims that there is a condition attached, and the other one said that there is not, on what grounds does Rav Papa validate the document?

(b)And on what grounds does Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagree with him? How does he derive that from the previous case, when both witnesses agreed 'Tenai Hayu Devareinu'?

(c)So what does Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua rule?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah?

8)

(a)If one of the witnesses claims that there is a condition attached, and the other, that there is not, Rav Papa validates the document - on the grounds that they both consider the document to be valid; and as for the one who claims that there is a condition attached, he is only a single witness, and one witness is not believed against two.

(b)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with him - because if adding that there is a condition does not affect the witnesses verification of the Shtar, and he is nevertheless considered one of those who substantiate the Shtar, then the same should apply to two witnesses (i.e. we should ignore their statement that there was a condition, and accept their verification of the Shtar - contrary to Rav Nachman's previous ruling that the condition must be fulfilled).

(c)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua therefore rules - that, although the condition is not an intrinsic part of the testimony per se, nonetheless, since it comes immediately after its verification ('within the Shi'ur of 'Toch k'Dei Dibur' - the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem Rebbi [u'Mori]), it is considered as if it came to negate it (the verification). Consequently, we are left with only one witness (who testifies that a transaction took place without any conditions).

(d)The Halachah is like Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua.

9)

(a)According to the Tana of a Beraisa, when are witnesses who verify the signatures of other witnesses who died, adding 'Anusim Hayu', 'Ketanim Hayu' or 'Pesulei Edus Hayu', believed, and when are they not believed?

(b)What problem do we have with the case where they are not believed, and where the document remains Kasher?

(c)Rav Sheshes learns from here that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi'. How does that answer the Kashya?

(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "v'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav"?

9)

(a)According to the Tana of a Beraisa, witnesses who verify the signatures of other witnesses who died, adding 'Anusim Hayu', 'Ketanim Hayu' or 'Pesulei Edus Hayu' are believed (due to 'ha'Peh she'Asar') provided there are no witnesses to attest to their signatures, nor do their signatures appear on other documents. Otherwise, they are not believed.

(b)The problem with the latter case (where they are not believed, and where the document remains Kasher) is - how can we simply ignore the fact that the second pair of witnesses clash with the first pair?! Why do we not consider it a case of two against two?!

(c)Rav Sheshes learns from here that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi' - meaning that whenever a second pair of witnesses contradict the testimony of a previous pair, it is considered the first stage of Hazamah. Consequently, just as Hazamah can only take place in the presence of the witnesses who are being invalidated, so too, Hakchashah. That being the case, the testimony of the second pair in our case, cannot be accepted at all, seeing as the first pair are no longer alive.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "v'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" - 'Yavo Ba'al ha'Shor v'Ya'amod al Shoro' (that one can only have [even] one's ox killed, in the presence of the ox).

10)

(a)On what grounds does Rav Nachman (like whom we always rule in money-matters) disagree with Rav Sheshes? Why might the second pair of witnesses be believed not in the presence of the first pair, even though they would not be, if they testified to make them Zomemim?

(b)What is the difference between 'Hakchashah' and 'Hazamah'?

10)

(a)Rav Nachman (like whom we always rule in money-matters) disagrees with Rav Sheshes. In his opinion, we cannot ignore the second pair of witnesses in our case, because, unlike Hazamah (or even a straight Hakchashah), the second testimony comes to negate the testimony of the first pair), the claim that there is a condition, does not. For all we know, the first witnesses themselves might have agreed that there was indeed a claim.

(b)'Hakchashah' - is when a second pair of witnesses contradict the testimony of the first; 'Hazamah' is when the second pair testify that the first pair could not have witnessed what they claim they saw (even if it did take place), because they were with them in a different location at the time.

11)

(a)What does Rav Nachman rule in the previous case?

(b)How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa, which explicitly said 'Ein Eilu Ne'emanim'? If one cannot now claim with the Shtar, in which regard are the second witnesses not believed?

(c)What are the implications of 'Uki Mamona b'Chezkas Marei', as regards ...

1. ... a loan?

2. ... a sale of land?

11)

(a)So Rav Nachman rules - that this a case of two against two, in which case 'Uki Mamona b'Chezkas Marei' (the money remains where it is).

(b)When the Beraisa said 'Ein Eilu Ne'emanim' - it meant that they are not believed outright. The ramifications of this are that we do not tear-up the document. Consequently, if the owner of the Shtar seizes the money before going to Beis-Din, he will be permitted to retain it, in keeping with the ruling 'Uki Mamona b'Chezkas Marei'.

(c)'Uki Mamona b'Chezkas Marei' implies, as regards ...

1. ... a loan - that the money remains with the debtor (provided the creditor has not seized it, as we just explained).

2. ... a sale of land - that the land remains in the possession of the seller.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF