Explanation: It seems that this is even if they explicitly say that they testify about the money in the document. It is considered as if they testify about their signatures;

The same applies to Rabanan. Even if they explicitly say that they testify about their signatures [it is considered as if they testify about the money].

Source: It says below "if there are not two, rather, there is only one, what should they do?"

Inference: According to Rabanan, it does not help if they explicitly testify about their signatures.

Observation: Likewise, he could sign at the top of a parchment, like it says in Bava Basra (160b) and there is no concern for anything.

Implied question: A Beraisa (Kidushin 9a) says that if one wrote on a paper or earthenware "your daughter is Mekudeshes to me" (it is a valid document)!

Similarly regarding a field (Kidushin 26a), if one wrote [a sale document] on a paper or earthenware, it is sold!

Answer: Those are like R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei;

According to R. Meir, who says that Edei Chasimah Karsei (the witnesses who sign a document empower it), it (a document) is not valid on something that can be forged (erasures are not evident);

It says in Gitin (21b) "we may write [a Get] on [erased paper... because it can be forged], and Chachamim are Machshir. The Gemara explains that Chachamim are R. Elazar.

Implied question: It says there that R. Elazar is Machshir only Gitin, but not other documents!

Answer: It means Gitin and similar documents, i.e. documents that are only for a proof, e.g. it is only to acquire a woman or field, just like Gitin, which are made for a moment, to divorce. (One does not write a Get for the sake of keeping it for a proof.)

Implied question: A document of acquisition can serve as a proof!

Answer: Also a Get can serve as a proof, like it says below (89b) and in Bava Metzi'a (18a) "you cannot say that we will tear the Get. She needs it [to prove that she was divorced,] in order to remarry!"

However, primarily they are not written for this (the proof). We exclude only documents written primarily for a proof and made to last a long time, like it brings there from the verse "u'Nsatem bi'Chli Cheres..."

Pesak: The Rif rules that this is only when he says that he never borrowed, but he is believed to say "I paid";

He (the lender) can say "[if you paid me,] why is your document in my hand?" (You should have taken it back!) only regarding a document with witnesses, from which one can collect from property that the borrower sold.

Objection (R. Yitzchak): what is the source for this distinction? It is logical that regarding any document, one does not normally pay until [the lender] returns his document to him!

Inference: Even in a validated document, we are concerned lest he forged the judges' signatures.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Gitin and Sanhedrin connotes like this.

Implied question: A Tosefta in Shevi'is says that a Pruzbul Mekushar (it is folded onto itself and sewn; it must have a witness on every fold, at the least three), R. Yehudah says that witnesses sign on the outside, and judges on the inside;

They said to him [judges need not sign, for Pruzbul itself is an act of Beis Din, and] "acts of Beis Din do not need Kiyum." (This is unlike our Gemara!)

Answer: This is only regarding Pruzbul, for one is believed to say "I had a Pruzbul, and I lost it";

And even the opinion that says that he is not believed, he agrees that it does not require Kiyum.

Question #1: We ask from Rav Papi, and below (85a) we conclude that the Halachah does not follow Rav Papi, because Rav Nachman [taught that R. Meir holds that if one finds a discarded Get, it can be signed and used to divorce. Chachamim argue only about a Get, for they require it to written Lishmah.]

Question #2: In Gitin (26b) we conclude that Rav does not hold like Rav Papi. If so, how do we ask from Rav Papi against Rav's teaching?

Answer (to Question #2): We can say that we ask according to the version that this was taught in the name of Rav Huna.

Suggestion: We ask that since he said "after they sign, they may not testify in front of him (the third judge) and he will sign", this shows that we are concerned for what looks like Sheker (a false matter);

If so, also when they wrote before signing (it is invalid), for also writing (before they testified) looks like Sheker;

Rejection: If so, there is a contradiction in Rav! Here he is concerned for looking like Sheker, and in Gitin he is not concerned!

Rather, the reason [why it is invalid] after they signed is because it looks like their testimony affects themselves (since they already signed, they testify so the third will agree);

This is like what Rashi explained regarding one who protested against one of them (the judges).

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The Gemara often asks even from a matter that the Halachah does not follow.

Pesak: R. Tam rules that we may write Harsha'ah even on Metaltelim that [the alleged Shomer] denied, for the Halachah does not follow Rav Papi, who is concerned for what looks like Sheker.

Even though we ask from Rav Papi, and we ask also from Neharda'ei in several places, e.g. in Shevuos (33b) and Bechoros (49a) "but Neharda'ei say that we may not write Harsha'ah [on Metaltelim that were denied!", we can say that the Gemara asked from a matter that is unlike the Halachah.]

Answer #2: Some say that when we say below (85a) and in Gitin (26b) "v'Leisa" (this is not so), this does not means that the Halachah does not follow Rav Papi;

Rather, it means that there is no question, for we cannot compare Harsha'ah, which is an act of Beis Din, to other documents. Regarding acts of Beis Din, all are concerned for looking like Sheker.

Answer #3 (Ri of Danpir): L'Chatchilah, surely we are concerned for what looks like Sheker, like Rav told scribes "when you sit in Hini [write this on the Get, and not the name of the place where it will be given]" (Bava Basra 172a);

However, b'Di'eved we are not concerned. Therefore, we ask here, for it is l'Chatchilah.

(A certain woman needed to swear to be exempt. The claimant wanted her to swear in her home city. She asked them to write a document saying that she swore and is exempt, and they will give it to her after she swears. Rav Papi said that we cannot, for it looks like Sheker.) It says "v'Leisa" regarding Rav Papi's teaching, i.e. b'Di'eved (85a);

Since [if we will be concerned for looking like Sheker,] she will need to return to Beis Din [to get a document saying that she is exempt], this is like b'Di'eved.

Implied question: Why do we write a Harsha'ah on Metaltelim that [the Shomer] denied?

Answer: Since the owner cannot go there [to claim them himself], this is like b'Di'eved.

Explanation #1: We are thinking that one must testify in front of them, even though seeing [testimony] is no less [valid] than hearing [it], for then they look more like a Beis Din;

When they do not testify in front of them, it looks only like Ed mi'Pi Ed.

Support: For this reason they required three for Kiyum of documents. Two would have sufficed, but we require [three, so they will be] a Beis Din, like I explained.

Explanation #2 (Ri): We are thinking that one must testify in front of them, because sometimes they recognize [the signatures] only though what they saw at night;

We cannot apply "seeing is no less than hearing", for hearing [testimony] cannot be at night;

This is like it says in Rosh Hashanah, that investigation of witnesses is like the beginning of judgment, and the beginning of judgment is only during the day, like it says in Sanhedrin (32a).

Explanation: We are thinking that since they testified in front of two, the third can write (i.e. sign) based on the two, even though they did not testify in front of him.

Explanation: For Torah laws, a witness cannot become a judge.

Explanation #1: The reason that a witness cannot become a judge is because they must testify in front of the judges, like the Rashbam explains, for it says "v'Amdu Shenei ha'Anashim" - these are the witnesses; "Lifnei Hash-m" - these are the judges.

Explanation #2: It is because we require testimony that can be Huzam (refuted through testimony that the witnesses were not present to see what they testified about);

If a witness could become a judge, the testimony could not be Huzam, for they (the witnesses who became judges) would not accept Hazamah about themselves (since they know that they were present to see what they testified about)!

Objection: However, according to this reason, if the witnesses are relatives of the judges, they cannot testify, for they (the judges) will not accept Hazamah [on the witnesses].

Note: "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim" teaches that relatives cannot testify together, for then one could help cause his relative's death. For the same reason, we should say that witnesses cannot testify in front of their relatives! Maharshal - we do not find that the Bavli disqualifies this. The Rif and Rosh bring from the Yerushalmi that indeed, we disqualify for this reason.

Rather, [you are forced to say that] since [the witnesses] could be Huzam in another Beis Din, this is called testimony that can be Huzam;

Also here, a judge can become a witness [for this reason].

Distinction: Only regarding a witness who testifies, we say that a witness cannot become a judge, for these reasons apply;

However, a witness who need not testify, e.g. there are others who will testify, or they (the judges) saw [the testimony] during the day, so there is no need to testify [in front of them], for seeing is no less than hearing, he can become a judge.

This is only for monetary cases. For capital cases, even a witness who need not testify cannot become a judge according to R. Akiva, who says in Makos (6a) "even if there are 100, all of them are witnesses [and they cannot be judges]."

The reason is like it says in Rosh Hashanah (26a), because it says "v'Hatzilu ha'Edah." These [judges], since they saw that he killed, they will not see a reason to acquit.

This is only for Torah [testimony]. For mid'Rabanan [testimony], even a witness who testifies can become a judge.