Question: Why does she need witnesses? We should believe her through a Migo. If she wanted, she could have said that she bought them!

Implied question: (This is not a Migo!) We hold that documents are not acquired through Mesirah (handing them over, alone). She needs Mesirah and a document of purchase [of the document]!

Answer: That is to acquire the debt. She acquires the parchment without a document [of purchase], since she is Muchzak in it.

This woman was concerned only to acquire the bundle of documents, without the debt.

Source: She said "I seized them in his lifetime." Tefisah in his lifetime does not help to collect the debt, for it is no better than Mesirah!

Rather, through this she could force the heirs to pay what [their father] owed to her, since she would not return the bundle of documents. It was like a security.

Answer (Ri): This is not considered a Migo, because now she cannot claim that she bought it, since she already said that she seized them in his lifetime.

Suggestion: We should consider it to be a Migo, because at the time she said that she seized it his lifetime, she could have said [instead] that she bought it!

Rejection: She is not believed now, for at the time she said that she seized it in his lifetime, she thought that it is a good claim. She did not know that she must claim that he claimed from her in his lifetime, since she did not claim this herself.

Proof #1: In Sanhedrin (31a), a woman was holding a document and said "I know that it was paid", and Rav Nachman did not believe her, since it was established in Beis Din;

I.e. since we saw the document in her hand, we do not say "if she wanted, she could burn it", even though had she said that it was paid before we saw the document in her hand, she would have been believed through a Migo, for if she wanted, she could burn it!

Now that we saw it in her hand, she is not believed any more, for now she has no Migo.

Proof #2: A Mishnah in Shevuos (38b) says that if one said "you owe to me 100", and he said "yes", and the next day he said "I gave it to you", he is exempt;

Citation (41a) Question: According to the opinion that one who lends to his friend with witnesses must pay in front of witnesses, here since he claimed from him in front of witnesses, it is as if he lent to him in front of witnesses, and the Mishnah exempts!

Question: What was the question? Here is different, for he is believed through a Migo. If he wanted, yesterday he could have said "you never lent to me"!

Answer: Rather, surely we do not say a Migo retroactively.

Explanation (R. Chananel, in Shevuos 42a): Whenever it says "I will discredit" about a document, it means that the bearer must swear before collecting.

Support: The words connote like this. We do not conclude "we do not tear it, nor do we collect with it", the way we said above (36a) "this tainted document, we do not collect with it, [nor do we tear it]." (The bracketed words are not in our text there, but it is clear that they were in the text of Tosfos Yevamos 101b DH Mar'ana.)

Question: Regarding what did Rav Papa say that we discredit it?

Suggestion: [One can collect with it only through] a Shevu'ah, like we explained.

Rejection: Even if [Aba Mari] were not believed like two witnesses, the bearer would need to swear before collecting, like the Mishnah below (87a) "if one witness testifies that it was paid, she collects only through a Shevu'ah"!

Answer: Rav Papa said that even if [Aba Mari] were a relative [to one of the litigants], who is not Kosher for testimony, like Rav Chisda's daughter, who was not a Kosher witness [he would discredit the document].

Implied question: Why did Rava ask if there is another witness with him (Rav Papa)?

Note: If there were a second witness, one cannot collect with it at all! Perhaps this question is based on our text "if not (there is no other witness), one witness does nothing." This is not in the text of some Rishonim; if it was in Tosfos' text, his answer below is difficult. Maharam Shif points out that in any case, "Bahadei Mar (with you)" is difficult for Tosfos' coming answer. This connotes that their testimonies would join!)

Answer: We must say that Rav Papa was a relative of the bearer of the document or of the defendant. Therefore, he was not believed even for [obligating] a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: Also there, it looks like a false matter. They wrote for her "Plonis swore and was exempted from Ploni", and gave it to a third party to give to her after she swears.

Implied question: Why didn't they write "if Plonis will swear, she will be exempt"? This would not look like a false matter!

Answer: They did not want to obligate her to bring witnesses now or at some time in the future [that she swore].

Implied question: If R. Meyasha were alive, and he would have claimed that it is his, he would have been believed, even though he is not rich! He could say that he found a Metzi'ah, or received a gift!

Answer: Even so, we do not claim this for orphans, for it is not common.

Support: If Shtar Kis (a document of a business venture) was brought against orphans, we do not claim for them that the deposit was lost through Ones (for this is not common - Bava Basra 70b).

Suggestion: This means that further, even if he was rich (the Siman would help).

Rejection: If he was rich, a Siman would not help. Perhaps he bought it from him!

Implied question: This Siman, that they were wrapped in a sheet, it is not normal to know it, unless he deposited with him!

Answer: In any case, regarding a silver cup and silk garment below, there is no Siman other than on the item itself, and it is not a Siman that he deposited, for we can say that he bought it from him!

Explanation: Rather, these two reasons do not help one without the other. We require that he is not rich, and a Siman.

Question: Above (13b), regarding an Arus and Arusah, [Rav Yosef] said "firstly, the husband admits. Further, Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel!"

Citation (13b) Question (Abaye): (You connote that the second reason suffices by itself.) Is R. Gamliel Machshir when he (the husband) does not admit?!

Question: What was Abaye's question? Perhaps Rav Yosef requires both reasons, like we find here!

Answer: There, it is fine. If the reason that he admits does not help by itself, also the reason that the Halachah follows R. Gamliel would not help, for R. Gamliel is Machshir only when most people [in the area] are Kosher regarding her (do not disqualify her);

Here, most (i.e. everyone except for the Arus) are Pasul to her. The only reason is because he admits;

Abaye meant as follows. Here, when he does not agree, i.e. if the reason that he admits does not help by itself, is he (R. Gamliel) Machshir?!...

Question #1: Yevamos (115b) discusses a case in which [Reuven] deposited sesame with [Shimon]. Reuven said "give to me my sesame." Shimon said "you took it!"

Reuven said how much there was, and that it was in a barrel. Shimon said "you took it. This is different sesame!"

Inference: It connotes there that had Reuven given superb Simanim, he would have been believed, and Shimon would not be believed through a Migo that he bought them!

Question #2 - Citation (Bava Metzi'a 70a): What do we do with coins of orphans? We find a man who has pieces of gold...

Citation (cont.): It is not enough if he has Kelim, lest they are a deposit, and someone will come and give a Siman and take them.

Answer (to both questions): There, he has witnesses that he deposited with him. Then, the Shomer is not believed to say that he bought it, since it came to him as a deposit. However, there is no Siman on pieces of gold.

We need not be concerned lest [witnesses say that] they know [that it is Ploni's] through Tevi'as Ayin (recognition), for this is not common.

Explanation (Rashba): Firstly, he is not rich. We need not be concerned lest they are R. Meyasha's;

And also, we need not be concerned lest they are someone else's for [this man] gave a Siman.

Explanation (Rashi): They were wrapped in a sheet, and there were seven.

Question: In Yevamos (115b), we say that this is not a Siman! (Zera Yitzchak - others explain that this is not a question. Rather, this shows like Tosfos said above, that here it helps only together with the fact that R. Meyasha is not rich.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The judges say to which of them the giver more wanted to give.

Rebuttal and Explanation #2 (R. Tam): No, the judge gives to whomever he wants.

Proof #1: In Gitin (14b), regarding "take 100 Zuz to Ploni", and the giver died, [one opinion says that] the Shali'ach does what he wants, and there we call this Shuda.

Proof #2: In Kidushin (74a), we say that a judge is believed to say "I acquitted Ploni", but if the litigants are not in front of him, he is not believed;

The Gemara asks that we should judge them again, and answers that it was a case of Shuda;

According to Rashi, the judges estimate the giver's intent, we can still judge them again, and do Shuda!

Support: The Yerushalmi says that the judges give to whom they want.

Question: If so, the judge will give to whoever pays more wages to him!

Answer: Any judge who takes wages is not a judge.

Question (Ri): How can one sell a debt?

Granted, when the borrower has land, he sells to him the lien that he has on the land;

However, when [the borrower] has nothing, what does he sell to him?

Answer (Ri): It is not a sale mid'Oraisa. If it were a sale, why is it pardoned [when the seller pardons]?

Support (R. Tam): It is a sale only mid'Rabanan. In Bava Basra (147b), Rava said in the name of Rav Nachman that Matanas Shechiv me'Ra is mid'Rabanan;

Citation (147b) Question: Rav Nachman taught that even though Shmuel taught that one who sold a loan document to his friend and pardoned it, it is pardoned, and even an heir can pardon...

Citation (cont.): Shmuel agrees that if he gave it through Matanas Shechiv me'Ra, he cannot pardon it.

Citation (cont.): Granted, if you will say that [Matanas Shechiv me'Ra] is mid'Oraisa, this is why he cannot pardon...

Inference: Something (a sale or gift) that is mid'Oraisa, he (the seller or giver) cannot pardon it.

Rejection: This is no proof. Really, even if sale of a document, is mid'Oraisa, one can pardon;

There, it means that granted, if [Matanas Shechiv me'Ra] is mid'Oraisa, the heir cannot pardon, because he does not inherit. The recipient of the gift inherits [the giver].

Source: If it is mid'Oraisa, we learn from "v'Hayah b'Yom Hanchilu Es Banav" - the Torah gave a father permission to bequeath to whomever he wants;

However, if you will say that it is only mid'Rabanan, why can't he pardon? Even matters that are mid'Oraisa, he can pardon, and all the more so Matanas Shechiv me'Ra mid'Rabanan!

Question: Why do we need [a Drashah] to exclude documents from Ona'ah (overcharging), if sale of a loan document is not mid'Oraisa?

Answer #1: Granted, the debt is not sold, but Ona'ah applies, for it is worth a lot to the buyer. He can sell it for much money to the borrower.

Answer #2: He owed to him a Milveh Al Peh (a debt without a document), and [the lender] paid him to write a loan document.

Question (Ri): In Bava Metzi'a (19b), regarding one who found a receipt [for a Kesuvah], if she admits, we return it to the husband;

Citation (19b) Question: We should be concerned lest she wrote to give it in Nisan [but she was not paid and did not give it until later, and in between she sold her Kesuvah! Her husband might use the receipt to 'prove' that he paid the Kesuvah before she sold it!]

Citation (cont.) Answer: This shows that Shmuel is correct. He said that if one sold a loan document, and then pardoned the debt, it is pardoned. (Since she can pardon the Kesuvah anyway, returning the receipt does not hurt one who bought her Kesuvah.)

Still, we should be concerned lest she wrote to give it in Nisan, and did not give it until Tishrei, and entered her Kesuvah to her [new] husband, after which she cannot pardon it, like we say here! (If so, returning the receipt hurts one who bought her Kesuvah.)

Answer: We must say that there we discuss when we know that she has no husband [now].