אמאי קא סמכת אהאי שטרא האי שטרא חספא בעלמא הוא—On what are you relying, on this שטר; this שטר is merely a potsherd

OVERVIEW In the case at hand, the מוחזק initially claimed that he has a שטר (which would have been מקויים). The מערער argued that it is a מזוייף שטר. In response the מחזיק admitted that it is a מזוייף שטר; however he lost his original valid שטר. רבה ruled that the מוחזק has a מיגו for he need not have admitted that it is a מזוייף שטר. However, יוסף רב disagreed and argued that the שטר which you are relying on is a מזוייף שטר. Seemingly יוסף רב is not responding to s’רבה argument that the השטר בעל has a מיגו. This תוספות will offer three explanations why the מיגו is not effective.

תוספות asks: תימה דליהמניה במיגו דאי בעי אמר שטרא מעליא הוא¹ – It is astounding! For the השטר בעל should be believed with a מיגו; for he could have claimed it is a valid שטר. If the bearer of the שטר would not have admitted that it is indeed a false שטר, but would have rather maintained that it is a valid שטר, he would have been awarded the property. Therefore on account of this מיגו we should believe his claim that ‘I bought it from you (and I lost the original valid שטר)’. תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו יצחק ברבי מרדכי דלא אמרינן מיגו להוציא² ממון³ – And the ם"ריב answered that we do not apply the rulings of a מיגו to extract monies [from its presumptive owner**];** ומה שהוא מוחזק בקרקע אינו כלום דקרקע בחזקת בעליה קיימא – (And) [For] the fact that the השטר בעל is in possession of the property is meaningless; the השטר בעל is not the מוחזק for land is presumed to be in the possession of its original owner – כיון שאין לו שטר ולא חזקה אלא בדברים בעלמא שאומר שטרא מעליא הוה לי ואירכס – Since he has neither a valid שטר nor a חזקה**** that support his contention, but rather merely the words which he says that I had a valid שטר and it was lost. Words alone without a חזקה or a שטר do not entitle anyone to be considered a מוחזק in a property. Therefore since the השטר בעל is not the מוחזק; but rather the מערער is the מוחזק in this case, for he is certainly the קמא מרא, we cannot apply the מיגו principle here.⁴ תוספות anticipates the possible question that in any monetary argument someone is losing money; every מיגו should be considered a להוציא מיגו. תוספות will clarify when a מיגו is effective. ולא אמרינן מיגו אלא להחזיק ממון שיכול לפטור עצמו על ידי מיגו – And we do not apply a מיגו only to maintain money that is in one’s possession, which he can exempt himself from paying out monies to creditors through a מיגו. This example is discussing a case where one claims that the המיגו בעל owes him money. The בעל המיגו can be exempt from paying this claim through the מיגו; since the money claimed is in his unequivocal possession. אי נמי⁵ אם יש לו שטר או חזקה וזה בא לפסול ראייתו אז זה יכול לקיימו על ידי מיגו – Or if you will, a מיגו is also effective if one has a שטר or a חזקה concerning property and this מערער comes to invalidate his proof; by claiming, for instance, that the third party seller never owned this property, then this מוחזק can substantiate his claim through a מיגו. תוספות offers an example – כמו קמי דידי זבנה מינך מיגו⁶ דאי בעי אמר מינך זבינתיה ואכלתיה שני חזקה – As in the case where the מחזיק claims concerning his seller that**** ‘he bought it from you in my presence’ he is believed with a מיגו for he could have claimed ‘I bought it from you and I consumed its produce for the three חזקה years’. In this case the ownership of the field is being contested;⁷ nevertheless since he has a חזקה, the מיגו allows him to retain the field on the basis of the חזקה. However a מיגו does not have the power to enable someone to extract money or property that is in someone else’s possession. תוספות is not satisfied with this explanation of the ם"ריב. ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק מדלא מפרש טעמא הכי בהדיא⁸ משמע דלאו משום הכי הוא – However the ר"י is not satisfied with this explanation that יוסף רב is discounting the מיגו since it is a להוציא**** מיגו, since יוסף רב does not explicitly express this reason of להוציא מיגו; but rather יוסף רב claims that בעלמא חספא שטרא האי**, this** indicates that it is not because of this explanation of להוציא מיגו, that יוסף רב dismisses the מיגו. תוספות offers a different explanation – ונראה לרבינו יצחק דטעמא דרב יוסף דלא אמרינן מיגו הכא – And the ר"י is of the opinion that the reason יוסף רב maintains that we do not invoke here the rules of מיגו, is that – כיון דלית ליה הכא מיגו אלא אם כן שקר תחלה שהוצרך לשקר תחלה ולומר והא שטרא – since here the מחזיק would have no מיגו unless he initially lied; for it was necessary for him to initially lie and to claim ‘and here is the שטר’. The only way the מחזיק has a מיגו is because he clearly lied initially when he said 'שטרא והא'. The מיגו is that he could have kept up this lie. We cannot base a מיגו on a lie.⁹ In a regular case of מיגו (for instance דנאנסו במיגו החזרתי) the original claim (החזרתי) is not known to be either a truth or a lie. Its truthfulness is established through the power of a מיגו. In our case however, we begin initially with a blatant self-confessed lie on behalf of the המיגו בעל. A מיגו is not effective under these circumstances.¹⁰ תוספות offers another explanation why there is no effective מיגו here: אי נמי משום הכי לא אמרינן הכא מיגו משום דהוי חוזר וטוען – Or we may also state that the reason we do not employ a מיגו here, is because he is retracting his original claim – דמעיקרא טען והא שטרא – For initially he claimed ‘and here is the שטר’. He based his proof of ownership on the (false) שטר –

And now he is retracting this claim and he admits that the שטר is a בעלמא חספא but rather his new claim is that I had a valid שטר. A person may not change his arguments in ד"בי, when the latter argument contradicts the former, as in this case.¹¹ Previously he stated ‘this is the שטר’; subsequently he admits that it is not a valid שטר; but rather I had another שטר.

SUMMARY תוספות offers three interpretations why a מיגו is ineffective here:

1. It is a להוציא מיגו. 2. It is a מיגו that is prefaced by a lie. 3. He is a וטוען חוזר.

THINKING IT OVER According to the ר"י, what are the reasons that רבה disagrees with יוסף רב?

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is (seemingly) merely repeating s'רבה argument; indicating that יוסף רב did not properly address the מיגו argument. תוספות however, does not explicitly state that יוסף רב is not responding to ב"וצ ,רבה. ² The reason is that in order to extract money from the owner it is necessary to be certain that the monies are due. A מיגו cannot offer this degree of certainty; only two עדים can. ³ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read דמה שהוא ממון מחזקתו. ⁴ רבה may be of the opinion that since this is a שתיק בעי דאי מיגו, it is more effective than a regular מיגו and can be utilized even ממון להוציא. See וזה ה"ד א,ב מ"ב תוספות. See footnote # 8. ⁵ תוספות will offer another example where מיגו is effective even in a case where his presumptive ownership is not as verifiable as in the aforementioned case concerning his money ⁶ It seems evident from this תוספות that the claim of דידי קמי מינך דזבנא זבינתא מפלניא is not believed on its own merits; only on account of the מיגו of זבינתא מינך. See לאו ה"ד א,ל 'תוס (TIE footnote # 2). ⁷ It is not that clear who is the מוחזק in this case; whether it is the מחזיק (who lived there for three years) or the מערער (who is the קמא מרא). Nonetheless since the מערער is not a definite מוחזק, the מיגו is effective. ⁸ Some commentaries maintain that according to the ם"ריב, the dispute between יוסף ורב רבה is whether this is considered a להוציא מיגו or not. רבה maintains that it is not a להוציא מיגו since the מחזיק initially presented a שטר which would have given him possession of the property. יוסף רב replied that we cannot consider him a מוחזק on account of a מזוייף שטר. This would seemingly answer the s'י"ר objection. However the ר"י argues that if the basis of s'יוסף רב objection is that it is a להוציא מיגו, he should have stated that ‘explicitly’ (in addition to perhaps also explaining why it is considered a להוציא מיגו on account of the מזוייף שטר). ⁹ According to the ר"י this is what יוסף רב meant when he said שטרא אהאי סמכת אמאי; the basis of the מיגו is the (false) שטר that the מחזיק introduced originally. However this שטר is a בעלמא חספא, and we cannot base a מיגו on a lie. ¹⁰ A popular explanation is that the purported purpose of a מיגו is to prove the honesty of this individual. However, here the המיגו בעל is showing that he is not honest. ¹¹ יוסף רב is saying that originally you depended on this שטר; (שטרא אהאי סמכת אמאי); however now you can no longer depend on this שטר (since it is a בעלמא חספא). You can therefore not accept any conflicting claims (even with a מיגו), since it is considered to be a וטוען חוזר. See ש"הרא בשם מקובצת שיטה.

והלכתא כוותיה דרבה בארעא—And the law is according to רבה regarding property

OVERVIEW There is a dispute between יוסף ורב רבה concerning the מיגו of הוה לי מעליא שטרא. In a case of a property dispute, אבין בר אידי רב ruled according to רבה, that it is a valid מיגו (we leave the land in the possession of the מוחזק); however in the case of a loan we follow the opinion of יוסף רב that the מלוה cannot collect (the monies are left in the possession of the לוה). This ruling seems incongruent. If רבה is correct that it is a valid מיגו then the (והשטר) המיגו בעל should always collect, even by a loan. If it is not a valid מיגו as יוסף רב maintains then it should never be valid even by קרקע.

רבינו שמואל פירש¹ דמספקא ליה כמאן הלכתא – The רשב"ם explained the apparent discrepancy that by property the law is according to רבה and by a loan the law is according to רב יוסף, by saying that רב אבין אידי בר was unsure according to whom is the הלכה; whether according to רבה or יוסף רב. Therefore he ruled that we grant the assets to the present מוחזק. תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the fact that (on account of the ספק, then) in the case of property we grant it to the present מוחזק as opposed to the קמא מרה. וצריך לדחוק ולפרש ולחלק בין ספיקא דתרי ותרי לספיקא דדינא – And it will be necessary, with difficulty, to explain and differentiate between a ספק of ותרי תרי (where we grant the property to the original owner (מרה קמא) [as תוספות will shortly state]) to a ספק of law; where we cannot ascertain what the law is (in which case we award it to the present מוחזק [as in our case]). תוספות will now present the contradiction (and the explanation): דהא דלא אוקמה בחזקת מרה קמא כמו בנכסי דבר שטיא² – for the reason ראב"א did not place the property in the possession of the ‘first owner’; the מערער who is the מרה קמא (which seemingly he should have) as in the case of the properties of the ‘incompetent’ – דאמרינן (כתובות דף כ,א) אוקי תרי בהדי תרי ואוקי נכסי בחזקת בר שטיא – where the גמרא states, ‘we place the two עדים against the two contradicting עדים; they cancel out each other and we place the disputed properties in the original presumptive possession of the שטיא בר’; even though that the properties were now in the possession of the buyer**.** Seemingly the same ruling should apply here. We are not sure who should retain the property; just as in the case of שטיא בר. The property should be retained by the קמא מרה; not the present מוחזק! The ruling of שטיא בר teaches us that a קמא מרה חזקת takes precedent over the current מוחזק. Here is where the differentiation is necessary. תוספות explains that there is a difference between the case of שטיא בר and our גמרא: התם הוו תרי ותרי כמאן דליתנהו דמי³ ואוקמינן ארעא בחזקת מרה קמא⁴ – There the contradiction of ותרי תרי renders it as if there are no עדים and therefore we place the land in the possession of the קמא מרה – אבל הכא דמספקא לן דינא כמאן – However, here where we are in doubt whose ruling we should follow – התם לא שייך כולי האי למימר אוקמה אחזקת מרה קמא ונוציא מיד המוחזק⁵ – in that situation it is not that appropriate to rule that we should place it in the possession of the קמא מרה and we should extricate it from the possession of the**** current מוחזק. תוספות concludes: ודוחק הוא⁶ – And this distinction (between a דדינא ספיקא and a ספיקא of תרי ותרי) is a forced one. It is not a clear and definitive distinction. תוספות adds an additional difficulty with this interpretation: ועוד דהילכתא משמע דלגמרי פוסק כרבה ולא מספק – And furthermore the term 'והלכתא' indicates that א"אב רב ruled completely like רבה by קרקע and not because he was in doubt whether the הלכה is like רבה or רב יוסף. This implies that – אפילו עבד כרב יוסף בדיעבד לא עבד – **Even if one already (**mistakenly) acted according to יוסף רב and awarded the land to the מערער he did not accomplish anything. The land must revert back to the מוחזק. If א"ראב ruled according to רבה only מספק (as the ם"רשב maintains), then if a בי"ד mistakenly ruled like יוסף רב, the result would be that it would remain by the מערער; for now the מערער is the מוחזק. However the term 'והלכתא' indicates that in a case of ארעא the law is inherently like רבה; and not merely by default, since we are not sure who to follow. תוספות offer his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דהיינו טעמא דהלכתא בארעא כרבה וכרב יוסף בזוזי – And it seems to the ר"י that this is the reason that the ruling is according to רבה concerning land and like יוסף רב concerning money – משום דאמרינן מיגו לאוקמי ממונא ואית לן לאוקמי ארעא בחזקת מרה דקיימא השתא⁷ – Because we use the מיגו principle to maintain the monies under its current ownership and it is proper that we award the land in the possession of the current owner. In the case of ארעא the השטר בעל has a להחזיק מיגו; therefore he is awarded the field legally. However in the case of a loan, even though the השטר בעל has a מיגו, but it is a מיגו להוציא. Therefore the monies remain in the possession of the לוה. תוספות anticipates a question: ובהכותב⁸ (כתובות דף פה,א ושם) דאמר – And that which the גמרא states in הכותב פרק – מיגו דיכלי למימר לא היו דברים מעולם יכלי למימר הני סיטראי נינהו – since the מלוה could have argued ‘it never took place’; the agent never paid any money at all, he can also claim that this payment was for another debt. The מלוה can still collect his חוב with the שטר even though he admitted that the agent paid him money. It seems evident from that גמרא that a מיגו is effective even to extract money. This would contradict what תוספות is saying here that אמרינן לא להוציא מיגו.⁹ תוספות responds: אף על גב דמיגו להוציא לא אמרינן שאני התם דאיכא שטרא: Even though מיגו להוציא לא אמרינן nevertheless in that case it is different, for there is a valid שטר. The מלוה has a שטר that the לוה owes him money. The לוה claims that the monies were paid. The מלוה argues that the monies paid, were for a different debt. We believe the מלוה with a מיגו (for he could have claimed I never received any payment at all), concerning the monies that were paid; that indeed they were for another debt. In this argument the מלוה is the מוחזק. He has the money. Concerning the debt of the שטר, the לוה has to pay, for the מלוה has a bona fide שטר. In our case however, there is no שטר at all. The מלוה wants to extract money from the לוה only on the basis of a מיגו. A מיגו להוציא is not effective.

SUMMARY The ם"רשב maintains that א"ראב ruled like (בארעא) רבה [and (בזוזא) יוסף רב]; since he was in doubt whom to follow. The reason in our case we award it to the מחזיק and not to the קמא מרה as in ת"תו; is because by ותרי תרי they cancel each other out, however here it is a דדינא ספיקא. תוספות maintains that א"ראב ruled like רבה, however by זוזא it is a מיגו להוציא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. In the case of בר שטיא, the ספק is whether he was sane or not.¹⁰ The חזקת מרה קמא does not seem to address this issue at all (as in other חזקות דמעיקרא).¹¹ It would seem that the חזקה דמעיקרא transcends the ספק and goes to the heart of the matter; to whom does the field belong. It should therefore follow that even by a ספיקא דדינא, the חזקה should transcend the ספק and deal with the essential ספק; to whom does the field belong.¹²
2. According to תוספות why does ראב"א state that the הלכה is כרב יוסף בזוזא. Seemingly ראב"א agrees (only) with רבה that it is a valid מיגו.¹³ However in a case of a loan it is a מיגו להוציא. He does not however seemingly agree at all with רב יוסף that it is not a מיגו!¹⁴
3. Why did תוספות ask the question from כתובות on the ר"י in this תוספות?¹⁵ He should have asked it on the ריב"ם of the previous תוספות (ד"ה אמאי), who clearly states that מיגו להוציא לא אמרינן?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ ד"ה הלכתא. ² This שטיא בר was lucid at certain times and insane in others. He sold his property, and there was a dispute between two groups of (ותרי תרי) עדים whether he was rational or not when he sold it. If he was insane when he sold the property the sale is voided. ³ See previous אנן ה"ד א,לב תוספות footnote # 8. ⁴ If we assume that by ותרי תרי it is דמי דליתנהו כמאן, then there are no עדים to support the buyer’s claim that the field was sold while the שטיא בר was lucid. It remains a ספק to whom the land belongs. Therefore since the מחזיק cannot prove that the שטיא בר was sane, we rely on the original חזקה that it belonged to the בר שטיא, and maintain that nothing changed in the ownership and that it still belongs to the שטיא בר. ⁵ In our case there is a valid rabbinical ruling that it belongs to the מוחזק, and not to the מערער. The fact that there is an opposing view does not eliminate the former view (as in the case of ותרי תרי). The מערער, therefore, cannot remove it from the מוחזק, unless he can prove that the opposing view is the correct one. Other commentaries note that a חזקת מרה קמא can only determine the facts; since we are not sure what happened we ‘assume’ that it remains as it was originally (therefore it is effective by ת"תו). However when we are not sure what the הלכה is (whether this is a valid מיגו), we cannot maintain that since originally it belonged to the קמא מרה, it still belongs to him. The חזקת מרה קמא cannot determine the law (therefore it is not effective by a דדינא ספיקא). באריכות בספריהם 'עי. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ תוספות may argue that a דמעיקרא חזקה (by ת"תו) is (also only) a דין (not a בירור); otherwise, if it were a בירור how can it be a determining factor between two עדים. If it is a דין, then it can resolve by a דדינא ספיקא as well. ל"ואכמ , ועיין במפרשים באריכות. ⁷ It seems that the ר"י agrees with the ם"ריב of the previous אמאי ה"ד תוספות; that אמרינן לא להוציא מיגו. [However (at least according to א"ראב) it is considered a להחזיק מיגו by ארעא. See previous אמאי ה"ד תוספות footnote # 8.] Therefore א"ראב agrees with רבה that the מיגו of לי הוה מעליא שטרא it is a valid מיגו. However in the case of זוזא it is a להוציא מיגו. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ An agent was sent to repay a debt. After he paid (without witnesses present) he asked that the חוב שטר be returned. The מלוה told him that this payment was for another debt; not the debt of this חוב שטר. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁰ See footnote # 5. ¹¹ Other דמעיקרא חזקות include a מקוה which was סאה 'מ בחזקת and it was found to be a חסרה; or a woman בתולה בחזקת who was found to be a ב"וכיו, בעולה. ¹² See בל"י אות קסז. ¹³ See footnote # 7. ¹⁴ See (עד"ז) נח"מ. ¹⁵ See footnote # 9. ¹⁶ See בל"י אות קע.

נפק עליה קלא דקא אכיל ארעא דיתמי—There was a rumor concerning himthat he was illegally consuming the produce of orphans’ lands

OVERVIEW רבא בר שרשוםwas in possession of a property, which was mortgaged to him, and he was (simultaneously) collecting his (mortgage) debt by consuming its produce. There was a rumor circulating that this property belongs to orphans (who inherited it from their father), and that רב"ש was illegally harvesting the produce (for his mortgage debt was already paid up). תוספות clarifies what the rumor alleged.

פירוש יצא הקול שהוא של יתומים – The explanation is that a rumor was spread that the properties, רבא בר שרשום was consuming, belonged to the orphans. The rumor alleged that it was known that the orphans inherited the property. אבל אין לפרש דיצא הקול דמתחלה היה של אביהם אבל עכשיו לא היו יודעין – However, it cannot mean that the rumor was that originally it belonged to their father (of the orphans); however the rumor did not indicate to whom it belonged to now. This cannot be the meaning of דיתמי ארעא אכיל דקא קלא עליה נפק –

For if it were so, that the rumor was merely that these properties once belonged to the father of the orphans (but not that it presently belongs to the orphans), then שרשום בר רבא could have claimed I purchased it from their father. The גמרא later states that ש"רב does not have the מיגו of בידי היא לקוחה, on account of the rumor.¹ If the rumor was merely that it belonged to their father, why would that preclude him from claiming that he bought it from the father?! This proves that the rumor was that it presently belongs to the orphans. That is why he does not have the מיגו of בידי היא לקוחה.

SUMMARY The rumor was that the property [currently] belongs to the orphans.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why would one (even) think that that the rumor was merely that it once belonged to the father? How did the rumor allege that it presently belongs to the יתומים?

footnotes: ¹ תוספות later (לקוחה ה"ד א,לג דף) explains this to mean that he would not want to claim בידי היא לקוחה since there is a rumor that it belongs to them.