Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ובכולי בעי דלודי — And he wants to admit to all

OVERVIEW רבה asked why is a מודה במקצת required to take an oath. [According to תוספות he should be believed with a מגו of כופר הכל. According to others; why is a כוה״כ not required to take an oath.] רבה answers that אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בע״ח [and therefore there is no מגו (according to תוספות); or the כוה״כ is saying the truth (according to others)]. This would seem to satisfactorily answer sרבה׳ original question. רבה, however, continues with an analysis of the מוב״מ and concludes that he is מישתמט. The question is; why did רבה find it necessary to continue explaining that the מוב״מ is מישתמט? רש״י and תוספות offer different explanations. ----------------–

פירש בקונטרס בבבא מציעא¹ (דף ג,ב ושם) דאתא לפרש אמאי נשבע –

רש״י explained in מסכת ב״מ that רבה is continuing to explain why the מודה במקצת is required to swear**, for seemingly** –

נימא מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא – Let us argue that since this מוב״מ is suspect of dishonesty in monetary issues (that is why the oath is being administered to him), he should also be suspect concerning the oath; he may swear falsely. If the מוב״מ is suspect of being willing to steal he should equally be suspect of willing to swear falsely. What then is the purpose of the oath?! ולהכי קאמר ובכולי בעי דלודי ליה ולא חשיד אממונא – And therefore רבה continued and said that this מוב״מ really wanted to admit to owing everything (he has every intention of ultimately repaying the loan, however presently he is מישתמט); therefore he is not suspect in monetary matters, and an oath may be administered. This concludes sרש״י׳ interpretation of ובכולי וכו׳.

תוספות has a difficulty with sרש״י׳ explanation: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דהא אמר בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף ה,ב) – And the ר״י has a difficulty with sרש״י׳ explanation, for the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת ב״מ –

דלא אמרינן מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא – That we do not presume that since one is suspect in monetary matters he is suspect as well concerning oaths; but rather the assumption is that even one who is חשיד אממונא is not חשיד אשבועתא. How could רש״י interpret that the reason רבה says ׳ובכולי בעי דלודי ליה׳ is to remove the problem of מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא?!

תוספות anticipates (and rejects) a possible solution to his question on רש״י: ואין לומר דמן התורה חשיד נמי אשבועתא ומדרבנן הוא דאמרינן דלא חשיד – And one cannot answer that according to תורה law, a חשידאממונא is also חשיד אשבועתא, and that which the גמרא states that a חשיד אממונא is not חשידאשבועתא that is only מדרבנן. The reason why מדרבנן a חשיד אממונא is לא חשיד אשבועתא is –

לפי שראו שהיו מקילין בממון יותר מבשבועה ותקנו שבועה על החשודים – For the חכמים realized that people are more lenient in allowing themselves to lie in monetary matters more than they would lie by oaths; and therefore they instituted an oath (even) on suspected liars –

כל זמן שלא נודע שהוא גזלן שכשר מן התורה עדיין² – As long as it is not known that he is a robber; and therefore he is still fit for an oath מן התורה –

אבל גזלן ידוע שפסול מן התורה לא תקנו – However for a known גזלן who is unfit מן התורה to take an oath, in those cases the חכמים did not institute that an oath be administered to a גזלן. This would seemingly answer תוספות question on רש״י.

תוספות continues to resolve certain issues if we were to accept this answer: ולפי זה שבועה שלא שלחתי בה יד³ היא מדרבנן – And according to this explanation, the oath that a watchman swears, that ‘I did not use thedeposited object’ is (merely) a שבועה מדרבנן;for according to the תורה law מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. If we suspect the שומר that he was שולח יד in the פקדון, that makes the שומר a חשיד אממונא (he is using something that does not belong to him [so there is no מישתמט]), and מן התורה a חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא, and cannot swear. [ולא הוה דאורייתא אלא שבועה שלא פשעתי בה] – [And the only oath that a watchman must swear מן התורה, is the oath that I was not negligent in watching the פקדון; for even if the שומר was negligent, we cannot consider him a חשיד אממונא (even though that if he was פושע he is חייב for the פקדון), therefore he may swear מן התורה that לא פשעתי בה.]⁴

תוספות continues to anticipate and resolve another issue (with this assumption): והא דכתיב אם לא שלח לא שנשבע שלא שלח אלא הכי קאמר קרא נשבע שלא פשע – And that which is written in the תורה ‘if he did not send his hand in (use) his neighbors deposit’,⁵ it does not mean that he swears that he was not שולח יד (for if we suspect him of שליחות יד he is חשיד אשבועתא); but rather this is what the verse is stating: the שומר swears שלא פשע (for even if he was פשע he is not חשיד אממונא and כשר לשבועה); however the פסוק states that there is a restriction to taking this oath –

אימתי בזמן שלא שלח בו יד דאם שלח בו יד חייב אפילו שלא פשע דנתחייב באונסים – When can the שומר take the oath of שלא פשעתי, only in a situation where the שומר was not שולח יד (only then can he swear that לא פשעתי and be exempt from paying for the missing object); for if he was שולח יד then the שומר is obligated to pay for the missing פקדון even if he was not פשע, for since he was שולח יד he becomes obligated to pay for the פקדון even if it was missing due to unforeseen (and unavoidable) accidents.⁶ There is therefore no purpose in swearing לא פשעתי if he was שולח יד.⁷ This concludes the (attempted) answer on רש״י (with additional resolutions).

תוספות however rejects this solution. We cannot say that מדאורייתא חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא: דהא גבי נסכא דרבי אבא (שבועות דף לב,ב) משמע דאי אמר לא חטפי – For concerning thecase of a piece of silver that רבי אבא **ruled on,**⁸ it seems that if the defendant would have claimed ‘I did not grab the silver from the plaintiff’ –

היה נשבע להכחיש את העד אף על גב דחשיד אממונא – He would be obligated to swear that he did not seize the silver, in order to contradict the testimony of the witness who claims that he did seize the silver from the plaintiff; even though that in that case the defendant is a חשיד אממונא (seizing from someone is an act of גניבה [unless it can be proven that the object seized belongs to the seizer]).⁹ We can derive that an oath is administered מן התורה even by a חשיד אממונא. This contradicts the previous answer.

תוספות anticipates (and rejects) a possible answer. Perhaps the חיוב שבועה there is only מדרבנן and not מדאורייתא, and מדרבנן there is no מגו דחשיד אממונא וכו׳¹⁰ . תוספות rejects this: והתם הויא שבועה דאורייתא – And there by the case of נסכא דרבי אבא it was a תורה שבועה that the seizer would have been required to swear, not a שבועה דרבנן. תוספות proves it: דבשבועה דרבנן לא אמרינן מתוך שאינו יכול לישבע משלם – For by a שבועה מדרבנן we do not say ‘that since he cannot swear he is obligated to pay¹¹ –

כדמשמע בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (שם) גבי ההוא רעיא – As is indicated in the first פרק of מסכת ב״מ; concerning the case of ‘there was a shepherd, etc’¹². Since we see that by נסכא דר״א there is a ruling of מתוך שאיל״מ, that proves that the שבועה by נסכא דר״א is a שבועה דאורייתא, even though that the חוטף is a חשוד אממונא. We may conclude that even by a שבועה דאורייתא we do not say מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. This contradicts תוספות proposed explanation of רש״י which distinguishes between a שבועה דאורייתא and a שבועה דרבנן concerning the issue of חשיד אממונא חשיד אשבועתא. The original question remains how can רש״י state that when רבה said ובכולי בעי דלודי ליה he was addressing the issue of חשיד אממונא, when it is known that מגו דחשיד אממונא לא חשיד אשבועתא, both by a שבועה דאורייתא and a שבועה דרבנן.

תוספות will give his own interpretation why רבה continues with ובכולי בעי וכו׳: ונראה דאתא לפרש דלא תקשי כיון דאין אדם מעיז יהא נאמן במה שכפר מקצת – And it seems that רבה is coming to forewarn that you should not ask, that since we just concluded that אא״מ, therefore the מוב״מ should be believed**** in his partial denial (without an oath) for he must be telling the truth (since אא״מ)¹³ –

וכיון דמחייבינן שבועה אם כן מחשבו עזות פנים – And since nevertheless we do obligate the מוב״מ to swear, this indicates that we consider this מוב״מ as an עזות פנים; for if he was not an עזות פנים then we would have to believe him since אא״מ, and –

אם כן יהא נאמן במגו דאי בעי כפר הכל – If this is true that the מוב״מ is an עזות פנים then he should be believed (without a שבועה) for he has a מגו that he could have been a כוה״כ. The only reason that a מוב״מ is not believed with the מגו of כוה״כ is because אא״מ therefore he has no מגו since he could not be מעיז and be a כוה״כ. However now that we are saying that the מוב״מ is a מעיז פנים (that it why we do not believe him), then he should have the מגו of כוה״כ and be פטור משבועה.¹⁴

תוספות continues with the answer of רבה that ובכולי בעי וכו׳: וקאמר דאין זה עזות מה שכופר קצת – And רבה states that this partial denial on part of the מוב״מ is not considered עזות, therefore he is not believed (neither based on his own claim, and not [even] with a מגו of כוה״כ which requires עזות).

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כיון דלא חשיד אשבועתא למה גזלן פסול לשבועה – And if you will say since that a person who is חשיד אממונא is not חשיד אשבועתא, then why is a robber disqualified to take an oath. What is the difference between a חשיד אממונא and a גזלן? They both are willing to take someone else’s money illegally. Nevertheless we administer a שבועה to a חשיד אממונא because a שבועה is a more serious offence. Even someone who is willing to steal will not swear falsely. The same should apply to a גזלן. Even though he steals, nevertheless he will not swear falsely.

תוספות answers: ותירץ הרב יהודה חסיד דדוקא כשהוא חשוד על אותו ממון שבא לישבע – And ר״י the חסיד answered that only specifically when he is suspect on the money for which he is required to swear; only then –

אמרינן דלא חשיד אשבועתא דעל ידי השבועה יפרוש – Do we say that (even though he is חשיד on this money nevertheless) he is not חשיד אשבועתא, for the obligation of taking an oath will cause that he separate himself from the act of stealing. He will not take the oath and swear falsely, but rather he will admit and return the monies owed –

אבל אותו ממון שכבר גזל לא יפרוש על ידי השבועה – However that money which he already stole; he will not separate himself from that wrongdoing through the oath that he is now obligated to swear on a different issue. When a חשיד אממונא is given an oath for the monies we suspect he may be attempting to steal, the שבועה will prevent him from stealing, for since he is not חשיד אשבועתא he will return the monies owed and will cease to be a חשיד אממונא (and therefore he is not a חשיד אשבועתא). However by a confirmed גזלן, even if he refuses to take the oath he will still remain a גזלן. We cannot administer an oath to a confirmed גזלן.¹⁵ תוספות anticipates a question: וגבי ההוא רעיא דחשיב ליה גזלן משום דאכל תרי מינייהו – And concerning the case of ‘that shepherd’, where the גמרא considers the shepherd to be a גזלן since he ate two of the sheep that were allegedly given to him for safekeeping and therefore פסול לשבועה –

אף על פי שצריך לפרוע הני תרי דאכל – Even though that the shepherd is required to pay for these two sheep that he ate. Seemingly he is not a גזלן; he will pay for the two sheep that he ate (since there are witnesses that he ate them). Concerning the rest of the sheep that the owners claim they gave him for safekeeping, which he denies, the שבועה will cause him to admit. On those sheep he is merely a חשיד אממונא; not a גזלן and even on the two sheep that he ate he is also no גזלן for he is paying for them. Why then do we not administer an oath to this ׳רעיא׳?!

תוספות answers: מכל מקום לא יפרוש מן השאר משום שבועה – Nevertheless he will not be פורש from denying owing the rest of the sheep on account of the oath that we will administer –

דמה שמשלם בעל כרחו אין זה השבה מעליא – For the payment for the two sheep which he is paying against his will is not considered a proper return of a stolen item. The shepherd is still considered a גזלן even after he pays for the two sheep; since he is not paying of his own accord. If a גזלן admits to owing and repays he is no longer a גזלן and is permitted to swear. However the shepherd did not admit; it is the עדים who are forcing him to pay for the two sheep. The shepherd remains a גזלן and is פסול לשבועה.

תוספות offers an additional explanation why a חשיד אממונא is כשר לשבועה and a גזלן is פסול לשבועה: ויש מפרשים דגזלן כשר לשבועה מן התורה דלא חשיד אשבועתא – And others explain that a גזלן is (also) כשר לשבועה מן התורה (just as a חשיד אממונא, so too a גזלן) is not חשיד אשבועתא –

אלא דמדרבנן פסלוהו כשהוא גזלן¹⁶ – But rather the רבנן disqualified himfrom taking an oath when he is a גזלן.

תוספות has a question on this opinion that a גזלן is פסול לשבועה only מדרבנן: ואם תאמר ומאי שנא דלעדות פסול כדכתיב¹⁷ אל תשת ידך עם רשע וגומר – And if you will say; and why is there a difference, by a גזלן, between taking an oath and giving testimony? When it comes to עדות, a גזלן is פסול as it is written in the תורה ‘do not place your hand (associate yourself) with a wicked person, etc. We derive from this פסוק that a גזלן (who is a רשע) is disqualified to testify –

ולשבועה כשר – However concerning a שבועה (according to the יש מפרשים) a גזלן is כשר. Why is there a difference between a שבועה and העדאת עדות?!¹⁸

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דבשבועת שקר יש בה עונש גדול דכתיב¹⁹ בה לא ינקה – And one can say that concerning a false oath there is a severe punishment, for concerning a שבועת שקר it is written in the תורה that ה׳ ‘will not cleanse’ the sin of one who swears falsely –

וכדאמר בשבועת הדיינין (שבועות דף לט,א) שכל העולם נזדעזע – And as the גמרא states in פרק שבועת הדיינין that the entire world trembled –

כשאמר הקדוש ברוך הוא (לא תשבעו ו)לא תשא – When the Holy One blessed be He said (do not swear and) do not mention my name in vain. Therefore even a גזלן whom we do not permit to testify, out of concern that he may testify falsely, nevertheless concerning an oath, we are not concerned (מן התורה) that he will swear falsely since the punishment is a severe one.

תוספות gives another reason why a שבועה is different than הגדת עדות: ועוד דבעדות שקר ליכא אלא לא תענה²⁰ – And furthermore concerning bearing false testimony there is only but **one transgression, namely ‘**thou shalt not bear false witness’, however –

ובשבועת שקר איכא לא תגזול²¹ ולא תשבעו²² לשקר: Concerning a false oath there are two transgressions; namely ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not swear falsely in my name’. Therefore since there are two transgressions by שבועה, people are more concerned not to violate them and will not swear falsely. However by עדות שקר there is only one לאו, therefore the גזלן will not be that concerned and may testify falsely.

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that the ׳ובכולי בעי דלודי ליה׳ is coming to explain why there is no concern of מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא. תוספות rejects this (and proves that) we do not say מגו דחשיד וכו׳ either by a שבועה דאורייתא or a שבועה דרבנן. תוספות maintains that רבה is explaining why the אא״מ does not allow us to believe the מוב״מ without a שבועה. There is a dispute in תוספות whether a גזלן is פסול לשבועה מה״ת or only מדרבנן.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות derives from the case of ההוא רעיא that by a שבועה דרבנן we do not say מתוך שאיל״מ.²³ Seemingly, there even if it were a שבועה דאורייתא we merely say שכנגדו נשבע and not מתוך (as תוספות explains in²⁴ב״מ). What proof can we bring from ההוא רעיא that by a שבועה דרבנן we do not say מתוך שאיל״מ?!
2. From where do we derive that a גזלן is פסול לשבועה מן התורה?²⁵

footnotes: ¹ בד״ה והאי (see תוס׳ there ד״ה בכולי). ² Even though that he is a חשוד, and מן התורה מגו דחשיד אממונא חשיד נמי אשבועתא; nevertheless a חשיד אממונא is not פסול לשבועה מן התורה. It is merely that there is no point in giving him the שבועה. If he is saying the truth there is no need for a שבועה and if he is lying; he will swear falsely anyway. The חכמים however realized that there is a point in requiring him to swear. For in the times of the חכמים a חשיד אממונא was not חשיד אשבועתא as long as he is not a גזלן ידוע. He is merely חשיד of being a גזלן (that is why we administer the oath) but he is not a ודאי גזלן. However by a ודאי גזלן who is פסול לשבועה מה״ת, the חכמים were not inclined to make him swear (even though חשיד אממונא לא חשיד אשבועתא), since he is a ודאי פסול לשבועה מה״ת. See later in this תוספות the difference between a חשוד and a גזלן. ³ רב ששת states (ב״מ ו,א) that a שומר who claims that a mishap happened to the פקדון and wants to exempt himself from payment is required to make three oaths; 1) that I was not negligent, 2) that I did no use the פקדון, and 3) that it is not in my possession. ⁴ It is not clear from תוספות whether the שבועה שאינה ברשותי is מה״ת or not. See משכנות הרועים אות קלה. ⁵ The פסוק in שמות (משפטים) כב,ז reads ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלקים אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו. This refers to the oath (ונקרב בעה״ב אל האלקים) that the שומר must take. The simple reading of the פסוק indicates that the oath is אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו. However according to the present understanding there can be no תורה oath if we suspect the שומר of שליחות יד; for then he is a חשיד אממונא. ⁶ When the שומר is שולח יד (without permission), he is קונה the פקדון to be responsible for all אונסים. ⁷ The פסוק would be understood as follows ונקרב בעה״ב אל האלקים to administer the oath of לא פשעתי to the שומר; when is this oath administered (and subsequently exempting the שומר from paying), only if לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו. The words אם לא שלח וגו׳ is not part of the oath; but rather refer to the circumstances that allow the oath to be administered. ⁸ The case there is of a plaintiff who claims (and has a single supporting witness) that the defendant seized from him a piece of silver. The defendant admitted to seizing the silver; however he claims that the silver belongs to him and not to the plaintiff. There are no other witnesses (as to who is the original owner of the נסכא). רב אבא ruled that the defendant is obligated to swear (if he would have claimed לא חטפי); however since he cannot swear (for he is not contradicting the ע״א) he is a מחוייב שבועה ואינו יכול לישבע משלם and therefore he is obligated to return the נסכא. ⁹ There is no אשתמוטי when he claims לא חטפי and is lying; as opposed to other שבועות of an ע״א, even by a כוה״כ, where there is the סברא of אשתמוטי (see מהר״ם שי״ף). ¹⁰ The שבועה in the case of נסכא דרבי אבא is a שבועת ע״א, which is a שבועה דאורייתא. However, if we maintain that מדאורייתא a חשיד אממונא is חשיד אשבועתא, then מה״ת we would not allow the חוטף to swear (for he is חשיד אממונא. The חיוב שבועה against the ע״א is (in this case) a שבועה דרבנן. This is what תוספות is referring to when he discusses whether the שבועה of נסכא דר״א is a שבועה דאורייתא or a שבועה דרבנן. ¹¹ רבי אבא ruled that the חוטף is a מחוייב שבועה to deny the testimony of the ע״א. However since he is אינו יכול לישבע therefore he is obligated to pay. ¹² The shepherd counterclaimed that on this particular day he was not given any sheep to watch. עדים testified that they saw him eat two (of the owners’) sheep on that day. The גמרא there says that if the ruling of רבי חייא is correct (according to ר״ח the testimony of the עדים make it similar to a מודה במקצת), the shepherd would be obligated in a שבועה דאורייתא. However since he is a גזלן (on account of the two sheep) he cannot swear the שבועת מוב״מ; rather the claimants would swear how many sheep they gave him on that day and he would be obligated to pay. The גמרא asks that even without the ruling ר״ח (which makes him מחוייב a שבועה דאורייתא), the shepherd is still obligated in a שבועת היסת (which is a שבועה דרבנן whenever there is a claim) and therefore the claimants should also be allowed to swear and collect. The גמרא answers that since שבועת היסת is a תקנת חכמים we do not make an additional תקנה (that שכנגדו נשבע ונוטל) on a תקנת חכמים. The גמרא however did not suggest that the דין should be מתוך שאיל״מ. This proves that by a שבועה דרבנן (שבועת היסת) there is no law of מתוך וכו׳. (See תוספות there ד״ה שכנגדו why we do not say מתוך by the שבועה דאורייתא.) See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹³ However this is not that strong of a question, since it is possible that it is a גזירת הכתוב that a מוב״מ is חייב a שבועה, despite the fact that אא״מ. Therefore תוספות continues that he has a מגו, etc. See following footnote # 14. ¹⁴ And if we do not accept the מגו of כוה״כ let us derive from here that we do not accept the concept of מגו. See previous footnote # 13; see מהר״ם שי״ף. [Alternately; it would seem that תוספות is asking that ממה נפשך the מוב״מ should be פטור משבועה. If he is not an עזות פנים, then he should be believed with his טענה. If we do consider him an עזות פנים then he should be פטור משבועה on account of the מגו of כוה״כ. (See סוכ״ד ב״מ ג,ב אות מה.)] ¹⁵ Some commentaries explain this as follows. A regular person is not willing to transgress for both stealing and to swear falsely; therefore when he is confronted with a שבועה he will refrain from swearing falsely since, if he swears falsely he will be transgressing ממון and שבועה. However a גזלן, who already stole, is certainly not willing to return that which he already stole. When he is confronted with a שבועה for this current case he will not desist from swearing falsely; he is not concerned about transgressing two עבידות, because in his mind he already transgressed on ממון by his first גזילה (which he will not return). The גזלן does not see himself doing a halfway תשובה; returning the new money but not the old money. Therefore he remains חשיד אשבועתא (see סוכ״ד ב״מ ה,ב אות נט). ¹⁶ See תוספות גיטין נא,ב ד״ה ובכולי who states that by a גזלן ודאי it is a גנאי to administer him an oath. ¹⁷ שמות (משפטים) כג,א. See סנהדרין כה,ב. ¹⁸ תוספות is seemingly asking that we should derive the פסול גזלן לשבועה from the פסול גזלן לעדות. ¹⁹ שמות (יתרו) כ,ז ²⁰ שמות (יתרו) כ,יג ²¹ ויקרא (קדושים) יט, יג ²² The יעב״ץ in the margin corrects this to read ולא תשבעו בשמי לשקר (ויקרא [קדושים] יט,יב). ²³ See footnote # 12. ²⁴ In fact תוספות there (ה,ב ד״ה ותקנתא) states clearly that the option of מתוך does not exist; (seemingly) for the same reasons that they do not exist if it were a שבועה דאורייתא! See ח״ב אות ריח. See also סוכ״ד ב״מ ה,ב אות לט. ²⁵ See footnote # 18. See משכנות הרועים אות קמח.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

הרי אלו נאמנים — They are believed

OVERVIEW The משנה states if עדים testify that they signed on a שטר, however they were unqualified to be witnesses, if there is no other way to authenticate the שטר, the עדים are believed.¹ The שטר is not valid.² Generally, when a שטר is presented, the only claim that can be made against it is that it is a forgery. If that claim is made, the bearer of the שטר is required to authenticate the signatures. However any other claim, including that the עדים were unqualified, is rejected (especially if the שטר was authenticated). It is assumable that the maker of the שטר used only qualified witnesses.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולמה נאמנים והא מגו במקום עדים הוא³ – And if you will say; why are they believedto disqualify themselves; the מגו should not be effective since it is a מגו which contradicts witnesses. Their claim that they were פסולים contradicts עדים. תוספות will explain why it is a מגו במקום עדים. Seemingly no one is claiming that the signatories are qualified. תוספות explains that there is contradictory testimony to the disqualifiers –

דאנן סהדי שלא היו אנוסים ולא פסולי עדות – For we testify**; בי״ד are the witnesses who claim** that the עדים in the שטר were not forcedto sign and are not unqualified witnesses. Whenever there are (authenticated) עדים on a שטר it is assumed that they are עדים כשרים. This assumption has the strength of עדים. These עדים signed on this שטר, as they themselves testified. Their signatures are authenticated. It is therefore assumable, with the strength of אנן סהדי, that they are עדים כשרים. Therefore their claim that they were פסולים contradicts this עדות.

תוספות will prove that once עדים are authenticated on a שטר, it is considered as if there are witnesses that they are עדים כשרים. דהא לקמן⁴ אמרינן דתרי ותרי נינהו – For later the גמרא statesthat the witnesses who signed on the שטר and the witnesses who disqualify them are considered as if there are twowitnesses against two witnesses. The question is that since in our משנה, there is an assumable testimony (through the אנן סהדי) that the עדים החתומים are עדים כשרים, therefore even though the עדים החתומים claim that we were פסולים, nevertheless they cannot be believed.⁵ The fact that the עדים החתומים have a מגו is meaningless, since it is a מגו במקום עדים.⁶

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דכיון דהצריכו חכמים קיום הכא לא חשיב קיום כלל⁷ – And one can say; that since the חכמים require authenticationby a שטר; otherwise it is not a שטר כשר, therefore here in the case of the משנה, it is not considered קיום at all –

מה שאומרים כתב ידינו הוא זה – that which the עדים החתומים state that this is our handwriting. The שטר is not מקוים by this statement of כתב ידינו הוא זה. The reason for this is –

כיון דאינהו גופייהו אמרי תוך כדי דבור⁸ קטנים או אנוסים היינו – Since these witnesses themselves**; the very ones who stated כתב ידינו הוא זה** say within the כדי דיבור limit, ‘we were minors or we were forced when we signed’. This statement automatically nullifies any קיום that may have been forthcoming through their opening statement of כתב ידינו הוא זה. There is an אנן סהדי that the שטר was signed by qualified witnesses, only if we know that there is a qualified שטר. There can be a qualified שטר only if it is a שטר מקוים. In our case there is no שטר מקוים, hence there is no אנן סהדי. Therefore it is not a מגו במקום עדים.⁹ אבל לקמן חשבינן להו כשני עדים כיון דכבר מקוים הוא – However later in the גמרא which was previously cited wedo consider the signatories as two עדים who contradict the testimony of the עדים הפוסלים. The reason for this is since it is already a שטר מקוים –

שכתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר – For their handwriting is already established elsewhere. Their signatures were already verified. This made it a שטר כשר. By a שטר כשר there is an אנן סהדי, that the עדים are qualified. Therefore the עדי השטר and the עדים הפוסלים are considered תרי ותרי.

SUMMARY When עדים testify that כת״י הוא זה אבל פסולים היינו, they are not merely contesting the validity of the עדים (which would make it a מגו במקום עדים), but rather they are testifying that there is no קיום, and therefore no שטר. The אנן סהדי that the signed עדים are כשרים is only by a valid authenticated שטר.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות proves in the הו״א that there is an אנן סהדי in the משנה, from the גמרא later which states it is a תרי ותרי.¹⁰ Seemingly, when the גמרא later asks that it is תרי ותרי, the thrust of the question is that the עדים הפוסלים are תרי, not that the עדי השטר are תרי. (The עדי השטר there are תרי because כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר.) How does this prove that by us there is an אנן סהדי?¹¹
2. What is the essential difference between the קשיא and the תירוץ of תוספות?¹²

footnotes: ¹ There is a dispute whether they are believed to the extent that the שטר is destroyed, or that the שטר remains unauthenticated. See footnotes # 57. See סוכ״ד אות נז. ² The גמרא (later on this עמוד) states that the reason they are believed to claim קטנים היינו וכו׳, is because this is a case of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. The validity of this שטר is based solely on their testimony that they signed it; however they maintain simultaneously that they were ineligible to be witnesses. תוספות refers to this as a מגו; they did not have to testify at all (or they could have testified that it is not their signatures; see [however] following תוס׳ ד״ה אין [footnote # 7]) and the שטר would not be valid ³ The term מגו במקום עדים means that the claim (which has a מגו) contradicts עדים. A מגו במקום עדים is not an effective מגו. The מגו is not sufficient to dislodge the עדים who contradict the claim. ⁴ דף יט,ב. The גמרא there cites a ברייתא that if the two signatories died, and their signatures were authenticated, then if two other witnesses come to disqualify the signatories, the disqualifiers are not believed. This implies that the שטר is valid. The גמרא asks how can the שטר be valid, it is תרי ותרי; the disqualifiers versus those that oppose them. (The גמרא there resolves the difficulty; that the שטר is merely suspended.) We derive from that גמרא that it is assumed that the authenticated signatories are considered as two עדים, who claim that they were עדים כשרים and contradict the disqualifiers. ⁵ There is a dispute among the commentaries whether תוספות means to ask that they should not be believed at all, and the שטר is valid; or that they should not be believed and the status of the שטר will remain unresolved, until we can find other עדי קיום (as in a case of תרי ותרי). See footnotes # 17. ⁶ The רישא of the above cited ברייתא, states that if the שטר was not מקוים, the disqualifiers are believed (even if they testify that the signatures are authentic). תוספות seemingly has no difficulty with that רישא, only with our משנה. See רע״א who explains that in our משנה since it is the עדי השטר who are testifying that קטנים היינו, this latter testimony of פסלות is not considered a הגדת עדות for it is a חוזר ומגיד, since they already signed the שטר (and said כתב ידינו הוא זה), which indicates they are עדים כשרים. They can only be believed on account of the מגו. Therefore תוספות asks that it is a מגו במקום עדים. In the ברייתא however the עדים הפוסלים are different from the עדים החתומים, therefore their testimony of פסלות is a proper הגדת עדות. In addition they also have a מגו, therefore it can be argued ([at least] in the הו״א) that עדות together with a מגו may be effective even במקום עדים. See also משכנות הרועים אות קצג. ⁷ תוספות surely realized that the ברייתא (where it is called תרי ותרי) is discussing a case of כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר, and our משנה (where they are נאמנים) is discussing a case of אין כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר (See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1). Nevertheless תוספות maintained in the הו״א, since they testified that כת״י הוא זה (and did not retract it), it should be considered sufficient קיום to set the אנן סהדי in place. תוספות concludes that since they immediately negated the קיום by saying קטנים היינו, there is no קיום at all, and therefore no אנן סהדי. Alternately, according to the view (see footnotes # 15) that תוספות question was why they are believed to destroy the שטר; since it is a מגו במקום עדים, the שטר should remain suspended as in תרי ותרי. Therefore תוספות never intended that כת״י הוא זה is a full קיום. Rather תוספות in the הו״א maintained that the כת״י and the פסולים היינו should cancel out each other. תוספות responds that כת״י has no effect at all, and we must accept the פסולים היינו. ⁸ The term תוך כדי דיבור means that it was said within the time that it takes to say the three words of ׳שלום עליך רבי׳. Anything said תוך כדי דיבור is considered as being said simultaneously with whatever preceded it. In our case it would be as if they initially said we were disqualified עדים. There would certainly be no קיום in such a situation. ⁹ The פה שאסר accomplishes that they have the power to nullify the קיום. There is no אנן סהדי on the קיום. When they said פסולים היינו, this renders the כת״י meaningless. They are saying we wrote our names on a piece of paper, not on a שטר. Without the פשא״ס, however, we would not believe them that פסולים היינו, since they already said כת״י הוא (and are not retracting it). ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. ¹¹ See מהרש״א. ¹² See משכנות הרועים אות קצד ואילך.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אין נאמנים — They are not believed

OVERVIEW If a שטר is מקוים and the עדי השטר testify that they were פסולי עדות when they signed the שטר, they are not believed.¹ --------------------–

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: הכא² ליכא לאקשויי דלהימנו במגו דאי בעי אמרי פרוע הוא³ – We cannot ask here that we should believe their claim that they were פסול; since they have a מיגו, for if they wanted they could have said it is paid up. If these עדים would have testified that this is indeed our signatures however, the loan was already paid by the לוה; they would be believed and the לוה would not have to pay. Therefore we should believe them as well that פסולי עדות היו, and the לוה should be exempt from paying.

תוספות answers that the מגו is not effective: דכיון דמקויים הוא הוי מגו במקום עדים כדפירשנו⁴ – for since the שטר is authenticated;as it states in the משנה that כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר, therefore it is a מגו that contradicts עדים, as we explained in the previous תוספות. When a שטר is מקויים, it creates an אנן סהדי that it was signed by כשרים. The claim of these עדים is that they were פסולים. Their claim contradicts the אנן סהדי. A מגו is not effective when the claim contradicts עדים.

תוספות offers another explanation why they are not believed: ועוד⁵ דחוזרים ומגידים הם וכיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד כדאמרינן בגמרא – And furthermore, this claim that they were פסולים (which is offered after the שטר is מקוים), is considered that they are**** retracting and testifying anew.This they cannot do, for there is a rule that once he testified, he cannot retract his previous testimony, and testify differently, as it is stated in the גמרא (immediately following the משנה). The שטר is already מקוים. The שטר states in the name of the עדים that the לוה owes money. These עדים are now claiming that they were פסולי עדות and the שטר is פסול. This in effect means the לוה owes no money. This is a contradiction to their previous testimony. Therefore the claim of פסולים היינו, which disqualifies the שטר, contradicts their original testimony that the לוה owes the money.

תוספות offers a final explanation why they are not believed with a מגו: ועוד⁶ דבשני עדים לא אמרינן מגו⁷ – And furthermore there is a rule that by two witnesses the rule of מגו does not apply. A מגו is effective only when there is one person making a claim and he has a מגו. However by two people who are making a claim even though they have a מגו, they are not believed.

תוספות responds to an anticipated a question: וברישא נאמנים משום דאי בעי שתקי:⁸ However, in the רישא of the משנה the עדים are believed on account of a מגו, to claim פסולי עדות היינו. In the רישא we do not say מגו בי תרי לא אמרינן! Because if they chose they could have been silent and not testify at all. The מגו of the רישא is that the עדים did not have to testify that כת״י הוא זה, then there would be no שטר. This type of a מגו that אי בעי שתקי is effective even by two עדים.⁹

SUMMARY The עדי השטר are not believed to claim פסולים היינו (if the שטר was מקוים) with a מגו of פרוע because: a) it is a מגו במקום עדים, b) they are חוזר ומגיד, and c) מגו בי תרי לא אמרינן except for a מגו דאי בעי שתקי.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the claim of the לוה; is it פרוע or מזוייף or something else?¹⁰
2. תוספות answers that it is a חוזר ומגיד.¹¹ Seemingly תוספות question was that they should be believed because of a מיגו; not because of הגדת עדות. By מיגו there is no problem with חוזר ומגיד, as evidenced in the רישא.¹²

footnotes: ¹ There is a dispute whether they are not believed at all and it is a שטר כשר, or they are not believed to nullify the שטר; the status of the שטר remains suspended (see previous תוספות ד״ה הרי footnote # 1). ² תוספות uses the word הכא to indicate that the ensuing answers are applicable only ׳הכא׳, according to the מסקנא that כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד; however according to the הו״א of רב״ח, these answers are not applicable. See [TIE] ‘Thinking it over’ # 2 in תוספות ד״ה מחמת on this עמוד. ³ They are believed to claim פרוע, since that is not contradicting anything that was implied in the שטר ⁴ ד״ה הרי. A מגו במקום עדים means that the claim (not the מגו) contradicts עדים. ⁵ The necessity for an additional explanation may possibly be understood if the following is assumed: אין נאמנים means that they are not believed at all, and the מלוה can collect with this שטר. תוספות question, that they should be believed with the מגו of פרוע, is that the שטר should be destroyed, for if they would claim פרוע the שטר would be void. תוספות first answer that it is a מגו במקום עדים is sufficient to explain why the שטר cannot be destroyed since there is no מגו. However, we still may not collect with this שטר, since it is תרי ותרי; the שטר מקוים versus their testimony that they were פסולי עדות. The second answer is that כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד removes the תרי ותרי; their second testimony is discarded. There is only the שטר מקוים, and the מלוה can collect with this שטר. The answer of חוזר ומגיד alone is also insufficient, for even though they cannot be believed as עדים, nevertheless they should be believed on account of the מגו; to have the שטר suspended. Therefore each answer complements the other. וצע״ג. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ Perhaps this answer applies even if we were to assume that this is not considered a מגו במקום עדים. The fact that a שטר is מקוים does not necessarily create an actual אנן סהדי that they are עדים כשרים, especially if the עדי השטר themselves claim that they were פסולי עדות, and in addition they also have a מגו. ⁷ The popular explanation is that the idea of a מגו is that if he was lying he could have said a more effective lie. This proves he is telling the truth. If however there are two claimants, we suspect that perhaps they are lying and the reason they are not claiming the more effective lie is that each one thinks that the other may have not thought of the more effective lie. See תוספות יט,ב ד״ה ואם. ⁸ It would seem from this answer that when the משנה states in the רישא, that הרי אלו נאמנים, it means they are believed (only) to suspend the שטר, but not to destroy it. Their מגו is that אי בעי שתקי, in which case the שטר would not be destroyed, but merely suspended. ⁹ One explanation is that there is no concern what the other עד will say (see previous footnote # 7); as long as one עד will not testify, the שטר will not be מקוים. Another explanation is that a מגו דאי בעי שתקי is so evident that no one doubts whether the other עד is aware of this option. ¹⁰ See תוספות יט,א ד״ה טעמא [footnote # 8]. ¹¹ See footnote # 5. ¹² קושיית הגרע״א. See משכנות הרועים אות רג ורד.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לא שנו אלא שאמרו אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון — It was not taught, etc. only when they said, ‘we were forced by monetary means’.

OVERVIEW The סיפא of our משנה states that if כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר and the עדי השטר testify that they were אנוסים or קטנים or פסולי עדות they are not believed. Initially it was understood that רב״ח qualified the סיפא of the משנה. They are not believed to claim אנוסים מחמת ממון (for they are forbidden to sign under monetary coercion). However they are believed to claim אנוסים מחמת נפשות (since they are permitted to sign in order to save their lives). ------------------------–

דלא מהימני משום דלא משוי נפשייהו רשעים¹ – They are not believed to claim we were coerced to sign the שטר on account of monetary coercion because they cannot make themselves wicked people. It is forbidden to cause someone a loss (even) if threatened that non compliance will cause you a loss of money. If they claim that it was a monetary coercion, then they are admitting to transgressing a prohibition and making themselves רשעים. A person is not believed to testify about himself neither for his benefit or his detriment.

תוספות continues to explain why they are not believed in the other two cases:² וקטנים כדרבי שמעון בן לקיש³ – And they are not believed if they claim we were קטנים as רשב״ל stated that there is a חזקה that only גדולים sign on a שטר –

ופסולי עדות משום דמלוה גופיה מידק דייק כדאמרינן בסמוך:⁴ And they are not believed to claim that we were פסולי עדות because the מלוה himself is very exacting to choose only עדים כשרים as the גמרא will shortly state.

SUMMARY According to the הו״א if כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר the עדים are not believed to claim אנוסים מחמת ממון because דלא משוי נפשייהו רשעים, קטנים on account of רשב״ל, or פסולי עדות since מלוה גופיה מידק דייק.

THINKING IT OVER If the עדים claim אנוסים מחמת נפשות they are believed;⁵ even though they are (seemingly) contradicting the עדות שבשטר. Why then should they not be believed to claim קטנים or פסולי עדות when they are merely contradicting a חזקה?!

footnotes: ¹ See רש״י ד״ה אלא. ² תוספות is seemingly bothered if we maintain that by אנוסים מחמת נפשות they are believed (for they are not משוי נפשייהו רשעים), then why should they not be believed by קטנים ופסולי עדות; in these cases they are also not משוי נפשייהו רשעים. See footnote # 4. ³ דף יט, ריש ע״א. ⁴ דף יח,ב בסופו. See footnote # 2. תוספות answer is that by אנוסים מחמת נפשות there is no חזקה that contradicts them; however by קטנים ואנוסים there is a חזקה that contradicts them. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 4.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מחמת נפשות הרי אלו נאמנים — On account of death threats, then they are believed

OVERVIEW The initial version of רב״ח states that (even) if כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר the עדי השטר are believed to claim אנוסים היינו מחמת נפשות (since it contradicts no חזקות).¹ Our תוספות explains why they are not believed to claim אנוסים מחמת ממון with a מגו of אנוסים מחמת נפשות. -----------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וכי אמרו קטנים היינו או אנוסים מחמת ממון היינו² – And if you will say; and when they said we were קטנים or (even) when they said that we were coerced by monetary threats; in either of these two cases – ****ליהמנו במגו דאמרי אנוסים היינו מחמת נפשות – ****They should be believed with a מגו,for they could have said that we were אנוסים מחמת נפשות. If they would have claimed אנוסים מחמת נפשות they would be believed (according to this הו״א), then they should also be believed (even) if they claim קטנים היינו or אנוסים מחמת ממון היינו.

תוספות will now prove that (even) the claim of אנוסים מחמת ממון is believed when there is a מגו (even though they are משוי נפשייהו רשעים). דהא ברישא דאיכא מגו³ נאמנים לומר אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון⁴ – For in the רישא of the משנה where there is a מגו; they could have said it is not our כת״י they are believed to claim that אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון. That proves that a מגו is effective. תוספות question is that the מגו of אנוסים מחמת נפשות should (also) be effective in the סיפא.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאנוסים מחמת נפשות לא שכיח⁵ – And one can say;the reason it is not an effective מגו is because אנוסים מחמת נפשות is not common**;** people do not usually threaten to kill (עדים) for money. The עדים would not feel comfortable claiming it; therefore it is not an effective מגו.

תוספות offers another answer why the מגו is ineffective: ועוד דבשני עדים לא אמרינן מגו כדפרישית:⁶ And furthermore, we do not utilize a מגו concerning two עדים as I explained previously; the only מגו that is valid בשני עדים is a מגו דאי בעו שתקו.⁷ Every other מגו is ineffective by two עדים.

SUMMARY The claims of קטנים היינו or אנוסים מחמת ממון are not accepted (if כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר), even with the מגו of אנוסים מחמת נפשות; either because the מגו is לא שכיח, or because there is no מגו בי תרי (except for a מגו דאי בעי שתקי).

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why does not תוספות answer his question that (since it is כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר, therefore) it is a מגו במקום עדים (as תוספות answered previously בד״ה אין)?!⁸
2. Why did not תוספות answer his question that (since it is כתב ידם יוצא ממקום אחר, therefore) it is a case of חוזר ומגיד (as תוספות answered previously בד״ה אין)?!⁹
3. Why did not תוספות ask that they should be believed with the מגו of פרוע (as תוספות previously asked בד״ה אין)?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See previous תסופות ד״ה לא. ² Seemingly תוספות question applies to פסולי עדות היינו as well. ³ See מהרש״א (הארוך). ⁴ This applies to the claim of קטנים היינו as well. In the רישא they are believed since they have a מגו; they should be believed in the סיפא as well, for they have the מגו of אנוסים מחמת נפשות. ⁵ For a מגו to be effective, it is necessary to assume that the claimant could have just as easily used the מגו claim. If however it is easier to use the actual claim than the מגו claim, it is not an effective מגו. ⁶ תוספות ד״ה אין. ⁷ According to this answer, the מגו in the רישא is not that they could have claimed it is not our כת״י, but rather they did not have to appear at all to confirm their signatures. ⁸ See מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁹ See [TIE] תוס׳ ד״ה אין (on this עמוד) footnote # 2. ¹⁰ See שטמ״ק.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע — And a person cannot commit himself as being wicked.

OVERVIEW רבי בר חמא taught that (even in a case where אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א) if the עדים claim that כת״י הוא זה אבל אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון they are not believed to be פוסל the שטר. The reason that we do not accept their testimony that they were אנוסים מחמת ממון is because it is forbidden to sign on a שטר on account of an אונס ממון. A person is not believed to testify anything that will make him a רשע. The fact that a person is considered a relative to himself prevents us from accepting any testimony affecting his status (except for an admission of owing money). We cannot therefore accept the testimony that they were אנוסים מחמת ממון. If however they claim אנוסים היינו מחמת נפשות, where they are not testifying in regards to their status (there is no עבירה if one signed מחמת אונס נפשות), they are believed to be פוסל the שטר (for there is a הפה שאסר). The statement of אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון is (seemingly) composed of two parts; first, that they were forced to sign the שטר (meaning that they did not see any loan taking place, and therefore their signatures are meaningless [this alone can be an acceptable testimony (if it was מחמת נפשות)]), and second, that the coercion was monetary in nature [this is not an acceptable testimony for א״א מע״ר]. There are other cases where an עד testifies in a manner that is seemingly (partially) unacceptable (similar to our case), however we divide this (unacceptable) testimony into two, and accept only the valid part, and reinterpret the invalid part to allow the testimony. The resultant testimony is then accepted. This is known as פלגינן דיבורא. We divide the testimony. Seemingly in our situation the idea of פלגינן דיבורא can (also) be applied. However it is not. תוספות will differentiate our case from those cases where we do say פלגינן דיבורא. -----------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא קסבר רבא פלגינן דיבורא בפרק קמא דסנהדרין (דף ט,ב ושם) – And if you will say; but רבא maintains in the first פרק of סנהדרין that we divide his statement. This was said by רבא –

גבי פלוני רבעני לרצוני – Regarding the cases where one testified ‘that person sodomized me with my consent’;the law is that he can team up with another עד and have this perpetrator put to death for משכב זכר.¹ We split his statement. We accept his testimony that sodomy was performed by the alleged perpetrator but not with the accuser.² We cannot accept his testimony that he preformed sodomy willingly, for אין אדם משים עצמו רשע. A similar ruling applies when he testifies –

ופלוני בא על אשתי – Or ‘that person came upon my wife’. The ruling is that together with another supporting עד, the accused will be killed for איסור אשת איש; however the wife of the accuser will not be killed even if he testified that she consented. The reason is that he is a relative to his wife and a relative cannot testify. There too, we split his testimony. We accept his עדות concerning the adulterer, that the man committed adultery, but not concerning his wife. This is called פלגינן דיבורא. We accept that part of the testimony which is acceptable. תוספות continues with the question: אם כן הכא נהימנו דאנוסים היו אבל לא מחמת ממון אלא מחמת נפשות – If this is so that רבא maintains פלגינן דיבורא, then here too let us believe them that they were coerced to sign the שטר (which is an acceptable testimony), however it was not for monetary reasons as they testified (which is an unacceptable testimony since they are משים עצמם רשעים) but rather on account of saving their lives (which is an acceptable testimony).

We cannot argue that our גמרא does not subscribe to פלגינן דיבורא³ –

דאליבא דרבא קיימא⁴ – For we are following the view of רבא! He is the one who maintains פלגינן דיבורא. תוספות is asking why by פלוני רבעני לרצוני which is an unacceptable testimony, for he is משים עצמו רשע by saying רבעני לרצוני, nevertheless we accept פלוני רבע, (and we reinterpret רבעני לרצוני to mean רבע לפלוני). The same should be here where they testify אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון (which is an unacceptable testimony, for they are משים עצמם רשעים by saying מחמת ממון). Let us also accept only the אנוסים היינו, and reinterpret מחמת ממון to mean מחמת נפשות as we did by פלוני רבעני לרצוני. The שטר would then be פסול.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר כיון דקיום שטרות מדרבנן לא פלגינן דיבורא כדי לפסול את השטר⁵ – And one can say since the necessity to authenticate documents is a rabbinic enactment**; מן התורה we assume that עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבי״ד and no קיום is required. Therefore, since this שטר is מקוים מן התורה** we do not divide their statement in order to invalidate the שטר.⁶ The testimony of these עדים, as given, is unacceptable since א״א מע״ר. The שטר is מקויים מן התורה. The חכמים will not use the extraordinary measure of פלגינן דיבורא to invalidate this קיום.

תוספות offers another answer: ועוד דאין לנו לומר מעצמינו דאנוסים היו מחמת נפשות – And furthermoreour case of אנוסים היינו is different than פלוני רבעני for we cannot claim on our own that they were forced under a death threat –

דאונס מחמת נפשות לא שכיח כדפרישית⁷ – For it is uncommon to coerce witnesses to sign a loan document with a death threat, as I previously explained –

אבל התם שכיח שבא על אשת איש אחרת כמו שבא על אשתו או שרבעו⁸ אדם אחר – However, there by פלוני רבעני לרצוני or פלוני בא על אשתי it is just as common that the alleged perpetrator came upon another man’s wife just as he came upon his wife, or that he sodomized another person not the accuser. תוספות answer is that we can say פלגינן דיבורא only when the reinterpreted version is as likely a the original (as in מס׳ סנהדרין). If however the reinterpreted version is highly unlikely (as in our גמרא) we do not say פלגינן דיבורא. וכן בהרגתיו בסוף פרק ב׳ דיבמות⁹ (דף כה,ב ושם) יכול להיות דאדם אחר הרגו – And similarly by the case of ‘I killed him’ in the end of the second פרק of מסכת יבמות**; for** it is just as possible that another person (not the עד) killed him. It is just as שכיח, therefore we say פלגינן דיבורא.

תוספות offers yet another solution: אי נמי שאני הכא דמחמת ממון או מחמת נפשות הוי פירושא דאנוסים היינו – If you wish you may also saythat here by אנוסים היינו it is different than there by פלוני רבעני וכו׳, for **their statement of ‘**on account of money’ or on account of a death threat’; these phrases are the explanation of ‘we were forced’. It is not a separate statement; it is a necessary qualifier to explain how they were coerced –

הלכך לא פלגינן דיבורא – Therefore we cannot divide their statement; for there is only one statement –

אבל לרצונו¹⁰ או בא על אשתו הוי דיבור בפני עצמו¹¹ – However, the addendum of ‘willfully’ (which makes him a רשע) by פלוני רבעני, or ‘came upon his wife’ by פלוני בא על אשתו, these phrases are considered a separate statement not intrinsically tied with the initial statements. Therefore (only) in those situations (do) we say פלגינן דיבורא.

תוספות offers a final distinction between the cases: אי נמי¹² הכא עיקר עדות הוא במה שאומרים אנוסים היינו – If you wish you may also saythat here the main testimony consists in their saying that אנוסים היינו –

היינו שבאו לומר שלא ראו המלוה – Which means, that they came to testify that they did not see the loan take place –

אם כן מיד עושים עצמם רשעים כיון שחתמו אם לא יעשו פירוש לדבריהם – If this is so that they are testifying that we signed a document illegally they immediately commit themselves as being רשעים, since they signed on a document without knowing whether it is true, unless they interpret their actions (that they signed it because they were אנוסים מחמת נפשות) –

הלכך לא שייך הכא פלגינן דיבורא – Therefore**** the concept of פלגינן דיבורא dos not apply here, since in the main thrust of their testimony they become רשעים –

אבל ההיא דהרגתיו¹³ עיקר עדות הוא לומר שנהרג להשיא את אשתו – However, by that case of ׳הרגתיו׳ the main thrust of the testimony is to testify that the husband was killed (not who killed him), in order to enable his wife to remarry –

וכן פלוני רבעו או בא על אשתו עיקר עדות להרוג פלוני – And similarly in the cases of פלוני רבעו or בא על אשתו the main thrust of the testimony is to kill him; in the main thrust there is no משים עצמו רשע –

הלכך פלגינן דיבורא¹⁴ ולגבי להשים עצמו רשע או לגבי אשתו לא יהא נאמן: Therefore we divide his testimony; concerning making himself a רשע (through saying רבעני לרצוני or הרגתיו) or concerning his wife (that she was an adulteress) he will not be believed and we are פלגינן דיבורא.

SUMMARY תוספות offers four criteria for accepting or rejecting פלגינן דיבורא. a) If it does not go against a דאורייתא, but not if it is against a דאורייתא. b) If the פלגינן is שכיח, not if it is not שכיח. c) If the unacceptable statement is not integral, but not if it is integral d) If the thrust is acceptable, but not if it is unacceptable.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks that here too there should be a פלגינן דיבורא.¹⁵ Seemingly, there is a פלגינן דיבורא by אנוסים היינו. We believe them that כת״י הוא זה, but we do not believe them that אנוסים היינו!¹⁶
2. What is the difference between תוספות answer of א״נ שאני הכא דמחמת ממון וכו׳ הוי פירושא וכו׳’, and תוספות final answer¹⁷ א״נ הכא עיקר עדות וכו׳?¹⁸

footnotes: ¹ If the accuser testifies that he was coerced into sodomy then all agree that he is believed. There is no need for פלגינן דיבורא. [A victim can be an עד.] ² See תוספות there ד״ה ואין. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ רבא challenged the initial understanding of רב״ח; presumably רבא agrees with the conclusive understanding of רב״ח that אנוסים היינו מחמת ממון is not believed even if אין כת״י יוצא ממק״א. ⁵ מדאורייתא the עדים would not be believed to be פוסל the שטר in the רישא even if they said אנוסים מחמת נפשות, because since there is no need for קיום, there is no מיגו (it is as if כת״י יוצא ממק״א). It is only מדרבנן who require קיום that they are believed if they say מחמת נפשות (because of the הפה שאסר); however the הפה שאסר will not be effective if we require the additional חידוש of פלגינן as well. ⁶ This answer may be more readily understood if we assume that הרי אלו נאמנים means merely that the שטר is not מקוים [but not that it is destroyed, see תוד״ה הרי footnote # 1]. The חכמים did not institute a פ״ד since even if they are believed it will merely be a שטר without קיום, which is כשר מה״ת. See סוכ״ד אות צ״ב, וצ״ע. ⁷ See previous תוספות ד״ה מחמת (by footnote # 5). ⁸ The רש״ש is גורס ׳שרבע׳ (not שרבעו). The פלגינן is not that it was לאונסי (instead of לרצוני), but rather that he was רבע another person; not the עד. See footnote # 10. ⁹ The גמרא there infers from the משנה that if a person claims ‘I killed him’, the wife of the alleged victim is permitted to remarry. In that case there is also the issue of א״א מע״ר and nevertheless we permit her to marry only on the basis of פלגינן דיבורא ¹⁰ According to the גירסא of the רש״ש (see footnote # 8) תוספות should not have said ׳לרצונו׳, but rather ׳שרבעו׳. ¹¹ The claim of אנוסים requires a qualifier intrinsically. How did the אונס take place? We are not פלגינן an intrinsic qualifier. The claim of רבעני does not require an intrinsic qualifier. The act of רביעה, or בעילה with an א״א, is sufficient grounds for חיוב מיתה. The qualifier is merely completing a statement. ¹² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹³ תוספות asks first from ׳הרגתיו׳ for that seems most similar to אנוסים. He begins by saying ‘I killed him’. ¹⁴ We accept his main testimony to kill the perpetrator or allow the woman to remarry; and in order that his testimony not be discredited since he also stated certain aspects which made him a רשע we are פלגינן דיבורא. ¹⁵ See footnote # 3. ¹⁶ See סוכ״ד אות צא. ¹⁷ See footnote # 12. ¹⁸ See דרכי דוד.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מלוה גופיה מידק דייק — The lender himself is particularly meticulous.

OVERVIEW רבי מאיר maintains that if the עדים claimed פסולי עדים היינו, even if אין כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר, they are not believed. The reason is because there is a חזקה that a מלוה is careful to have only עדים כשרים sign on the שטר. It seems implicit from this reasoning that it is presumed that there was a loan, and therefore, we must conclude (according to ר״מ) that the loan was signed by עדים כשרים.¹ The question arises, what do the רבנן presume; do they agree with ר״מ that there was a loan, however the חזקה of מידק דייק cannot overpower the פה שאסר. Or do the רבנן maintain that there is no assumption of a loan, and therefore no חזקה of מידק דייק.

ולרבנן אפילו מלוה על פה לא הוי² – And according to the רבנן, who argue on ר״מ and maintain that they are believed to say that פסולי עדות היינו, the דין is that it is not even considered as an undocumented loan. The לוה owes no money at all.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: The עדים are presently testifying that there was a loan; however they were unqualified then to sign as witnesses. Now however they are not פסולי עדות. Seemingly we should believe them now that there was a loan. Granted that there is no documented loan, for when they signed on the שטר they were פסולים. Nevertheless now they are not פסולים and are testifying that there was a loan. It should be considered as a מלוה על פה. If the לוה claims there was no such loan he should be obligated to pay.³ תוספות explains why it is not considered even as a מלוה ע״פ –

דבעינן שיהא תחלתו וסופו בכשרות כדאמרינן ביש נוחלין (בבא בתרא קכח,א ושם): For, concerning testimony, it is required that the עדים be כשר both in the beginningwhen they observe the testimony and in the end,when they testify, as the גמרא states in פרק יש נוחלין. In our situation there is no תחלתו בכשרות, for at the time of the loan, these עדים were פסולים. Therefore, even though they are כשרים now, we cannot accept their testimony.

SUMMARY The חכמים maintain that if the עדים claim פסולי עדות היינו, there is no loan at all, not even a מלוה ע״פ, since it was not תחלתו בכשרות.

THINKING IT OVER Why indeed are the עדים not believed that there was a loan with the מגו that they could have not said that they are פסולים?⁴

footnotes: ¹ If there was no loan then the assumption of מלוה גופיה מידק דייק is meaningless. A מלוה is מדייק only when he actually lent money. If the entire story is bogus, then there is no מידק דייק. See רש״י ד״ה בשלמא (where it [also] appears that he disagrees with תוס׳ and maintains that according to the רבנן it is a מלוה ע״פ) ² There is also therefore no מידק דייק, since there is no established loan. See (however) תוספות יט,א ד״ה חזקה. ³ If the לוה claims that he paid it then he would be פטור, since it is only a מלוה ע״פ. However if he claims להד״ם, he is tacitly admitting that he certainly did not pay. Therefore he will have to pay since the עדים testify that he borrowed money ⁴ See רש״ש.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

קטנים נמי כדרבי שמעון בן לקיש – They can also not claim to be minors, as רשב״ל stated

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that (according to ר״מ) the עדים are not believed to claim פסולי עדות היינו, because the מלוה is מידק דייק. They are also not believed to claim that קטנים היינו, on account of ר״ל who maintains that there is a חזקה that only adults sign on שטרות, not קטנים.¹ It seems that the reason for קטנים is different than מלוה מידק דייק.² Our תוספות will discuss if this is indeed so. -----------------------------–

תוספות anticipates a question: הוה מצי למימר וקטנים נמי משום דמלוה גופיה מידק דייק – The גמרא could have explained that the reason they cannot**** claim that they were קטנים is also because the מלוה himself is very meticulous to sign only proper witnesses. He will not permit minors to sign, just as he will not permit פסולי עדים to sign. תוספות is asking that it was not necessary to give a different answer by קטנים. The גמרא could have given the same explanation by קטנים as it gave by פסולי עדים. תוספות replies: אלא דניחא ליה למינקט בכל חד טעמא אחרינא³ – However it was preferable for the גמרא to point out in each case a different reason why they are not believed. תוספות offers another answer: אי נמי טעמא דריש לקיש גופא נמי משום דמלוה מידק דייק ⁴ – If you wish we can also answer, the reason for the חזקה of ר״ל itself, is also because the מלוה is very careful.**** There are no two reasons; it is the same reason. The מלוה is מידק דייק; therefore no פסולי עדים and no קטנים sign on a שטר. It would seem that according to this view ר״ל does not mean that only קטנים do not sign on a שטר, but rather that פסולי עדים and קטנים do not sign on a שטר. The question arises – והא דלא מייתי דרבי שמעון בן לקיש אפסולי עדות – What is the reason that the גמרא does not cite רשב״ל concerning פסולי עדות as well? Instead of making an anonymous assumption that מלוה גופיה מידק דייק, it would have been better to credit this assumption to an authority like רשב״ל. תוספות responds: משום דריש לקיש לא הזכיר אלא קטנים בדבריו:⁵ Because ר״ל did not mention פסולי עדים in his statement, but rather he only mentioned קטנים in his statement. Therefore the גמרא could not have cited that ר״ל maintains that פסולי עדות do not sign on a שטר. Even though ר״ל definitely agrees to it.

SUMMARY The חזקה of ר״ל can either be based on the reason of מלוה מידק דייק, or it can be independently valid.

THINKING IT OVER Is there a practical difference between the two interpretations of תוספות?⁶

footnotes: ¹ ר״ל actually states that the עדים do not sign on a שטר, unless the parties (i.e. מלוה לוה) are גדולים. We may also extend this logic that the עדים will not sign unless they are גדולים. See (however) footnote # 2. See רעק״א who questions this logic. ² Perhaps the חזקה concerning קטנים is based on the reality that children are not readily available in situations where שטרות are written. Usually only adults are present. See משכנות הרועים אות ר״י. ³ If the reason is the same in all cases, why mention all of the cases; one would be sufficient. This indicates that the תנא is teaching us that there are various different reasons for the different cases. It is possible that sometimes when one reason (מלוה מדיק דייק) is not applicable (if for instance they signed in the presence of the לוה only, and the מלוה was not there); then in that case we can employ the other reason (of רשב״ל). ⁴ According to this answer we will not accept the logic and arguments of footnotes # 2&3. [The reason the גמרא finds it necessary to cite ר״ל concerning קטנים, is perhaps it is more difficult to distinguish certain (mature) קטנים from גדולים, than to know who the פסולי עדות are. The גמרא therefore cites ר״ל as a support.] ⁵ רשב״ל made his statement in conjunction with a case concerning קטנים. ⁶ See footnote # 3.