Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

חזקה אין כולי — There is a presumption that witnesses do not, etc.

OVERVIEW ר״מ maintains that the עדים are not believed to claim קטנים היינו (even though they have a פה שאסר), since there is a חזקה against their claim. The חכמים who argue and believe the עדים, seemingly maintain that the מגו overpowers the חזקה. Our תוספות finds it difficult to accept that this is the interpretation of their מחלוקת. -------------–

הכא משמע דלא אמרינן מגו במקום חזקה ולרבנן אמרינן – It seems from here that**(according to ר״מ)** we do not applythe power of a מגו, when the claim contradicts a חזקה and according to the רבנן we do apply a מגו even if the claim contradicts a חזקה. The עדים are claiming that they were קטנים when they signed the שטר. They have a מגו (really a פה שאסר), that they did not have to come and testify that כת״י הוא זה. Nevertheless ר״מ maintains that we do not believe them (even though they have a מגו), on account of this חזקה, that אין העדים וכו׳ אא״כ נעשה בגדול, which contradicts their claim. This proves that the power of חזקה is stronger than a מגו (according to ר״מ). Conversely according to the חכמים who maintain that we believe the עדים in spite of the חזקה, this proves that the מגו is more effective than the חזקה.¹

תוספות has a difficulty: וצריך עיון דבעיא היא בפרק קמא דבבא בתרא (דף ה,ב ושם) ולא אפשיטא – And this requires contemplation for this is a query in the first פרק of ב״ב; whether a מגו is more effective that an opposing חזקה or not and this בעיא was not resolved. The query there was –

גבי תבע אחר זמנו ואמר ליה פרעתיך תוך זמני: Regarding when the מלוה claimed payment from the לוה after the due date and the לוה replied that I paid you already before the due date. In this case there is a חזקה that a person does not pay his debts before they are due. This contradicts the claim of the לוה that פרעתיך תוך זמני. On the other hand the לוה has a מגו; he could have claimed that I paid you after the due date; in which case he would have been believed. It is a מגו במקום חזקה. The question is² how we can reconcile our גמרא that the issue is resolved (albeit in a מחלוקת) and the גמרא in ב״ב, which maintain that the issue is not resolvable. תוספות does not answer this question.

SUMMARY In our גמרא it seems that ר״מ ורבנן argue whether we say מגו במקום חזקה. However in ב״ב it is a בעיא דלא אפשיטא.

THINKING IT OVER Is תוספות question on the גמרא in ב״ב; why does the גמרא there ask whether we say מגו במקום חזקה or not, when we see here that it is a מחלוקת? Or is the question on our גמרא here; how can our גמרא assume that ר״מ maintains מגו במקום חזקה לא אמרינן and the רבנן maintain that מגו במקום חזקה אמרינן when the גמרא in ב״ב claims that we cannot resolve this issue?³

footnotes: ¹ See, however, previous תוספות (יח,ב) ד״ה מלוה footnote # 2. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See ח״ב מ״ת אות רלג.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דאמר מר אין לך דבר כולי — For the master said, there is nothing, etc.

OVERVIEW רבא asked that we cannot fault the עדים for signing falsely under duress (of the loss of life) for ר׳ יוחנן states that only in three instances must one forfeit his life to avoid transgressing an עבירה. It would seem that רבא agrees to this ruling. תוספות points out that it is not necessarily so¹. ----------------–

פירוש² אפילו למאן דמחמיר לא מחמיר אלא בהנך – The explanation in citing this ruling is to be understood as follows; even according to the more stringent view in these matters, he is not stringent concerning all commandments (that one must give up his life so as not to transgress any commandment), but rather only in these commandments of ע״ז ג״ע ושפ״ד is one obligated to be מוסר נפש.

תוספות explains why we must interpret the citation in this manner, and not simply that רבא is citing a ruling (להלכה): דרבא גופיה קסבר דאפילו בהני אינו חייב למסור עצמו בצינעא – for רבא himself maintains that even by these three עבירות, one is not obligated to give up his life if it is done privately as רבא states it –

במסכת עבודה זרה בפרק רבי ישמעאל (דף נד,א ושם) ואין חילוק בין הנך³ לשאר – in מסכת ע״ז in פרק ר״י, and according to רבא there is no difference between these three to the rest of the מצות; in private there is never an obligation for מסירת נפש –

ובפרהסיא⁴ בכולהו יהרג ולא יעבור: And in public, by all מצות one should rather allow himself to be killed and not transgress any מצוה. Therefore when רבא is citing this statement it cannot be להלכה; but rather he is saying even the strictest opinion does not require יהרג ואל יעבר for signing falsely on a שטר.

SUMMARY There is a dispute whether the three עבירות are singled out for יהרג ואל יעבר even בצנעא (ר״י), or whether all עבירות are the same; there is no יהרג ואל יעבר בצנעא only if it is בפרהסיא (רבא).

THINKING IT OVER If רבא maintains that בפרהסיא, the rule is יהרג ואל יעבר by all עבירות,⁵ then what is his question; perhaps they were forced to sign the שטר בפרהסיא?⁶

footnotes: ¹ See, however, תוספות ע״ז נד,א ד״ה הא. ² The term ׳פירוש׳ (or כלומר) in תוספות (or רש״י) [usually] denotes a departing from the simple understanding of the text; namely that רבא agrees to this ruling. ³ From the simple reading of תוספות it appears that according to רבא the rule is יעבר ואל יהרג (even) by שפיכת דמים. However, elsewhere (פסחים כה,ב) we find that רבא rules regarding שפיכת דמים that יהרג ואל יעבר, giving the reason of מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי, which would seem to apply to a case of בצנעא as well as פרהסיא. וצ״ב. ⁴ תוספות is explaining that we cannot say that when רבא states this אמר מר that אין לך דבר וכו׳ אלא ע״ז וכו׳ he is discussing a case of פרהסיא for then the ruling is that יהרג ואל יעבור by all the מצות; not only these three. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 4. ⁶ See מהרש״א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

טעמא דרבי מאיר כדרב הונא כולי — The reason of ר״מ is as ר״ה, etc.

OVERVIEW רב הונא maintains that מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. If the לוה admits that the שטר was written with his consent (he borrowed the money from the מלוה), however he already repaid the loan; he is not believed. The מלוה can collect the loan from the לוה without authenticating the שטר. Even though, if the לוה would have claimed מזוייף, the מלוה would be required to be מקיים the שטר, nevertheless (according to ר״ה) this מגו of מזוייף is not effective and the לוה must pay if he claims פרעתי.¹ Others argue with רב הונא and maintain that מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו and unless the מלוה is מקיים the שטר, the לוה is believed to claim פרעתי with the מגו of מזוייף. Our גמרא maintains that the reason ר״מ is of the opinion that the עדים are not believed to claim אנוסים היינו וכו׳ is because ר״מ agrees with רב הונא (that מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו). It is not clear how this explains the reason of ר״מ. There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות how to explain this גמרא. ---------------–

פירש בקונטרס² דמיירי פלוגתייהו בשמודה לוה שכתבו³ –

רש״י explainedthat the answer why ר״מ maintains that the עדים are not believed is because their argument**(between ר״מ ורבנן) is** in a case**** where the לוה admits that he wrote the שטר –

והיינו טעמא דרבי מאיר דאין נאמנים דהואיל ולוה קיימו⁴ לא צריכי תו לעדים – And that is the reason of ר״מ that the עדים are not believed to claim אנוסים היינו (or קטנים ופסולי עדות היינו) and nullify the שטר, but rather the שטר is valid and the מלוה can collect with it, is because since the לוה authenticated the שטר, by admitting that it was written with his consent, there is no further need for the עדים to authenticate the שטר, for the לוה already authenticated it by admitting that it was written with his consent –

ולאו אפומייהו מקיים שטרא – Therefore the שטר is not authenticated by their testimony; but rather by the admission of the לוה. Once the עדים are not necessary for קיום השטר, there is no הפה שאסר. They are now challenging an independently valid שטר. Their testimony cannot be accepted. ורבנן סברי צריך לקיימו⁵ – And the רבנן maintain that it is necessary to authenticate a שטר that the לוה admits to have written; otherwise the לוה can still claim פרעתי, and be exempt from paying. Therefore, this שטר still needs the authentication of the עדים. Without their קיום, the מלוה cannot collect. The עדים are therefore believed with a הפה שאסר; for they could have withheld their entire testimony, and the מלוה would not be able to collect.⁶

תוספות has a difficulty with this interpretation: וקשה לרבינו יצחק דאם כן ליפלגו בלא עדים בלוה גופיה הואיל וטעמייהו תלוי בלוה – And the ר״י has a difficulty accepting this interpretation for if this were so;that the לוה is admitting to the loan and the argument between ר״מ ורבנן is whether the admission of the לוה is considered a קיום, let ר״מ ורבנן argue without עדים claiming that אנוסים היינו כו׳, but rather they should argue by the לוה himself.Their argument should be what the דין is if the לוה claims פרעתי against a שטר which is not מקויים, since their reasoning whether to believe or not to believe (the עדים) is dependent on the לוה; whether his admission creates a קיום or not. Nothing is added when we insert עדים in this dispute. According to ר״מ we do not believe the עדים because the admission of the לוה is sufficient קיום.⁷According to the רבנן we believe the עדים because the admission of the לוה is insufficient קיום. It all depends on the מודה בשטר שכתבו of the לוה. The עדים are superfluous!

תוספות has an additional question on רש״י: ועוד דבפרק מי שמת (בבא בתרא דף קנד,ב ושם) משמע דלא פליגי בלוה – And furthermore it seems from the גמרא in פרק מי שמת that ר״מ ורבנן do not argue when the לוה is מודה שכתבו, whether צריך לקיימו or not (as רש״י indicates) –

דקאמר רבי יוחנן שאני אומר מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו דברי הכל היא – For ר״י said, ‘that I saythat the ruling of מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו all agree to it’ [we do not consider the מגו of the לוה to claim מזוייף to be sufficient to require קיום]. ופריך והא מפלג פליגי אין נאמנים לפוסלו – And ריש לקיש challengesthis statement of ר״י but they do argue concerning מודה בשטר שכתבו וכו׳, for we learnt in a ברייתא that ר״מ maintains they are not believed to invalidate the שטר [the הפה שאסר is insufficient] and the חכמים maintain that they are believed to invalidate the שטר [the הפה שאסר is sufficient]. The גמרא in this question assumes that just as ר״מ ורבנן argue whether the הפה שאסר of the עדים is sufficient to nullify the שטר, they also argue whether the מגו of the לוה is sufficient to nullify the שטר with the claim of פרעתי. To which ר׳ יוחנן responded and –

אמר ליה אי אילימי עדים לאורועי שטרא איהו כל כמיניה– said to ריש לקיש if witnesses are sufficiently powerful to nullify a שטר, (according to the רבנן) is he (the לוה) also to be believed and nullify the שטר?! ר״י maintains that when a לוה claims פרעתי, the מגו is not sufficient that we should believe him. However when two עדים claim אנוסים היינו וכו׳, then the חפה שאסר is sufficient to believe the עדים and nullify the שטר (according to the רבנן). We derive from this גמרא that (according to ר״י) both ר״מ and the רבנן maintain that מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. How can רש״י maintain that the רבנן claim מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו and that is the reason why the עדים are נאמנים לפוסלו.

תוספות has one final question on רש״י : ועוד דהוה לי למימר בדרב הונא קמיפלגי – And furthermore the גמרא should have said that ר״מ ורבנן are arguing about the ruling of ר״ה. ר״מ agrees with ר״ה and the רבנן disagree. Why does the גמרא say that טעמא דר״מ כדרב הונא?!⁸

תוספות now offer his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו תם ולרבינו יצחק דהכי פירושו טעמא דרבי מאיר כדרב הונא – And the ר״ת and the ר״י say that this is the interpretation of the answer; the reason that ר״מ maintains that אין נאמנים is like ר״ה –

דכמו שאומר רב הונא דלא אמרינן מגו לפסול השטר בלוה – That just as ר״ה maintains that we do not accept a מגו for the לוה to invalidate the שטר –

הכי נמי אומר רבי מאיר בעדים דאף על גב דאלימי לא פסלי שטרי במגו⁹ –

ר״מ says the same thing also applies to עדים who wish to invalidate the שטר; they are not believed; even though עדים are more powerful than a לוה, nevertheless they cannot invalidate a שטרwith the power of a מגו, just like the לוה cannot. The רבנן, however maintain (as ר״י explained in ב״ב) that we cannot compare עדים to a לוה. The power of a לוה is limited; therefore his מגו cannot invalidate the שטר. However, עדים are more powerful and they can invalidate a שטר if there is a מגו.

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that the dispute between ר״מ ורבנן is in a case where the לוה claims פרעתי. The עדים are not believed to claim אנוסים היינו according to ר״מ, since he maintains that by saying פרעתי the שטר is מקויים. The רבנן maintain that פרעתי is not a קיום, therefore the עדים retain the הפה שאסר. תוספות asks; a) ר״מ ורבנן should argue by the לוה without עדים, b) ר׳ יוחנן says that ר״מ ורבנן both agree that מבשאצ״ל, and c) it should have said בדרב הונא קמיפלגי. תוספות maintains that it is a case of אין הלוה מודה, and ר״מ maintains that neither the לוה nor עדים can invalidate a שטר with a מגו, while the רבנן maintain that עדים can invalidate a שטר with a מגו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to רש״י, the לוה admits that the שטר was written with his consent (he claims פרעתי). How can the רבנן maintain that the עדים are believed to testify אנוסים היינו,¹⁰when the לוה contradicts them and admits that it was written with his consent?!¹¹
2. תוספות asks that according to רש״י why do ר״מ ורבנן argue about עדים.¹² Perhaps they argue about עדים to let us know that, according to ר״מ, even if the עדים wish to invalidate the שטר, they are also not believed. Alternatively, they argue by עדים to let us know that even though the לוה admits that it was written with his consent (it was not a situation of אנוסים) and the עדים also admit that כת״י הוא זה, nevertheless the רבנן maintain that they can invalidate the שטר by saying אנוסים היינו?

footnotes: ¹ See following תוספות ד״ה מודה for reasons why the לוה is not believed with the מגו of מזוייף. ² בד״ה אין. ³ The לוה is claiming that the loan is paid up, and therefore the שטר is void. The עדים are (also) saying the שטר is void; since we were אנוסים there never was a valid שטר. The question here is whether the מלוה is in possession of a valid שטר, which, in turn, will deny the לוה a claim of פרעתי. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ ר״מ agrees with ר״ה that מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו; the admission of the לוה makes the קיום. ⁵ רש״י does not state this. This may be an inference of תוספות in the understanding of רש״י. See מהר״ם שי״ף (בסופו) who maintains that רש״י can follow the opinion of the רשב״ם there in ב״ב. The רשב״ם maintains that the רבנן agree to ר״מ that מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו; however that is when only the לוה claims פרעתי. In a case (like our משנה) where the עדים support the contention of the לוה that the שטר is invalid, the רבנן maintain that the עדים (together with the לוה) can be פוסל the שטר. עיי״ש היטב. According to the מהר״ם שי״ף all תוספות questions on רש״י are nonexistent. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ The expression כדרב הונא implies that it is similar to (but not exactly the same as) רב הונא. However according to רש״י the reason of ר״מ is precisely ר״ה, not (only) similar to ר״ה. ⁹ According to תוספות we are discussing a case where the לוה is not מודה that he wrote the שטר [the לוה is not claiming פרעתי]. For if the לוה is מודה and we are assuming that א״צ לקיימו, the רבנן would not maintain that the עדים are believed to say אנוסים היינו, after the לוה was מקיים the שטר. On the other hand we cannot assume that the לוה is claiming מזוייף. For if the לוה is claiming מזוייף then the שטר is worthless (מדרבנן) without קיום. Why would ר״מ maintain that אין נאמנים, since the עדים have a valid הפה שאסר?! See סוכ״ד אות יג, who explains that the לוה is not present, or that he (also) claims that אנוסים היו. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2 in the following תוספות ד״ה מודה. ¹⁰ See footnote # 6. ¹¹ See שיטה מקובצת. ¹² See footnote # 7.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו – If he admitted to writing the שטר, it is not necessary to authenticate it

OVERVIEW רב הונא maintains that if the לוה admits that the שטר was written with his consent, he is not believed to make any claims against the שטר. The question is why not. Seemingly the לוה has a מגו of מזוייף. Our תוספות proposes three explanations. ----------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי טעמא לא מהימן במגו דאי בעי אמר מזוייף – And if you will say; what is the reason that he is not believed that he paid the loan, since he has a מגו that he could have claimed that the שטר was forged. If the לוה would have claimed מזוייף he would not have to pay, unless the מלוה is מקיים the שטר. The same ruling should apply when he claims פרעתי (or other claims); he should not be required to pay unless the מלוה is מקיים the שטר. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דשמא ירא לוה לומר מזוייף פן יכחישוהו וליכא מיגו¹ – And one can say; that perhaps the לוה is fearful to claim מזוייף, lest they will contradict him, and therefore there is no מגו. If the לוה claims פרעתי, no one can contradict him.² However, if he claims that the שטר is מזוייף, it is possible³ that the מלוה will be able to be מקיים the שטר, thus proving the לוה to be a liar. The לוה therefore prefers the lie of פרעתי over the lie of מזוייף. The idea of a מגו is that if he were a liar he could have said the better lie. In this case the ‘better’ lie is פרוע (where he cannot be contradicted) as opposed to מזוייף (where he can be contradicted). He does not want to claim מזוייף, therefore there is no מיגו. תוספות offers another explanation why א״צ לקיימו. ופירש הקונטרס במקום אחר⁴ דטעמא משום דדבר תורה אין צריך קיום – And the קונטרס explained elsewhere that the reason why מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו is because according to תורה law there is no need for קיום by a שטר. The reason for this is – דעדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין⁵ – That witnesses who are signed on a שטר, it is considered as if their testimony was already cross-examined and accepted in בי״ד – ורבנן הוא דאצרכוהו קיום כי טעין מזוייף הוא – And it is (merely) a Rabbinic law that requires the מלוה to authenticate the signatures (but only) in a case where the לוה claims that it is forged – אבל בשאר טענות כגון פרוע הוא לא הצריכוהו קיום וכן נראה לרבינו יצחק – However concerning all other claims of the לוה for instance, ‘it is paid up’ they did not require of the מלוה any קיום; and the ר״י agrees with this as well. A שטר is considered מקויים in regards to all claims of the לוה (except for מזוייף).⁶ When the לוה claims פרעתי the שטר is considered מקוים. The claim of פרעתי is ineffective against a שטר מקויים. תוספות anticipates another possible solution, but rejects it: אבל אין לפרש דלא מהימן במגו לומר פרוע הוא – However, we cannot explain that**** the reason why he is not believed to claim פרוע with a מגו of מזוייף is – משום דאי פרעיה שטרא בידיה מאי בעי⁷ – Because, for if the לוה indeed paid him, then what is the שטר doing in the hands of the מלוה. The מלוה is in the possession of the שטר, which supports the claim of the מלוה that the loan was not paid. The מגו is not sufficiently strong (according to this proposed answer) to support the claim of פרעתי, which is contradicted by the proof of שטרא בידיה מאי בעי. תוספות rejects this proposed explanation: דהא כי טעין נמי אמנה⁸ הוא מסקינן בסמוך אמילתיה דרב דלא מהימן⁹ – For even if the לוה claims it was a שטר אמנה, the גמרא concludes shortly, concerning sרב׳ statement that the לוה is not believed; even if the שטר is not מקויים and the לוה therefore has a מגו of מזוייף – והתם לא שייך האי טעמא:¹⁰ And there, this reason of שטרא בידיה מאי בעי is not applicable; the מלוה has the שטר because the לוה entrusted him with it. It cannot be used to disprove the sלוה׳ claim (as in the case of פרעתי). This proves that the reason why פרעתי or other claims of the לוה are not valid is not on account of שטרא בידיה כו׳ but rather for the other reasons תוספות mentioned.

SUMMARY We do not believe פרעתי במגו דמזוייף because either a) he would rather claim פרעתי (which is non refutable) than מזויף (which is refutable) or b) a שטר is considered מקויים in regards to all claims [of the לוה] (except מזוייף); but not on account of c) that שטרא בידיה מאי בעי is stronger than the מגו (because that does not explain why אמנה הוא is not believed).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that the לוה is not believed במגו דמזוייף since he is fearful פן יכחישוהו.¹¹ In the previous תוספות ד״ה טעמא, it is stated that ר״מ maintains that just as the לוה is not believed with a מגו, so too the עדים are not believed with a מגו. However according to this explanation that the לוה is not believed on account of פן יכחישוהו, this reason seemingly does not apply to the עדים, for even if other עדים contradict them it will still be תרי ותרי and the שטר will not be מקויים.¹²
2. The פי׳ הקונטרס and the ר״י maintain that (except where the לוה claims מזוייף) no קיום is required (even מדרבנן).¹³ The previous תוספות ד״ה טעמא presumes that we are discussing a case where אין הלוה מודה, which means that he is either not present or is claiming אנוסים היו; however he is not claiming מזוייף. ¹⁴If he is not claiming מזוייף, then the שטר is considered מקויים. How can we believe the עדים that אנוסים היינו; there is no הפה שאסר וכו׳?!
3. Those that maintain that we do believe פרוע במגו דמזוייף, nevertheless maintain that אמנה במגו דמזוייף is not believed, for a different reason.¹⁵ Why does תוספות argue that שטרא בידיה וכו׳ is not the reason by פרעתי since it is not applicable by אמנה?¹⁶ It is possible that פרעתי is not believed because of שטרא בידיה וכו׳ and אמנה is not believed for the different reason¹⁷

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² He will choose a time when he was alone with the מלוה, and claim that he paid him then. ³ It should be borne in mind that the שטר is not a מזוייף, for the לוה is admitting that the שטר was written with his consent. There is a strong likelihood that the מלוה will be able to be מקיים the שטר. ⁴ This may be referring to the רשב״ם in ב״ב קע,א ד״ה א״צ לקיימו, עיי״ש (תוספות in ב״ב frequently refers to the פי׳ הרשב״ם in ב״ב as פי׳ הקונטרס [see TIE ב״ב כט,א ד״ה אמר footnote # 1]). ⁵ The reason is that (מה״ת) no one is suspected of forging (or signing falsely on) a document. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁷ If the loan would have been paid the לוה would have demanded that the שטר be returned to him. ⁸ A שטר אמנה is (as רש״י explains in ד״ה שטר אמנה) a note which a prospective לוה ‘entrusted’ (hence the term ׳אמנה׳) to the prospective מלוה, that in case the לוה will need to borrow money, the מלוה will already have a שטר in his possession. ⁹ The גמרא there states that the ruling of רב that לוה is not believed to claim that it is a שטר אמנה, is equivalent to (and based on) the opinion of רב הונא that מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו. ¹⁰ תוספות rejection does not necessarily imply that שטרא וכו׳ is not sufficient to negate a מגו, it merely states that there must be an additional reason why there is no מגו (to explain אמנה). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3 ¹¹ See footnote # 1. ¹² See בית יעקב on that תוס׳. ¹³ See footnote # 6. ¹⁴ See there footnote # 9. ¹⁵ See תוספות יט,ב ד״ה אמר ר״נ that לא אתי על פה ומרע לשטרא. ¹⁶ See footnote # 10. ¹⁷ See מהרש״א. See footnote # 10.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי סבירא לך כרבי מאיר כולי — If you agree with ר״מ, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that ר״מ agrees with the ruling of ר״ה that מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו. It is this ruling that justifies the ruling of ר״מ that אין נאמנים. It would seem that ר״ה would also agree with ר״מ that אין נאמנים.¹ Therefore ר״נ chided ר״ה and told him why are you citing this statement as if everyone agrees with it.² This is merely the opinion of ר״מ, and therefore you should clearly state that you support the view of ר״מ. Our תוספות discusses and rejects a possible response from ר״ה. ---------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ודלמא משום הכי לא קאמר הלכה כרבי מאיר – And if you will say; that perhaps the reason that רב הונא did not stateclearly that the הלכה is according to ר״מ**, is** –

משום דאיכא בפרק מי שמת (בבא בתרא קנד,ב ושם) דמפיך דרבי מאיר לרבנן – because in פרק מי שמת**** there are those who invert the opinion of ר״מ to the opinion of the רבנן. That opinion maintains that the רבנן claim that אין נאמנים and ר״מ maintains נאמנים. Therefore רב הונא could not have stated הלכה כר״מ, for we would not know for certain whether he means the ר״מ of אין נאמנים or the ר״מ of נאמנים. That is why ר״ה chose to state clearly that מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו. Why was רב נחמן chiding him that ר״ה should clearly say that he agrees with ר״מ?

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהוה מצי למימר דהלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – And one can say that ר״ה could have said that the הלכה is like רשב״ג –

דאית ליה בהדיא בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף ז,א) דמודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו – Who clearly maintains in the first פרק of ב״מ that if the לוה admits that he wrote the שטר**, the מלוה** is not obligated to authenticate it³.

SUMMARY When ר״נ said that ר״ה should have said הלכה כר״מ he meant that ר״ה could have mentioned a(ny) תנא who clearly maintains מבשאצ״ל; namely רשב״ג.

THINKING IT OVER Why did not ר״נ argue initially that ר״ה should say הלכה כרשב״ג?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ See following תוספות ד״ה אימא, which will explain how there can be such an assumption. ² See רש״י ד״ה גנבא. ³ ר״נ maintains that the proper גירסא is that ר״מ states אין נאמנים. If ר״ה is concerned because there is a גירסא that ר״מ states נאמנים, ר״ה could have said הלכה כרשב״ג. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See שטמ״ק.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אימא הלכה כרבי מאיר — Say the הלכה is like ר״מ

OVERVIEW רב הונא is of the opinion that מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו. A מגו is not effective against a שטר. The גמרא explained that ר״מ, who maintains that אין נאמנים לפוסלו, despite the fact that the עדים have a הפה שאסר, follows the opinion of ר״ה. In the previous תוספות ד״ה טעמא it was explained that we should not infer that the רבנן disagree with ר״ה. Rather they also can maintain that א״צ לקיימו. However עדים are different and more powerful than the לוה. When עדים have a הפה שאסר against a שטר they are believed. רב נחמן challenged ר״ה for saying his rule of א״צ לקיימו as if all agree to it. ר״נ maintains that only ר״מ agrees that א״צ לקיימו; that a מגו is ineffective against a שטר. However the חכמים are of the opinion that צריך לקיימו for a מגו is effective against the שטר. This challenge of ר״נ to ר״ה seems to contradict that previous תוספות; which distinguishes between the לוה (whose מגו is ineffective against a שטר) and עדים (where a הפה שאסר is effective against a שטר). Our תוספות will resolve this difficulty.

תוספות asks: תימה דאפילו כרבנן נמי מצי סבר ושאני עדים דאלימי לאורועי שטרא – This is incredible;to assume that רב הונא must agree with ר״מ! For ר״ה can even agree with the רבנן that נאמנים לפוסלו, even if he maintains א״צ לקיימו since עדים are different than the לוה. For the עדים are (more) powerful than the לוה and are capable of invalidating the שטר. The לוה is not believed with the מיגו of מזוייף. However the עדים are believed with the הפה שאסר –

דהכי אית ליה לרבי יוחנן – For this indeed is the opinion of ר״י; everyone maintains מבשאצ״ל and nevertheless the רבנן maintain that נאמנים לפוסלו for אלימי עדים וכו׳.¹ The question is why does ר״נ insist that the ruling of מבשאצ״ל follows only the view of ר״מ, when ר״י clearly states that even the רבנן maintain that מבשאצ״ל.²

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרב נחמן אין נראה לו לחלק – And one can say; that ר״נ does not see fit to differentiate between the לוה and the עדים. According to ר״נ if עדים are believed to be פוסל the שטר (with a הפה שאסר), then the לוה is also believed to claim פרעתי (with a מגו דמזוייף); and if the לוה is not believed to claim פרעתי (במגו דמזוייף) then the עדים are not believed to be פוסל the שטר (with a הפה שאסר). Therefore, if we maintain that מבשאצ״ל (a מגו is ineffective for the לוה) then we must maintain that אין נאמנים לפוסלו (that a הפה שאסר is ineffective for the עדים) like ר״מ stated. ר״נ obviously disagrees with ר׳ יוחנן.

תוספות asks an additional question: ואם תאמר ודלמא דרב הונא מיירי במודעא³ ואמנה⁴ – And if you will say; perhaps**** רב הונא, when he states that מבשאצ״ל, is discussing a case of מודעא or אמנה (and not the case of פרעתי).⁵ It is only when the לוה claims that it was a שטר מודעא or a שטר אמנה that ר״ה maintains that the לוה is not believed with a מגו of מזוייף. However when the לוה claims פרעתי (or when עדים have a הפה שאסר by אנוסים) he (they) will be believed because of the מגו.⁶

תוספות will prove that we can differentiate between the claim of פרעתי and the claims of מודעא or אמנה: דאפילו רב נחמן מודה לקמן⁷ – For even ר״נ who maintains that מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו in a case of פרעתי, later agrees that by a שטר מודעא ואמנה, that even the עדים are not believed. Perhaps ר״ה also meant מודעא ואמנה only, when he said מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו. If that is true, ר״ה does not agree with ר״מ, but rather his ruling is according to the רבנן. It is only by מודעא ואמנה that a מגו is not effective, however by אנוסים (וקטנים וכו׳) (and also by פרעתי) a מגו is effective.⁸ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרב הונא סתם קאמר ולא מפליג: And one can say; that ר״ה statedhis ruling (of מבשאצ״ל) in general terms and he did not differentiate between one type of מודה בשטר (like פרעתי) to another type of מודה בשטר (like מודעא ואמנה). Rather he maintains that in all cases, even by פרעתי, the ruling is that א״צ לקיימו. Therefore ר״נ (who maintains that there is no difference between the לוה and עדים) challenged him⁹ that he should have said that הלכה כר״מ, because according to the חכמים, who maintain נאמנים לפוסלו, they also maintain that the לוה is נאמן by פרעתי במגו דמזוייף.

SUMMARY ר״נ disagrees with ר״י and maintains that there is no difference, concerning a מגו against a שטר, between the לוה and the עדים. The fact that ר״ה did not qualify his statement of מודה בשטר שכתבו אצ״ל, indicates that it applies in all cases; including if the לוה claims פרעתי.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asked that perhaps ר״ה made his statement of מבשאצ״ל only concerning מודעא ואמנה; not פרעתי.¹⁰ If that were so, how could the גמרא say that טעמא דר״מ כדרב הונא? The case of אנוסים is not comparable to אמנה ומודעא!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד״ה טעמא. ² This difficulty is eliminated according to the interpretation of רש״י, who maintains that ר״מ ורבנן argue whether צריך לקיימו or not and there is no difference between the לוה and the עדים. ³ A מודעא means that the לוה claims that he was forced to agree to the signing of this שטר, even though he did not borrow any money. ⁴ An אמנה means that the לוה claims he trusted the מלוה with this שטר (to keep it for when it will be needed), even though he did not borrow any money. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ It is perhaps possible that this question is a continuation of the answer to the previous question. תוספות answered that ר״נ does not distinguish between עדים and the לוה. This indicates that ר״ה may indeed make this distinction that even though the לוה is not believed, nevertheless עדים are believed (as the חכמים maintain). It follows therefore that the statement of מבשאצ״ל is not a blanket statement, that no claim is effective against a שטר, but rather that it is a selective statement; certain claims (פרעתי, etc.) are ineffective against a שטר. If that it the case, then perhaps ר״ה was very selective and the statement of מבשאצ״ל is referring to the claims of אמנה ומודעא exclusively. ר״נ agrees that these claims are ineffective. What is sר״נ׳ challenge to ר״ה?! See footnote # 9. ⁷ יט,ב. ⁸ See תוספות יט,ב ד״ה אמר ר״נ who explains as follows: In the case of מודעא ואמנה they are not believed, because according to their testimony the שטר was written properly. It was a properly written שטר. A מגו cannot invalidate a properly written שטר. This is known as לא אתי על פה ומרע לשטרא. However by אנוסים, they are claiming that there never was a valid שטר (it was never properly signed by עדים כשרים), therefore the מגו is effective. In the case of פרעתי (it is exactly the opposite); he is agreeing the שטר was valid. There is no attempt at all to invalidate the שטר per se. The לוה is (merely) claiming that the loan was already paid. Therefore (according to ר״נ) the מגו is effective. ⁹ See footnote # 6. According to this answer that ר״ה does not differentiate and maintains that מבשאצ״ל is a universal law; no claims (except for מזוייף) are effective against a שטר, then the answer to the first question of תוספות may change as well. It is not merely (as תוספות originally claimed) that ר״נ does not distinguish between the לוה and the עדים; but rather that (ר״נ deduces from the blanket statement of ר״ה that even) ר״ה himself does not make any distinctions; but always maintains that מבשאצ״ל (even by עדים). See following תוספות ד״ה לעולם footnote # 1. ¹⁰ See footnote # 5. ¹¹ See footnote # 8.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לעולם דקאמר לוה וכדרב הונא כולי — In truth is was the לוה who claimed it was a שטר אמנה andthisis according to רב הונא, etc.

OVERVIEW רב יהודה אמר רב ruled that the claim of אמנה is not acceptable. The גמרא initially questioned who claimed that it was an אמנה. Was it the לוה, the מלוה, or the עדים? In each case there was a difficulty in explaining the ruling of ר״י א״ר. רבא answered that it was the לוה who claimed that it was a שטר אמנה, and he is not believed (with a מגו) even if the שטר was not מקויים. This ruling follows the opinion of ר״ה that a מגו is ineffective against a שטר. ------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי לא קאמר נמי לעולם דקאמרי עדים וכדרב הונא – And if you will say; and why did not רבא also answer that in truth the עדים claimed that it is a שטר אמנה; and the reason they are not believed even if אין כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר is because we are following the opinion of ר״ה who maintains that a מגו is not effective against a שטר. Therefore when עדים claim שטר אמנה they are not believed even though they have a הפה שאסר.¹

תוספות answers: ויש לומר² דלא ניחא ליה לאוקמי דלא כרבנן דאמרי אלימי עדים לאורועי שטרא: And one can say; that it is not appealing to רבא to establish the ruling of רב יהודה אמר רב not according to the רבנן who argue with רבי מאיר and claim that עדים are sufficiently powerful to invalidate the שטר with a הפה שאסר; even if the לוה is not. According to the רבנן if the עדים claim שטר אמנה הוא they will be believed according to רבא.³

SUMMARY רבא did not want to answer that the עדים claimed שטר אמנה הוא, for the רבנן maintain that they will be believed since אלימי עדים לאורועי לשטרא.

THINKING IT OVER What was תוספות question initially?⁴ Did not תוספות state previously that the רבנן maintain that אלימי עדים לאורועי שטרא?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד״ה אימא footnote # 9 where it seems that תוספות may be of the opinion that ר״ה maintains that מבשאצ״ל is a universal law which applies to all type of claims. The wording of the answer here seems to support this contention. תוספות states ׳דלא ניחא ליה לאוקמי דלא כררבנן׳ but not that ר״ה is מודה in a case of עדים. ודו״ק. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ This seems to be in contradiction with רב אשי, רב נחמן and מר בר רב אשי who maintain (on יט,ב) that even עדים are not believed to claim שטר אמנה הוא. ⁴ See footnote # 2. ⁵ See footnotes # 1 3.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

וכדרב הונא אמר רב — And this is according to רב הונא אמר רב

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites two statement in the name of רב; namely מודה בשטר שכתבו אצ״ל (by ר״ה א״ר) and האומר שטר אמנה הוא זה אינו נאמן (by ר״י א״ר). רבא explained that the ruling of שטר אמנה (which is referring to the לוה) follows the ruling of מבשאצ״ל. Our תוספות will discuss the necessity of both rulings. -------------------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר תרתי מילי דרב למה לי¹ – And if you will ask why do we need two statements of רב, which are stating the same rule. The rule of ר״ה א״ר states that a מגו is ineffective against a שטר (by פרעתי as well as all other claims²); and ר״י א״ר states that the לוה is not believed to claim שטר אמנה הוא which we already know from ר״ה א״ר.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דחדא מכלל חבירתה אתמר – And one can say that one was derived from the other. רב said only one ruling [(מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו), which was cited by ר״ה.³ It was ר״י who derived from this ruling of רב that if a לוה claimed שטר אמנה הוא, he is not believed].

SUMMARY רב made only one ruling; that a לוה is not believed with a מגו against a שטר שאינו מקויים. Other rulings (such as האומר שטר אמנה הוא אינו נאמן) were derived from this ruling

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות claims that the two rulings are redundant.⁴ Seemingly they are not. If it would only state מבשאצ״ל I would think that it applies only by פרעתי since there is a counterclaim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי, however by שטר אמנה he would be believed. Conversely if only the rule of שטר אמנה was stated I certainly would not know that this applies by פרעתי as well (for ר״נ maintains פרעתי is believed and אמנה is not believed). Why does תוספות state that they are redundant?!⁵

2. תוספות merely says that one rule was derived from the other.⁶ Can we assume which was the original rule and which was the derivative?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² See previous תוספות ד״ה אימא. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See רש״ש. ⁶ See footnote # 2.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

וכגון שחב לאחרים — And for instance, that it is detrimental for others

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that there is an occasion when a מלוה is not believed to claim that the שטר he is holding is a שטר אמנה. This happens when by his admission he causes harm to others. The case is where ראובן (the first מלוה) lends money to שמעון (the first לוה). In addition לוי (the second לוה) owes money to שמעון (the second מלוה [and first לוה]). According to the rule of שעבודא דר״נ, the first מלוה (ראובן) can collect directly from לוי (the second לוה). If however שמעון claims that לוי owes him no money and the שטר he holds against לוי is merely a שטר אמנה, then ראובן (the first מלוה) would not be able to collect from לוי, if שמעון is telling the truth. The דין is that שמעון is not believed to claim it is a שטר אמנה since he is causing harm to ראובן. A person is believed only to obligate himself but not to obligate or cause harm to others. There is a ruling from שמואל that המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואפילו יורש מוחל. This means that if לוי owes שמעון money בשטר, and שמעון sold this שטר to ראובן;¹now ראובן (and not שמעון) has the right to collect the monies of the שטר from לוי. Nevertheless שמעון has the right to be מוחל לוי the חוב and ראובן will not be able to collect the חוב from לוי. If שמעון died before ראובן collected the debt from לוי, the heirs of שמעון may also be מוחל the debt to לוי, preventing ראובן from collecting on his purchased שט״ח. ------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולהימניה במגו² דאי בעי מחיל ליה³ – And if you will say; let us believe the מלוה, who claims that it is a שטר אמנה, with a מגו, for if the מלוה wanted he could have absolved the לוה from repaying him. If the מלוה would be מוחל the לוה, then the אחרים (those to whom this מלוה owes money), would lose their right to collect from the לוה. This power of the מלוה (to deprive the אחרים from collecting from his לוה) should also apply when he claims that it is a שטר אמנה, thus causing the אחרים to lose the ability to collect from the לוה.

תוספות will prove that the מלוה has the right to be מוחל a loan even if it harms others. דהא המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול (לקמן דף פה,ב) – For if one sells a documented loan to his friend and went back and forgave the לוה from repaying the debt, the law is that the loan is absolved. The purchaser of the note cannot collect from the לוה.⁴ We derive from this law that the מלוה can be מוחל a loan even if it causes a loss to others. The same power should be applied, through מגו, if he claims that it is a שטר אמנה. The question is as follows: We derive from the דין of (שמואל that) המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וכו׳, that a מלוה has the right to be מוחל a חוב even if it causes harm to a legitimate buyer. It is therefore assumable that the same applies in a case of שעבודא דר״נ. If the second מלוה is מוחל the second לוה, the מחילה is valid even though it causes a loss to the first מלוה.⁵ A person has a right to be מוחל a חוב even if it causes hardship to others. In the case of שטר אמנה the only question is whether the מלוה is saying the truth when he claims that he is holding a שטר אמנה (since he is harming someone). It should be assumed, however, that he is telling the truth, by virtue of the מגו; because he could harm the first מלוה regardless, by openly being מוחל the חוב.⁶

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלאו מגו הוא דשמא אין דעתו למחול ולהפסיד חובו – And one can say that this is no מגו.The מלוה will not want to be מוחל the loan, for perhaps it is not his intention (even when he claims שטר אמנה הוא) to give up and lose his loan –

דעכשיו שאומר אמנה הוא לא מפסיד מידי דאין הלוה גזלן – For now when he claims that the שטר is אמנה the מלוה is not losing anything for the לוה is not a robber. The מלוה is sure that the לוה will still repay him, for he owes him the money.⁷ However if he is מוחל the חוב outright then the לוה will not (have to) repay him. Therefore, since there is no מגו, the מלוה cannot claim אמנה, for we do not believe his admission when it causes harm to others.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דבסוף פרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף כ,ב⁸ ושם) אמרינן מגו כהאי גוונא גבי מצא שובר – Even though that in the end of the first פרק of מסכת ב״מ we do say this type of a מגו**; that (s)he could be מוחל,** concerning the case where someone found a receipt for a כתובה payment; the ברייתא there says –

בזמן שהאשה מודה יחזיר לבעל – In a case where the woman admits that she wrote the receipt and received her כתובה payment from the husband, the receipt should be returned to the husband as proof of payment. דקאמר שמע מינה איתא לדשמואל⁹– The גמרא there states that we derive from this ruling that sשמואל׳ ruling of המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וחזרו ומחלו מחול is correct.

תוספות question is that just as we say here that the מלוה is not believed to say אמנה הוא and be חב לאחרים with a מגו of מחילה (because he does not want to be מוחל the חוב); the same should apply there. How does she have the מגו there that she could have been מוחל the כתובה? She does not want to be מוחל the כתובה, for then she would definitely not collect her כתובה. However if she just verifies this (false) שובר, she imagines that she will still collect from her husband, for he is no thief. The husband knows that he still owes her the כתובה; the שובר notwithstanding. What is the difference between our גמרא where we say there is no מגו of מחילה (because he does not want to lose his debt), and the גמרא in ב״מ where there is a מגו of מחילה.

תוספות responds: שמא התם סמכינן אמגו כל דהו משום דאיכא שובר דמוכח¹⁰– Perhaps there in ב״מ we can depend even on a meager מגו, for there is a receipt that proves that the woman is saying the truth. In ב״מ this flawed מגו is sufficient.

תוספות offers an additional answer to the original question why the מלוה is not believed with the מגו of מחילה: ואם נאמר דמכירת שטר חוב אינו אלא מדרבנן¹¹ הוה אתי שפיר – And if we would assume that selling a שט״ח is not valid מן התורה, but only מדרבנן**, then the question** would be properly answered –

דמצינן למימר דוקא מוכר שטר חוב דהוי מדרבנן יכול למחול – For we will be able to argue**, that** only when one sells a שט״ח, wherethe sale is only valid מדרבנן;it is only then that the seller can be מוחל the loan, and the buyer suffers a loss; because the buyer only owns the right to the חוב, מדרבנן not מן התורה.¹² אבל בנושה בחבירו כולי דחייב לו מן התורה אינו יכול למחול – However, in the case where one has a claim against another, etc. In a case where the לוה of the original מלוה is also a מלוה to a subsequent (and second) לוה so that the second לוה is obligated מן התורה to the original מלוה (on account of שעבודא דר״נ); in such a case, the לוה of the original מלוה cannot be מוחל the debt owed to him by his (subsequent) לוה, for his לוה is already obligated מן התורה to the original מלוה.¹³ תוספות will now offer a proof that when the obligation to pay the חוב is מן התורה then it cannot be נמחל by the original giver. וכן משמע בפרק מי שמת (בבא בתרא דף קמז,ב ושם) – And it also seem so in פרק מי שמת that if the gift is valid מה״ת then the giver cannot be מוחל –

דקאמר ומודה שמואל דאם נתנו במתנת שכיב מרע¹⁴ שאינו יכול למחול – For the גמרא says there that שמואל admits (concerning the rule of המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וחזרו ומחלו מחול and even the heir of the מלוה can be מוחל) that if the מלוה transferred the חוב to another (not through a sale but) through a sickbed gift; the heir of the מלוה (i.e. a son who did not receive this loan as part of his inheritance) cannot be מוחל this חוב (even though that generally the (מלוה and his) heirs can be מוחל the (שטר) חוב that he sold) –

ומסיק מתנת שכיב מרע דאורייתא¹⁵ ואין יכול למחול – And the גמרא concludes there that a sickbed gift is transferred to the recipient מן התורה and therefore the heir cannot be מוחל the חוב. The גמרא continues –

דאי סלקא דעתך מדרבנן אמאי אינו יכול למחול – For if it would enter your mind that a מתנת שכ״מ is valid only מדרבנן, why cannot the heir be מוחל the חוב. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. משמע דבמידי דאורייתא אינו יכול למחול – It seems from that גמרא that concerning תורה mattersthe maker (or the heirs) of the שטר cannot be מוחל the loan. The (only) explanation the גמרא gave why they cannot be מוחל is because the transfer is valid מה״ת. This supports תוספות contention that there is a difference between המוכר שט״ח which is valid only מדרבנן and therefore the מלוה can be מוחל; and by שעבודא דר״נ which is valid מדאורייתא and therefore the second מלוה (the first לוה) cannot be מוחל the חוב of the second לוה (that is owed מה״ת [through שעבודא דר״נ]) to the first מלוה.

תוספות rejects this last proof that if there is a חיוב מה״ת then a מחילה is not valid: ויש לדחות דהתם ודאי אי מתנת שכיב מרע דאורייתא אין היורש יכול למחול – And it is possible to reject this proof for there by the case of the heir of the שכ״מ, certainly if a sickbed gift is valid מן התורה, then the heir cannot be מוחל the חוב and deprive the recipient from collecting the loan –

דמאי אולמיה האי יורש מהאי יורש¹⁶ – For why is this heir, who wishes to be מוחל the loan, stronger than this heir, who received his power to collect the loan through the שכ״מ. Both parties, the recipient and the heir, are not the original מלוה. Therefore the heir is not any stronger than the recipient and cannot be מוחל the חוב and deprive the recipient from the power granted to him by the שכ״מ.¹⁷ However in our case of שעבודא דר״נ the first לוה is the original מלוה of the second לוה. Therefore even if there is a שעבוד מה״ת from the second לוה to the first מלוה, nevertheless the שעבוד stems from the loan of the second מלוה, who is the primary מלוה to the second לוה. This second מלוה is stronger than the first מלוה and can therefore be מוחל the חוב. The proof is therefore rejected.

תוספות brings an additional proof that in the case of שעבודא דר״נ the second מלוה cannot be מוחל the חוב: ועוד יש להביא ראיה דהנושה בחבירו וחבירו בחבירו אינו יכול למחול – And it is possible to bring additional proof that one who has a loan by his friend and that friend has a loan by another friend; in this situation the second מלוה cannot be מוחל the חוב –

דאמרינן בסוף האשה שנפלו (לקמן פא,ב) הרי שהיה נושה באחיו מנה ומת והניח שומרת יבם – For the ברייתא states in the end of פרק האשה שנפלו in a case where one brother (ראובן) was owed money by his own brother (שמעון) and ראובן the מלוה died without children and he left over his wife waiting for her brother-in-law, שמעון the לוה, to be מייבם her –

לא יאמר הואיל ואני יורש החזקתי – שמעון should not reason since I am the heir of ראובן, I have taken possession of this debt. In addition to being a brother of ראובן which entitles שמעון to the ירושה; when שמעון is מייבם the wife of ראובן all of sראובן׳ assets belong to שמעון; including the debt that שמעון owes ראובן. Now שמעון is the owner of this debt. He may argue that this debt is now owed to me. שמעון cannot say that and wipe out the debt (from himself to himself). אלא מוצאין מידו ולוקח בהן קרקעות והוא אוכל פירות ומוקמי לה כרבי נתן – But rather we take the monies owed away from שמעון and we buy fields with this money, which now belong to the wife of the deceased and שמעון the new husband consumes the produce of these fields. The fields themselves, however, belong to the woman. The גמרא there explains that we establish that this ברייתא followsthe view of ר״נ –

דהא הוי כמו נושה בחבירו מנה וחבירו בחבירו דכל אשר לבעלה משועבד לה לכתובה – For the case in this ברייתא is similar the case of שעבודא דר״נ, where a person has a claim of a מנה against his friend and that friend has a claim against another friend. The גמרא explains how the two cases are similar; for everything that her deceased husband owned is indentured to the wife as payment for her כתובה. Therefore it is as follows: ראובן (the deceased מלוה) owes his wife all his assets (including the loan to שמעון). שמעון owes ראובן the debt. שמעון therefore owes the debt to sראובן׳ wife on account of שעבודא דר״נ. Therefore he must give her the monies to buy a field and he eats the פירות; as the דין requires with any monies that a woman brings into a marriage. This concludes the explanation of the גמרא. Now תוספות commences with his proof –

ואי יכול למחול אמאי ילקח בהן קרקע ימחול לעצמו שהוא יורש ויכול למחול – And if the דין is that by שעבודא דר״נ, the second מלוה can be מוחל the חוב why should fields be bought with this money and given to the woman, let שמעון be מוחל the loan to himself, for he is the heir of ראובן; he is now the מלוה of himself; and as a מלוה he can be מוחל! Originally ראובן was the מלוה and שמעון the לוה. However by the process of יבום, now שמעון, who inherited all the assets of ראובן, is the מלוה of שמעון. He should be capable of nullifying the חוב (as the second מלוה). The fact the גמרא states that he cannot be מוחל this חוב and must pay the first מלוה, proves that the second מלוה cannot be מוחל the חוב to the second לוה, and deprive the first מלוה from collecting the חוב from the second לוה. Therefore there is no question that the מלוה has a מגו of מחילה, since by שעבודא דר״נ there can be no מחילה by the second מלוה.

תוספות rejects this proof as well: ויש לדחות דשאני התם דאין יורש אלא מכחה ואינו יכול להפקיע כחה – And it is possible to reject this proof.¹⁸ For by יבמה it is different than a regular case of שעבודא דר״נ, since שמעון does not inherit the assets of ראובן on his own merit, but rather he inherits ראובן on account of the woman.¹⁹ Therefore he cannot dislodge her interest. He cannot deprive her of her due, on account of his ירושה, since his whole ירושה is due to her.²⁰ However in a regular case of שעבודא דר״נ where the second מלוה is owed the money on his own accord (not because of the מלוה ראשון) he may have the right to deprive the מלוה ראשון from collecting, by being מוחל the לוה שני. This proof is rejected as well. The question would then remain if the מלוה שני can be מוחל the חוב, he should be believed to claim אמנה הוא with a מגו of מחילה.

[ויש²¹ מפרשים דדוקא במוכר שטר חוב יכול למחול שקדם חובו של מוכר – [And others explain and answer this question that only when selling a שט״ח can the מלוה be מוחל the חוב even though he harms the buyer because the debt to the seller (the מלוה) preceded the obligation of the לוה to the buyer. Originally the לוה owed the seller. Subsequently after the sale the לוה owes the buyer. Therefore since the original loan was against the מלוה and the buyer was not involved at all, that is why the מלוה can be מוחל. אבל הנושה בחבירו שקדם חובו לחוב של חבירו אינו יכול למחול – However, in the case of one who is claiming a debt from his friend; where his loan (from the first מלוה) preceded the loan of his friend (from the second מלוה); when the second מלוה lent money, he already owed money to the first מלוה; in this case the second מלוה cannot be מוחל. When the second מלוה lent the money, automatically the second לוה was already משועבד to the first מלוה. He never was a לוה only to the second מלוה; he was immediately a לוה to the first מלוה as well because of שעבודא דר״נ. Therefore the שעבוד of the first מלוה prevents the second מלוה from being able to be מוחל the חוב.²²

תוספות continues to explain the case of the שומרת יבם on this basis: ושומרת יבם נמי קדם שטר חובה לחוב בעלה] – And also by the case of the שומרת יבם, her note of indebtedness (in which her husband owes her money for her כתובה) preceded the debt that was owed to her deceased husband by his brother. There is a similar situation; where the party who wishes to be מוחל the חוב was already indebted to another prior to his lending the money to his לוה. The husband lent him the money after he married this woman. Therefore the surviving brother cannot be מוחל the חוב which he inherited from his deceased brother, since the deceased brother was already indebted to his wife prior to this loan. The surviving brother initially owed the wife the money. There can be no מחילה if the present לוה initially owed the present מלוה.²³]

תוספות has a final מגו question: ואם תאמר אכתי נהימניה במגו דאי בעי קלתיה כדאמרינן בסוף זה בורר²⁴ (סנהדרין לף לא,ב) – And if you will say; that we should still believe the מלוה that it is a שטר אמנה with a מגו for he could have burnt this שטר which he presently claims is a שטר אמנה, as the גמרא states in the end of פרק זה בורר. If this (second) מלוה would have burnt this שטר (which he presently claims is a שטר אמנה), then the first מלוה would not be able to collect from the second לוה, since the first מלוה has no proof that the second לוה owes anything to the second מלוה. Therefore the second מלוה should be believed that שטר אמנה הוא and deprive the first מלוה from collecting from the second לוה with the מגו of אי בעי קלתיה!

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהכא אתחזק בבי דינא – And one can say; that here we are discussing a situation where the שטר was already established in בי״ד. It was already known by בי״ד (before he claimed שטר אמנה הוא) that this מלוה has a שטר –

דאמרינן התם כיון דאתחזק בבי דינא אי בעי קלתיה לא אמרינן²⁵ – For the גמרא states there**, that** since the שטר was already established in בי״ד we do not **honor the argument that [**s]he could have burnt it.

תוספות offers an additional answer to this last מגו question: אי נמי הכא מיירי כשהשטר הוא ביד שליש: Or you may also argue, that here the גמרא is discussing a situation where the שטר was in the possession of a third party. The מלוה no longer had the option of burning it.

SUMMARY תוספות asked that the מלוה should be believed that it is a שטר אמנה since he has a מגו of מחילה. תוספות answered that the מגו of מחילה is inadequate (since the מלוה is contradicting the שטר) for since he does not want to lose the חוב, he will not be מוחל. An additional answer is that מחילה by חב לאחרים is valid only when the חב owns the חוב מדרבנן (as in המוכר שט״ח לחבירו), but not when the חב is owed the חוב מדאורייתא (as in שעבודא דר״נ). [The י״מ answer that מחילה by חב לאחרים is valid only when the חב was not initially owed the money (as in המוכר שט״ח); however when the חב was initially owed the money (as by the יבמה and [conditionally] by שעובדא דר״נ) then the חוב cannot be נמחל.] There is no מגו of אי בעי קלתיה either because the שט״ח was איתחזק בבי״ד or it was ביד שליש.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks that he should be believed that it is a שטר אמנה with a מגו of מחילה.²⁶ Seemingly this is a מגו במקום עדים. The עדים החתומים על השטר testify that it is not a שטר אמנה (and therefore if כת״י יוצא ממקום אחר the עדי השטר are not believed to say אמנה.).²⁷
2. תוספות asks that he should be believed that it is a שטר אמנה with a מגו of מחילה.²⁸ Seemingly, we cannot believe him that it is a שטר אמנה since he is משים עצמו רשע by keeping a שטר אמנה in his possession?²⁹
3. What is the difference if the מלוה is מוחל the חוב outright, or if he says it was a שטר אמנה?³⁰ A שטר אמנה means he never lent any money to the לוה and therefore it is tantamount to an admission that the לוה owes him nothing! What would be if the מלוה claimed that the debt was paid?³¹
4. Can the second מלוה be מוחל the חוב to the second לוה in a situation of שעבודא דר״נ?

footnotes: ¹ The price paid for such a שט״ח is usually discounted from the face value (the amount of the loan) of the שט״ח. The buyer has to wait for his money and is taking a risk, for the לוה may not pay him. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ There is a discussion in תוספות ב״ב קמז,ב ד״ה המוכר as to the liability (if any) of the מוכר to the לוקח. ⁵ One may even argue that it is a ק״ו. If a מלוה who sold his שטר and (seemingly) gave up his rights to collect from the לוה, may, nevertheless, be מוחל the חוב and harm the innocent buyer who explicitly bought this שטר to collect the חוב; then certainly a bona fide מלוה can be מוחל a חוב to his own לוה, even though he may be indirectly causing a loss to his own מלוה, by denying the first מלוה the opportunity to collect his חוב from his לוה (on whom he (the first מלוה) did not necessarily depend on originally when he made the loan to the first לוה). ⁶ The term מגו here may be interpreted slightly different than usual. תוספות is saying that there is no concern of חב לאחרים, for the מלוה could just as easily be מוחל the חוב and cause the חב לאחרים regardless. Therefore since there is no חב לאחרים we should accept the הודאה of the מלוה that it is a שטר אמנה (see סוכ״ד אות לז). ⁷ The מלוה is claiming שטר אמנה to prevent the third party from collecting from the לוה. He is hoping that the לוה will eventually pay him instead of paying the third party. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. [However the מלוה is not concerned that (since the לוה is not a גזלן) he will pay the first מלוה (as is required by שעבודא דר״נ), because [perhaps] paying one מלוה instead on another is not considered גזילה (and the second מלוה will ‘sweeten the deal’, somehow, so the לוה will pay him).] ⁸ In our גמרא it is on יט,ב and כ,א. ⁹ font size="20" There is reason not to return the שובר to the husband even if the woman admits to writing it and being paid. It is possible that this woman sold her כתובה rights to someone; that when she will be divorced (or widowed) the buyer will have the rights to collect her כתובה from her husband’s estate. The woman may have written this (false) receipt prior to the date of sale of her כתובה, but actually gave it to her husband after the sale took place (rendering the receipt invalid, for the כתובה now belongs to the buyer). When the buyer will come to collect the כתובה, the husband will present the receipt which predates the sale date and claim that he already paid his wife the כתובה before she sold it. On account of this concern we should not return the שובר to the husband, for it is possible that the husband and wife are in collusion to deprive the buyer of his rights. The fact that the שובר was lost and not held in safekeeping gives credence that something is amiss. The fact that we do return the שובר indicates that there is no such concern. The reason that there is no such concern is that there is a ruling of שמואל that המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וחזרו ומחלו מחול. Therefore the woman has the option of being מוחל her husband from paying her the כתובה, even after she sold it to the buyer; in which case the buyer would anyway not be able to collect. [The כתובה is the equivalent of a שט״ח that the husband owes monies to his wife. Let us assume the כתובה payment is two hundred זוז. The woman sold this כתובה note to a לוקח (on ר״ח אייר) for fifty זוז (the note is discounted since it is possible that the husband will never divorce his wife and she will predecease him, and the buyer will receive nothing). She wrote a receipt on ר״ח ניסן that she received her payments. However, she actually received her payments in סיון (or did not receive any payment at all). The לוקח is due the two hundred זוז, but she would rather keep the full two hundred זוז for herself; even if she will have to return the fifty זוז to the buyer (because according to the שובר it was a bogus sale; she already ostensibly received her כתובה on ר״ח ניסן), she will still realize a profit of one hundred-fifty זוז.] The woman is therefore believed to claim that the שובר belongs to her husband, because (even if she intends to cause the buyer a loss) she has a מגו that she could have been מוחל the כתובה and the buyer would suffer the same loss. This concludes the explanation of the גמרא in ב״מ. /font ¹⁰ font size="20" The previous argument against the מגו of מחילה does not completely destroy the מגו; but rather it renders it flawed and weak. There is a possibility that he risks losing his debt by claiming אמנה just as by being מוחל. The two claims may be equally detrimental. There is a difference between the claim in our גמרא that it is a שטר אמנה and the claim in ב״מ that she wrote the שובר. In ב״מ we found a שובר which states that the woman received payment. The woman is substantiating that which is stated in the שובר. Therefore, even though there is a possibility that there is collusion between the husband and wife, nevertheless the (meager) מגו of מחילה is sufficient to believe the woman that the שובר is correct. In our case however, the מלוה is claiming that it is a שטר אמנה; he is not substantiating the שטר but rather he is contradicting the שטר. In order for him to be believed to contradict a שטר, a proper מגו is required. The מגו of מחילה is insufficient because it has a flaw. He may not want to be מוחל and thereby lose his חוב. /font ¹¹ See תוספות דף פה,ב ד״ה המוכר who explains that by selling a שט״ח nothing of substance is being sold (except where the לוה owns קרקע), therefore it is a מכירה only מדרבנן. ¹² It seems that מן התורה the לוה still owes the money to the מלוה. It is only that the רבנן gave the buyer a right to collect the money (in return for his payment); not that the לוה actually owes it to the buyer. Therefore if the מלוה is מוחל the loan there is nothing for the buyer to collect. ועי׳ באחרונים. ¹³ font size="20" תוספות answer is that one can be מוחל a חוב if it harms others, only in a case where the others (who are being harmed) are not owed this חוב מן התורה only מדרבנן. In the case of המוכר שט״ח לחבירו וכו׳, the purchaser of the שט״ח is not owed money by the לוה מן התורה only מדרבנן. [מן התורה the לוה still owes the money to the original מלוה, not to the buyer.] Therefore the original מלוה has a right to be מוחל the חוב. If however, by being מוחל a חוב, harm is done to one whom monies are owed to מן התורה, the מחילה is not effective. In the case of the three people where the first לוה owes the first מלוה and the second לוה owes the first לוה (the second מלוה), then מן התורה the second לוה owes the first מלוה. Therefore the first לוה cannot be מוחל the second לוה and prevent the first מלוה from collecting from the second לוה. There is no question therefore why is not the (second) מלוה believed that שטר אמנה הוא with a מגו of מחילה, because indeed the second מלוה cannot be מוחל his חוב. The first מלוה can always collect from the second לוה. The answer is that one cannot be מוחל a חוב that is owed מן התורה (both to the person who is being מוחל and) to the person who is being harmed./font ¹⁴ The rule is that a שכיב מרע, one who is sick and lying on his deathbed, may bequeath his assets to whomever he chooses, even by word of mouth only, without the usually required קנינים. ¹⁵ The גמרא there subsequently rejects this reasoning and says that a מתנת שכ״מ is only קונה מדרבנן; however the חכמים gave it the same power as if it was a דאורייתא. ¹⁶ He is not necessarily an heir; however תוספות refers to him as an heir with equal power as the natural heir, since מתנת שכ״מ is מה״ת. ¹⁷ When the גמרא explained that a מתנת שכ״מ cannot be נמחל since it is מה״ת, it did not mean that when the חב is owed money מה״ת there can be no מחילה. Rather the גמרא meant that since מתנת שכ״מ is מה״ת then the heir who is יורש מה״ת is no stronger than the recipient who acquires his gift also מה״ת. ¹⁸ Generally in a case of שעובדא דר״נ the second מלוה can be מוחל the second לוה, even though he is depriving the first מלוה from collecting his debt from the second לוה. ¹⁹ If שמעון would not marry the wife he would not necessarily inherit the assets of ראובן. Therefore since sשמעון׳ claim to sראובן׳ assets is based only on account of the woman that he is being מייבם ²⁰ See ח״ב אות רסג. ²¹ See תומים ספ״ו סק״י that the bracketed statement is from תוספות ישנים. ²² This should not be interpreted to mean that the י״מ are of the opinion that שעבודא דר״נ is only in a case where the second לוה borrowed from the first לוה after the first לוה had already borrowed from the first מלוה. The דין of שעבודא דר״נ applies even if the first לוה borrowed after the second לוה borrowed from him. The י״מ are merely arguing that there can be no מחילה if the מוחל lent his money after he already borrowed. See (however) יעב״ץ. ²³ According to the י״מ, the case of שטר אמנה, where the מלוה is not believed, is limited to a situation where the purported שטר אמנה ‘loan’ took place after the loan to the חב. Otherwise the שטר אמנה טענה would be accepted. Similarly in the case of יבמה, the loan to the brother took place after the marriage. Otherwise the surviving brother could be מוחל the חוב. ²⁴ The case there (on ל,א) involved a מלוה and לוה who deposited a שט״ח by a woman. The woman presented the שטר when they came to בי״ד, and claimed, however that the לוה had already paid up. According to one version, she was believed for she has a מגו; she could have burnt the שטר and the מלוה would not be able to collect. ²⁵ This follows the second version that she was not believed, since בי״ד was previously aware of the שטר. ²⁶ See footnote # 2. ²⁷ See סוכ״ד אות לז. ²⁸ See footnote # 3. ²⁹ See פנ״י. ³⁰ See footnote # 7. ³¹ . See משכנות הרועים אות רס״ה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מנין לנושה בחבירו כולי — How do we know that someone who has a claim against his friend, etc.

OVERVIEW ר״י אמר רב stated that if someone claims that it is a שטר אמנה he is not believed. אביי interpreted that ר״י אמר רב was referring to case where the מלוה said it was a שטר אמנה. The reason the מלוה is not believed is that he is a חב לאחרים in a situation of a שעבודא דר״נ. -------------–

משמע דהלכה כרבי נתן – It seems that the הלכה is like ר״נ. The first מלוה collects from the last לוה. תוספות derives this from the fact that אביי explains the ruling of ר״י אמר רב to be valid in a case of חב לאחרים. The justification of the rule is based on שעבודא דר״נ. This proves that אביי maintained that the הלכה is כר״נ, and furthermore, that אביי maintained that ר״י אמר רב maintain that the הלכה is כר״נ. ובגיטין¹ (דף לז,א) פירשנוה – And we explained this in מסכת גיטין; whether the הלכה is כר״נ or not.

SUMMARY The הלכה is like ר״נ.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות says that from our גמרא it is (only) משמע [it seems] that the הלכה is כר״נ. Why did not תוספות say that it is מוכח [it is evident] that the הלכה is כר״נ?

footnotes: ¹ See there תוספות ד״ה מדרבי. Actually תוספות discusses this at greater length in קידושין טו,א תוד״ה ואידך.