Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

על כתב ידן הן מעידין — They testify concerning their signature

OVERVIEW The משנה cites a dispute between רבי ורבנן concerning קיום השטר through the עדי חתימה themselves. רבי maintains that each חתימה requires two עדים for קיום; while the חכמים maintain that each עד החתום can be מקיים his own חתימה himself. The גמרא explains their מחלוקת as follows. רבי maintains that the עדי קיום merely say that this is their signature (they are not testifying concerning the content of the שטר). Therefore two עדים are required for each חתימה (it can be the two עדי חתימה themselves). This is similar to a case where other עדים are מקיים the חתימות; two עדים (they may be the same two עדים) are required to be מקיים each חתימה. The חכמים, however, maintain that the עדי חתימה, who are being מקיים the שטר are (really) confirming what is written in the שטר.¹ When two עדים testify that the content of the שטר is true, that is a valid קיום. It is not clear, however, why רבי ורבנן assume their respective positions. Is it because they judged and found the intent of the עדים to be so; or is it something more basic in the application of the קיום through עדי חתימה? Our תוספות prefers the latter view. ----------------–

נראה דלרבי אפילו אומרים בפירוש דמעידין על מנה שבשטר – It seems to תוספות that according to רבי who maintains that על כתב ידן הן מעידין, then even if the עדים explicitly state that they are testifying (not [merely²] on כתב ידן, but rather [also]) on the loan of the מנה which is written in the שטר**, nevertheless -** חשיב כאילו מעידין על כתב ידן – It is considered as if they are testifying (only) about their signatures**(and two עדים are required for each חתימה)**.³ וכן לרבנן אפילו אומרים בהדיא דעל כתב ידן הן מעידין⁴ – And similarly, according to the רבנן who maintain that על מנה שבשטר הן מעידין, even if the עדים openly declare that they are merely testifying about their signatures, nevertheless it is considered that they are testifying על מנה שבשטר (and each עד can be מקיים his own חתימה⁵).⁶

תוספות proves his assertion that stating a change of intent is irrelevant: דאמרינן בסמוך ואי ליכא תרי אלא חד היכי נעביד – For the גמרא shortly discusses: ‘what should be done if there are no two outside עדים who recognize the signature of one of the signers; rather there is only one עד who recognizes his signature’.⁷ The fact that this is problematic –

משמע דלא יועיל לרבנן אם יעידו בהדיא על כתב ידן – indicates that even if the עדים will explicitly testify concerning their signatures only, it will be of no avail to change the thrust of their testimony from מנה שבשטר to כתב ידן. Otherwise (the גמרא should have answered) let the surviving עד explicitly state that he is testifying only על כתב ידו; which will therefore require two עדים to authenticate each signature. The surviving עד together with an outsider will be able to authenticate both signatures. The fact that this solution is not offered proves that it makes no difference what the עדים state; their testimony is directed in the appropriate manner, regardless of their intent. תוספות proved his assertion according to the רבנן, and presumes that the same applies according to רבי.⁸

SUMMARY רבי ורבנן retain their respective position whether על מנה שבשטר or על כת״י, regardless of what the עדים proclaim.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות maintains that according to רבי even if they say על מנה שבשטר, nevertheless two עדים are required for each חתימה; because in order for it to be a מלוה בשטר the חתימות must be מקוים.⁹ Why then does תוספות conclude and say ׳חשיב כאילו מעידין על כת״י׳; this is seemingly irrelevant?! תוספות should have said מ״מ צריך שני עדים על כל חתימה or something similar!
2. לחידודא. When תוספות is discussing רבי, he writes ׳בפירוש׳; while by the רבנן he writes ׳להדיא׳?! תוספות concludes by רבי that חשיב וכו׳; however by the רבנן there is no (such) conclusion?
3. How does the proof for the רבנן, (certainly) apply for רבי?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ When they say כת״י הוא זה, it is implicit in their statement that everything written in the שטר is true. ² It seems that they are testifying כת״י הוא זה, and are adding that they remember the loan. ³ The explanation given is that even if they testify that the loan took place, nevertheless there is no קיום השטר if there are no two עדים that are מקיים each חתימה. At best it would only be a מלוה ע״פ. See פנ״י וכו׳. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ It would seem that they are saying we are testifying only to the veracity of our signatures. However it (seemingly) cannot mean that they are saying that they do not recall (at all) what the שטר states. See previous תוספות כ,א (בסופו) ד״ה ור״י. ⁵ See footnote # 3. Nevertheless, the נתיה״מ explains that (according to the רבנן) this is מקולי קיום. Once we know that the loan took place (and each עד verifies his signature) it is considered a שטר מקוים. ⁶ The dispute between רבי ורבנן, whether על מנה שבשטר הן מעידין or על כתב ידן הן מעידין, is not dependent on the intention of the עדים; but rather it is intrinsically bound with the basic nature of קיום ע״י עדי חתימה; it is either a קיום of the signatures (רבי), or a קיום of the loan (רבנן). ⁷ The גמרא asks (according to the opinion that עמשבשה״ם) what is to be done in a case where one of the עדי חתימה died before he authenticated his signature. In this situation two עדים are required to be מקיים his חתימה. However if there is only one (outside) עד to be מקיים the חתימה of the deceased עד, there is a difficulty, for we cannot have the surviving עד החתום join him in being מקיים the חתימת המת (as the גמרא explains). [This difficulty does not exist if we maintain עכתיה״ם (see רש״י ד״ה ונפקא).] The גמרא offers a solution to this problem. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See footnote # 8.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ודוקא אחספא — And only on a potsherd exclusively

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that if one desires to tender his signature to בי״ד for (future) verification purposes, he should sign only אחספא. Otherwise if he signs it on a parchment and an unscrupulous person will find it, he may write above the signature whatever he pleases causing (great) loss to the signer. However if he signs on a חספא there is no such concern. For by a חספא, since it can be forged, any claim on a חספא (even with a signature) will be disregarded. It would seem from this גמרא that a שטר cannot be written on a חספא. However תוספות will cite גמרות that permit שטרות to be written on a חספא. This תוספות will resolve this difficulty. There are two types of שטרות, namely שטרי קנין and שטרי ראיה. A שטר מלוה is a שטר ראיה; it proves that the לוה borrowed money from the מלוה. It does not create a loan; it (merely) proves that a loan took place. A גט is a שטר קנין. It creates the divorce. It severs the bond between husband and wife; and makes the wife a divorcee. -----------–

תוספות offers another option for presenting בי״ד with a signature: והוא הדין ארישא דמגלתא כדאמר בגט פשוט (בבא בתרא דף קס,ב¹ ושם) – And similarly one may write his signature on the heading of a scroll; at the very top of the parchment as the גמרא states in פרק גט פשוט, דליכא למיחש למידי – For there is nothing at all to be concerned about, if he signs (either אחספא or) ארישא דמגילתא. A חספא is פסול for a שטר, since any forgery on a חספא is not apparent. Even if something were written above his signature, no one would be able to claim anything if it is written on a חספא. If he signs ארישא דמגילתא no one can write anything above his signature, to cause any loss.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the above mentioned presumption that a שטר which is written אחספא is not valid: והא דתניא בפרק קמא דקדושין (דף ט,א ושם) – And that which we learnt in a ברייתא in the first פרק of מסכת קדושין; if a person –

כתב על הנייר או על החרס בתך מקודשת לי כולי – wrote on a paper or on pottery ‘your daughter is betrothed to me, etc.’; and presented it to the father of this girl, the rule is that the daughter is betrothed to him (if she is not a בוגרת) - וכן גבי שדה (שם כו,א) כתב על הנייר או על החרס כולי הרי זה מכורה – And similarly concerning a field, if a person wrote on a paper or on pottery, etc. that my field is sold to you; the ruling is that the field is sold. It is evident from those גמרות that a שטר is valid (even) if it is written on a חרס (which is the equivalent of a חספא). This seems to contradict our גמרא that anything written on a חספא has no validity since it can be forged, without being noticed.

תוספות responds

נראה דאתיא כרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי – It seems that those ברייתות follow the ruling of ר״א who maintains that the witnesses who observe the transference ofthe שטר (from one party to the other), make the שטר effective.² It is only according to ר״א who maintains עדי מסירה כרתי that these שטרות which are written on something that can be forged (such as a נייר or a חרס) are effective³ (when the עדי מסירה testify that they were properly transferred). This would (seemingly) resolve the contradiction.⁴ [If there are עדי מסירה (and if we maintain that עדי מסירה כרתי) then there is no concern of forgery; for the עדי מסירה will testify to the veracity of the שטר.⁵]

תוספות will prove his contention that the aforementioned ברייתות follow the view of ר״א –

דלרבי מאיר כיון דעדי חתימה כרתי לא מהני על דבר שיכול לזייף – For according to ר״מ who maintains that the witnesses who sign on the שטר make it effective, a שטר which is written on something that can be forged is not a valid שטר. According to ר״מ who maintains עדי חתימה כרתי, a גט (or any שטר) which was written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף is invalid [even at the point of the transaction⁶ (and even if the עדים certify that nothing was changed on the גט)]. For a שטר to be effective, it is necessary (according to⁷תוספות) that the veracity of the שטר be ascertained (only) through the signatures (עדי חתימה כרתי); however since it is יכול להזדייף, nothing can be ascertained by the signatures (only though oral testimony). It is possible that the שטר was altered. The signatures cannot tell us if there was a forgery or not. Therefore, according to ר״מ, it cannot be a valid שטר. This applies by all other שטרות as well; since עדי חתימה כרתי, they are not valid on a דבר שיכול להזדייף. Therefore those ברייתות cannot follow the view of ר״מ and must follow the view of ר״א.

תוספות proves this point that a שטר בדבר שיכול להזדייף is כשר only לר״א and not לר״מ: כדאמר בפרק ב׳ דגיטין (דף כא,ב ושם) אין כותבין לא על הנייר כולי וחכמים מכשירין – As the משנה states in the second פרק of מסכת גיטין: ‘a גט is not written, neither on erased paper, etc., because it can be forged; however the חכמים permit it’ –

ומפרש בגמרא⁸ מאן חכמים רבי אלעזר – And the גמרא explains; who are these חכמים,who permit writing a גט on a שטר that can be forged? It is ר״א who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי. According to ר״א who maintains that עדי מסירה כרתי the effectiveness of a שטר depends on the עדי מסירה; not on the עדי חתימה. The גט becomes effective at the moment of מסירה (where there is no concern of זיוף). [Therefore if the עדי מסירה (or even the עדי חתימה) testify that this is the original גט (it was not tampered with), it is effective and the woman has the status of a divorcee.] The same would (seemingly) apply to other שטרות. Those ברייתות by קדושין and מכר follow the view of ר״א.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this last assumption that according to ר״א it is permissible to write a שטר on a דבר שיכול להזדייף on שטרות other than a גט: ואף על גב דאמר התם⁹ לא הכשיר רבי אלעזר אלא בגיטין אבל בשאר שטרות לא – And even though the גמרא states there that ר״א did not permit to write on a דבר שיכול להזדייף except by גיטין; however by other שטרות he did not permit to write them on a דבר שיכול להזדייף. The difficulty is; how is it כשר to write a שטר קדושין or a שטר מכירה on a דבר שיכול להזדייף; they are not גיטין?!

תוספות responds: הכי פירושא אלא בגיטין ודכוותייהו דהיינו שטרות שאין עומדין לראיה – This is the explanation of the phrase ‘only by גיטין’; that means by גיטין and their counterparts, which means שטרות that are not intended for proof –

כגון אותו שאינו עשוי אלא לקנות בו אשה ושדה – for instance those שטרות that are not written in order to retain proof of a transaction; but rather that are used to acquire a woman or a field. The שטר effects the transaction at the moment of transference –

כעין גיטין שעשוין לפי שעה לגרש בו – Similar to גיטין which are used for the moment as an instrument of divorce; similarly the שטרי קדושין ומכירה which the ברייתות are discussing are שטרי קנין and not שטרי ראיה. When the גמרא said לא הכשיר ר״א אלא בגיטין, the גמרא meant the types of שטרות which are similar to גיטין. A גט is a שטר קנין; it actualizes the divorce. Similarly a שטר קדושין actualizes the betrothal, and the שטר מכירה actualizes the sale of the property. In all these cases ר״א permits writing them on a כתב שיכול להזדייף. The purpose of all these שטרי קנין is to actualize the transaction presently (in the presence of עדי מסירה). There can be no concern of forgery, for both parties (and the עדי מסירה) are present.¹⁰

תוספות anticipates a difficulty אף על פי שיכול השטר של קנין להועיל לראיה – Even though the שטר קנין can be utilized as a proof of the transaction; the person who bought the field can use the שטר קנין of מכירה as a proof of purchase. Similarly the woman can use the שטר קדושין as proof of marriage. How can תוספות say previously that the שטר קדושין ושטר מכר are (merely) שטרי קנין, when they can be used as a שטר ראיה.

תוספות responds: גם הגט יכול להועיל כדאמר בהכותב (לקמן דף פט,ב) ובפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יח,א ושם) – The גט can also be utilized as a שטר ראיה that she is divorced; as the גמרא states in פרק הכותב and in the first פרק of מסכת ב״מ –

וכי תימא נקרעיה בעינא לאינסובי ביה – And if you will say that we should rip up the גט after it has been given to the woman and the כתובה was collected¹¹; this is not proper because the woman can argue that ‘I need it to remarry’; it serves her as a proof of her divorcee status. We see that a גט can also be used as a שטר ראיה, and nevertheless the גמרא clearly states that by a גט it is permitted to write it on a דבר שיכול להזדייף. The same applies to the שטרי קדושין ושטרי מכר; for even though they can be used as a שטר ראיה –

אלא שעיקרן לא לכך נעשו – However, that which distinguishes גיטין (and שטר קדושין ומכר), is that initially they were not written for the purpose of ראיה but rather to perform the קנין. Therefore they can be written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף. They may be used (also) as a שטר ראיה only if the עדי מסירה (or עדי חתימה) will testify to the authenticity of the שטר. תוספות explains what the גמרא excludes when is refers to שאר שטרות: ולא ממעט אלא שטרות שעיקרן לראיה ועשוין לעמוד ימים רבים – And the גמרא does notwish to exclude all שטרות besides גיטין; but rather only those שטרות that are initially written for proof and are made to last many days.Those שטרות cannot be made on a דבר שיכול להזדייף for it defeats its purpose - כדמייתי התם קרא (ירמיהו לב, יד) ונתתם בכלי חרש וגומר: as the גמרא there cites the פסוק (as a proof that by שאר שטרות it cannot be on a דבר שיכול להזדייף): ‘and you shall placethe שטר in an earthenware utensil, etc. in order that it should last for many days’. The idea of keeping it for many days is inherently applicable to a שטר ראיה only.¹²

SUMMARY Signatures may be submitted אחספא and on רישא דמגילתא. According to ר״א, שטרי קנין may be written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף, but not שטרי ראיה.¹³ According to ר״מ, neither may be written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף.¹⁴

THINKING IT OVER

1. What would be the דין (according to ר״א or ר״מ) if a שטר ראיה (for a מלוה or a מכירה) is written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף and the עדי חתימה (or עדי מסירה) testify that it is not מזוייף; would it be a valid שטר or not?
2. Is there any connection between the beginning of תוספות (that a חתימה can be tendered ארישא דמגילתא) and the rest of תוספות?
3. What would be the דין if a purported buyer of a property presented a document written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף, signed by the seller (the signature was authenticated) that the field was sold to the buyer; and the seller claims I never sold it to you, nor did I ever give you such a document?¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ This appears to be incorrect; it should read קסז,א. ² The word כרתי actually means to cut off. This refers to a גט which cuts the bonds between husband and wife. This term is used because the מחלוקת between ר״א ור״מ was originally stated concerning גיטין. However it affects all שטרות. ³ It would seem that (even) according to ר״א one may tender his signature on a חספא. There are no עדים at all, only his signature. Anyone who will write anything above the signature will not have any עדים to verify that it is not forged (מהר״ם שי״ף). However, see תוספות in קדושין (ט,א ד,ה כתב) where תוספות (seemingly) states that this גמרא of ודוקא אחספא is (only) according to ר״מ. See מהרש״א (הארוך) and משכנות הרועים אות תפ. ⁴ A שטר קנין on a דבר שיכול להזדייף is כשר according to ר״א who maintains עדי מסירה כרתי. ⁵ Presently the bracketed sentence is not necessary. There can be no concern of forgery at the moment of קדושין or at the point of sale. All parties are present. See later in this תוספות. ⁶ See footnote # 5. ⁷ See תוספות there in גיטין כב,א ד״ה מאן. ⁸ דף כב,א. ⁹ גיטין כב,ב. ¹⁰ According to ר״מ, however, a שטר קנין is פסול בדבר שיכול להזדייף; even though, there is no concern of זיוף. It is פסול since עדי חתימה כרתי and it is not מוכח מתוך עדי חתימה that it was not tampered with. ¹¹ The גמרא there is discussing a place where they do not write כתובות. The women collect their כתבות on the basis of the גט. The issue at hand is what should be done with the גט, once the כתובה was collected, in order to prevent the woman from collecting again. ¹² Those cannot be written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף even if we maintain that עדי מסירה כרתי; for since they are held for ימים רבים the original עדי מסירה may no longer be available, and we may rely on the חתימת העדים, which cannot vouch for the authenticity of the שטר since it is יכול להזדייף. ¹³ The שטרי קנין are effective to actualize the קנין; for it is a valid שטר since עדי מסירה כרתי. These שטרי קנין can also be used in the future as a ראיה provided that the עדי מסירה or the עדי חתימה testify (orally) to the authenticity of the שטר. However שטרי ראיה which are initially made to last a long time (beyond the scope of oral testimony), cannot be written on a דבר שיכול להזדייף. ¹⁴ According to ר״מ a שטר must be מוכח מתוכו that it is כשר. There is no evidence in the שטר that can guarantee its authenticity. Therefore it does not have the power of a שטר. ¹⁵ See footnote # 3.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו גובה מנכסים בני חורין — He presented to him in his own handwriting that he owes him; he can collect from the unencumbered properties

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה that if the מלוה presents the handwriting of the לוה on a document that the לוה owes monies to the מלוה; the מלוה may collect that sum from the נכסים בני חורין of the לוה. The issue in this תוספות is; what is the לוה claiming? Is he claiming I never borrowed the money; or is he claiming I paid the loan already? Perhaps there is no difference. תוספות states that this is a מחלוקת between the רי״ף and the ר״י. -------------–

פסק רב אלפס¹ דווקא כשאומר לא היו דברים מעולם – The רי״ף² ruled that this ruling applies exclusively only if the לוה claims this never happened;I never borrowed money from you. In such a case the לוה is not believed, since the מלוה has a signed document from the לוה stating that the לוה borrowed money from the מלוה – אבל נאמן הוא לומר פרעתי ולא מצי אמר ליה שטרך בידי מאי בעי – However the לוה is believed to claim that I paid this loan; and the מלוה cannot counterclaim; what is your שטר doing in my hand if you already repaid the loan. Seemingly the לוה should not be believed to claim פרעתי, for the מלוה is holding the שטר. If the לוה indeed repaid the loan he would have demanded the שטר back in return. Nevertheless the רי״ף maintains that this claim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי is not effective in the case of a כתב יד of the לוה, but rather this claim is effective - אלא בשטר שיש בו עדים דגובה בו מנכסים משועבדים – Only by a שטר which עדים signed on; for with such a שטר the מלוה can collect (even) from encumbered properties (properties which the לוה sold after the loan).³ תוספות cites a differing opinion ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק כי מנין לו זה החילוק – And the ר״י does not agree with the רי״ף; for, claims the ר״י, from where does the רי״ף derive this difference between כת״י and עדים. תוספות explains the ר״י – כי סבר⁴ דבכל שטר אינו רגיל לפרוע עד שיחזיר לו שטרו – Because the ר״י maintains that by every שטר (regardless if it is בעדים or בכת״י) it is not usual for the לוה to pay until the מלוה returns the שטר to the לוה. Therefore the claim of שטרך בידי מאי בעי is always valid even by כת״י. According to the ר״י, the לוה is not believed to claim פרעתי, even if the שטר is only בכת״י, without עדים.

SUMMARY In a case of הוציא עליו כת״י; the רי״ף maintains that the לוה is not believed to claim להד״ם, however he is believed to claim פרעתי. The ר״י argues and maintains that the לוה is not believed to claim either להד״ם or פרעתי.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the רי״ף the לוה is believed to claim פרעתי if הוציא עליו כת״י. Why then are we concerned not to tender the signature on a מגילתא? If an alleged false מלוה will present it, the alleged לוה can claim פרעתי, and will not suffer any loss, for he is believed⁵!
2. Similarly according to the רי״ף why is not the לוה believed with the טענה of להד״ם with a מגו of פרעתי?!
3. What would the רי״ף maintain if it was a שטר בעדים; however it stated clearly that the מלוה can only collect מנכסים בני חורין; not from נכסים משועבדים; will the לוה be נאמן to claim פרעתי?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ In the end of מס׳ ב״ב (in our רי״ף on פג,א). ² The ׳רי״ף׳, is the common abbreviation for ר׳ יצחק אלפסי; or רב אלפס. The רי״ף lived in the city of פאס (today the city of Fez in Morocco). Hence the abbreviation רי״ף – רבי יצחק (אל)פאסי; the 'אל׳ being an Arabic prefix. ³ The commentaries offer various explanations as to the difference between כת״י and עדים. 1. By כת״י he is not that concerned if the מלוה retains the שטר; because even if the מלוה claims a second time the לוה can sell all his properties, and the מלוה will not be able to collect. 2. By a שטר בעדים, the לוה is (mainly) concerned that the מלוה should not retain it, for it will hamper the לוה in selling property, since all his properties are subjected to the lien of the שטר; there is no such concern by כת״י. 3. By כת״י it is more likely that the לוה forgot that the מלוה is in possession of a שטר; as opposed to עדים where he is more likely to remember. 4. Since כת״י is not a ‘real’ שטר the לוה is not so concerned if it remains by the מלוה. [In addition since the מלוה can collect from משועבדים, the לוה is concerned that the מלוה will collect from the לקוחות without the לוה being present to protect them. Subsequently the לקוחות will return to the לוה and demand payment for the נכסים which were taken from them. Therefore, he makes every effort to retain the שטר, when he repays the loan. However by כת״י he is not so concerned that the מלוה will have the audacity to claim the loan a second time from the לוה personally after he already paid him.] See ‘Thinking it over # 3. ⁴ In other editions this is amended to read סברא (instead of סבר). ⁵ See מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁶ See footnote # 3. See ש״ך חו״מ סי׳ סט ס״ק יד and נתיה״מ שם ס״ק ו.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

עד ודיין מצטרפין — A witness and a judge can be combined

OVERVIEW רב יהודה stated in the name of שמואל that the testimony of an עד and a דיין can be combined. This is understood to mean¹ that if the לוה challenges the הנפק and claims that it was forged (together with the חתימת העדים), then one of the עדי חתימה together with one of the דייני הקיום can testify to verify their respective signatures, and the שטר (with the הנפק) is affirmed. ---------------–

משמע דאפילו בשטר מקויים חיישינן שמא זייף לחתימת הדיינין – It appears from this statement of ר״י אמר שמואל, that even by an authenticated שטר, there is a concern; perhaps the signatures of the judges were forgedand the הנפק needs to be מקויים. For, if there is no concern of זיוף on the הנפק; why is there any need for the עד and the דיין to be מצטרף? What are they testifying; it is a שטר מקויים?! וכן משמע בירושלמי דגיטין² ובפרק בן סורר³ – And so it also seems in תלמוד ירושלמי in מסכת גיטין and in פרק בן סורר; that there is a concern of זיוף on the הנפק itself, and if the לוה challenges the הנפק it needs to be מקויים.

תוספות anticipates a question: והא דתניא בתוספתא דשביעית⁴ פרוזבול⁵ המקושר – And that which we learnt in a ברייתא in the תוספתא of שביעית concerning a ‘tied פרוזבול’⁶ –

רבי יהודה אומר עדים חותמין מבחוץ והדיינים מבפנים –

ר״י claims that the עדים sign on the outside (back) of the פרוזבול and the דיינים sign on the inside; where the פרוזבול is written –

אמרו לו אין מעשה בית דין צריך קיום – The חכמים said to ר״י that an act of בי״ד does not require קיום. A פרוזבול, signed by דיינים, is an act of בי״ד; therefore once the דיינים sign on the inside there is no need for the עדים to sign on the outside of the פרוזבול. It would follow that since a הנפק is also a מעשה בי״ד it does not require any further קיום. This contradicts our assumption that the הנפק may be challenged and it requires the דיינים to be מקיים the הנפק.

תוספות responds; this rule that a מעשה בי״ד does not require קיום –

היינו דווקא בפרוזבול משום דנאמן אדם לומר פרוזבול היה לי ואבד – applies only to a פרוזבול, since a person is believed to claim ‘I had a פרוזבול and it was lost’.⁷ Therefore the לוה cannot challenge the מלוה and refuse to pay the loan if a פרוזבול is not presented; for the מלוה can always claim I wrote a פרוזבול and it was lost. It is only by this type of a מעשה בי״ד, in which the לוה cannot challenge the underlying שטר (the פרוזבול), that we maintain אין מעשה בי״ד צריך קיום. However by a loan where the לוה can claim that the underlying שטר is מזוייף, he can also claim that the הנפק is מזוייף.

תוספות anticipates an additional question and resolves it: ואפילו למאן דאמר אינו נאמן מודה הוא דלא בעי קיום: And even according to the one who maintains thatthe מלוה is not believed to claim פרוזבול היה לי ואבד (it would seem therefore that the לוה can challenge the מלוה concerning the (lack of a) פרוזבול and nevertheless there is no requirement for קיום); nevertheless even this מ״ד admits that if the מלוה does produce a (regular) פרוזבול it does not require קיום; the לוה cannot challenge it and claim that it is מזוייף.⁸ Therefore, since the לוה cannot challenge the פרוזבול; the דיינים on a פרוזבול מקושר need no קיום from עדים. However a regular שטר where the עדים can be challenged, the הנפק can be challenged as well.

SUMMARY A הנפק requires קיום if it is challenged that it is מזוייף.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is there (even) a (slight) reluctance by תוספות to assume that a הנפק requires קיום if challenged? Why should the לוה not be believed to claim that the הנפק is מזוייף?!
2. According to תוספות (that there is no need for קיום by a פרוזבול since the לוה cannot challenge it) why do the חכמים say that there is no need for קיום since it is a מעשה בי״ד?! Seemingly that is not the reason; rather it is what תוספות says because נאמן המלוה וכו׳!

footnotes: ¹ See רש״י ד״ה עד (and the response of רבא). ² פ״ט ה״ז. ³ ספ״ג. ⁴ פ״ח ה״ט. ⁵ A פרוזבול is a document in which the מלוה transfers his outstanding loans to בי״ד, enabling the מלוה to collect them after שמיטה; which otherwise he would be forbidden to collect. ⁶ The פרוזבול המקושר is similar to a גט (שטר) מקושר. In a גט מקושר, a few lines of the גט are written; the written lines of the גט are folded over the following blank lines. This fold is sewn or tied together and the עדים sign on the backside of the fold. This process is repeated several times until the entire גט is written and folded (like an accordion). In a פרוזבול המקושר the דיינים sign on the blank lines under the written lines, it is then folded over, and according to ר״י the עדים sign on the back, to authenticate the signatures of the דיינים; the reverse of a usual קיום, where the דיינים authenticate the עדים. ⁷ גיטין לז,ב. The reason is because since the מלוה could have made a פרוזבול without any difficulty, we assume that he made it. There is a presumption לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא. A person will not forgo permitted food and eat forbidden food ⁸ The reason can be understood from the previous footnote # 7; לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא. [Nevertheless this מ״ד maintains that if the מלוה shows no פרוזבול at all, this erodes the חזקה of לא שביק וכו׳.] Alternately, a קיום is required for a טענת מזוייף; the לוה can claim that the שטר הלואה is מזוייף for it has to be written with his consent. However how can he claim that the פרוזבול is מזוייף; the פרוזבול can be written without the consent of the לוה (see אילת השחר).