Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 3] IM KEN, PELUGSA LED'MAR - if so, it (i.e. the way that you are explaining the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Beraisa (169b), that he maintains "*Ein* Osiyos Niknos b'Mesirah") is in dispute with the master (i.e. Rabah, who explained (169b) -- regarding the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Beraisa (beginning of 169a) -- that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that "Osiyos *Niknos* b'Mesirah") (Note: the Girsa of the RITVA for this line is "IM KEN, *PELIGAS AD'MAR*" - if so, you are disputing with the Master!)

2) [line 4] V'SIFLOG - and let it be in dispute! (Perhaps the dispute in the earlier Beraisa involves a different issue, and not the issue of "Osiyos Niknos b'Mesirah" (RITVA))

3) [line 10] EDEI MESIRAH KARSEI / EDEI CHASIMA KARSEI
(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar argue with regard to which witnesses make the Shtar take effect. Rebbi Elazar maintains that Edei *Mesirah* Karsei, the witnesses who watch the Shtar being given are the main part of the Shtar, i.e. the ones who make the Shtar take effect. Rebbi Meir maintains that Edei *Chasimah* Karsei, meaning that the witnesses who sign the Shtar are the main part of the Shtar and are the ones who make the Shtar take effect.
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar, who rules Edei Mesirah Karsei, witnesses sign a Get (or Shtar) because of "Tikun ha'Olam" - "for the well-being of the world." Although the Get is valid without the signatures of the witnesses, it was instituted that the witnesses sign the Get (or Shtar) for the sake of all those who receive such legal documents, so that in case the witnesses who testified to the event have died, their signatures (which are recognized by other witnesses) will remain as testimony to the event.
(c) Since this argument has its source in the laws of divorce, the literal meaning of the words is that Edei Chasimah or Mesirah *cut*. That is, Edei Chasimah or Mesirah are responsible for making a Get (a bill of divorce) take effect, giving it the status of a "Sefer Kerisus" (a document that *cuts* [the bond between the married couple] -- Devarim 24:1) (RASHI to Kidushin 48a).

4) [line 13] MEZUYAF MI'TOCHO - a legal document that is invalidated by something within the document itself (such as the signature of a witness who was a relative or invalid in some other way, or who signed she'Lo Lishmah)

5) [line 21] MODEH BI'SHTAR SHE'KASVO, TZARICH L'KAIMO
(a) When a debtor admits that he wrote a document of debt, but claims that the document is not valid for another reason (e.g. the debt has already been collected), the creditor must call upon the witnesses to verify their signatures. The reason for this Halachah is that as long as the signatures on the Shtar have not been validated, the debtor is believed with a "Migo," i.e. had he wanted he could have claimed that the Shtar is a forgery (see Background to Kidushin 43:15:a-b). The Shtar must be validated to remove the debtor's Migo.
(b) Others argue, ruling that "Modeh bi'Shtar she'Kasvo *Ein* Tzarich l'Kaimo," that is, the debtor is not believed when he says that he paid since this is not a valid Migo. The debtor would be ashamed to claim that the Shtar is a forgery and that is why he preferred to claim that he paid the debt (TOSFOS to Kesuvos 19a; see other reasons there).

6) [line 25] ADUKIN - grasping, holding fast to [the Shtar]
7) [line 37] CHASPA B'ALMA HU - it is merely a potsherd, i.e. it is valueless
8) [line 39] EIPUCH - switch [their opinions in one of the Beraisos above]
9) [line 40] B'LEVARER KA'MIFLIGEI - they are arguing with regard to the necessity "to clarify" one's claims. When a defendant claims that he has two proofs that the land belongs to him (such as a Shtar and a Chazakah), Rebbi maintains that he must bring both proofs (even though, had he mentioned only the fact that he has a Chazakah and brought witnesses to that effect, that would have sufficed). Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that he does *not* have to bring both proofs, and it suffices to bring witnesses that he has a Chazakah.

10) [line 41] HAVAH MASIK BEI ZUZEI - he (Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef) was owed money by him (Rebbi Aba)

11) [line 1] ELA LEVARER - (a) Rebbi argues with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the requirement to clarify one's claims. He agrees that if the defendant does not mention that he has another proof, his Chazakah alone suffices to prove that the field belongs to the defendant. Rebbi just holds that since the person said that he had another proof, we make him prove it. In practice, therefore, the Halachah follows the view of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, since we do not make the defendant lose simply because he spoke too much (and, consequently, in the case of Rebbi Aba, Rebbi Aba should *not* need to bring witnesses to prove his claim that he paid back the loan) (RASHBAM); (b) Rebbi argues with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel -- and requires that the defendant prove his additional claim -- only l'Chatchilah. While Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that there is no need, even l'Chatchilah, to prove his additional claim, Rebbi maintains that l'Chatchilah he must prove it. B'Di'eved, though, Rebbi agrees that if he cannot prove his additional claim, he is believed with his other proof. (RABEINU GERSHOM; see RABEINU TAM in TOSFOS DH Ela.)

12) [line 3] YACHLIF - he should exchange [the original Shtar for a new Shtar, expressing the new amount of the loan after the original amount was partially repaid]

13) [line 4] SHOVER - a receipt
14) [line 8] BEIS DIN MEKAR'IN - *Beis Din* [but *not* two witnesses] tear up the original Shtar and write a new one

Next daf