ONE WHO MAY GAIN FROM HIS TESTIMONY [last line on previous Amud]
(Shmuel): Reuven can testify for his partner Shimon.
Question: Why is this permitted? The testimony affects Reuven!
Answer: The case is, Reuven wrote to Shimon 'I have no claim to this field' (the one he testifies about).
Question (Beraisa): If Levi wrote to Yehudah 'I have no claim to this field', 'I have no business in it', or my hand is removed from it', this has no effect.
Answer: The case is, Shimon made a Kinyan (Chalipin) to make Reuven's pardon binding.
Question: Still, the testimony affects Reuven! If we establish that the property used to belong to them, Reuven's creditor (from before he pardoned his share) can collect from it!
(Ravin bar Shmuel): If one sells his field without Achrayus, he cannot testify about it (to establish ownership), since this can enable his creditor to collect it.
Answer: The case is, Reuven accepted Achrayus for his share. (Therefore, it does not matter to him whether or not a creditor takes it, for then he will owe Shimon).
Question: For whom (that might take the field) did Reuven accept Achrayus?
If he accepted for anyone who claims 'this was my field', the testimony saves Reuven from having to compensate Shimon!
Answer: Rather, Reuven accepted Achrayus if his creditor will collect it.
Question: This does not enable him to testify!
(Beraisa): If the Sefer Torah of a city was stolen, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it (since it affects them).
If obligating oneself (so he will not benefit) helps, two should forfeit their shares in it and judge the case!
Answer: A Sefer Torah is different, for everyone (who will remain in the city) must hear it read.
Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give a Maneh (money) for needs of the city, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.
Why don't we say that two can forfeit their shares in it and judge the case?
Answer: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to buy a Sefer Torah (all must hear it).
Question (Beraisa): If Reuven (allegedly) pledged to give a Maneh for poor people of the city, people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.
Question: Only the poor would receive it. Why is everyone disqualified?
Answer #1: The Beraisa should say that poor people of the city cannot judge or testify about it.
Why don't we say that two can forfeit their shares in it and judge the case?
Answer #1: The case is, he pledged to give the Maneh to buy a Sefer Torah.
Question: The Beraisa says that he pledged to give the poor!
Answer: People without a Sefer Torah are considered poor.
Answer #2 (to Questions (n) and n:1): Really, he pledged to give to the poor. This would benefit even the rich, for it lightens their responsibility to support the poor.
Question: What is the case?
If everyone was assigned to give a certain amount for the poor, one can give his quota, and then judge the case (for he does not stand to gain)!
Answer #1: The case is, it was not assigned how much each person must give.
Answer #2: It was assigned how much each person must give. Still, the judges gain if the poor will receive a Maneh, for then they are less likely to need more Tzedakah later.
PARTNERS WHO GUARD FOR EACH OTHER [last line]
(Shmuel): A partner is considered a Shomer Sachar when watching the common property.
Question: Why is he liable? (Each guards part of the common property for the other, so) this is Shemirah b'Ba'alim (for one's employee. One is exempt for this!
Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, they alternate. Each day, one partner watches all the property.
TESTIMONY THAT MAY HELP THE WITNESS [line 3]
(Beraisa): If Reuven sold a house or field, he cannot testify about it, for there is Achrayus (therefore, he is partial);
If he sold a cow or garment, he can testify about it, for there is no Achrayus.
Question: What is the difference between the clauses? (Why does the Tana assume that there is Achrayus for a house or field, but not for a cow or garment?)
Answer #1 (Rav Sheshes): In the Reisha, Reuven stole Shimon's field and sold it to Levi, and Yehudah claims that it was his;
The Tana teaches that Shimon cannot testify for Levi, for this will help Shimon to get back his field.
Question: If he testifies that it is Levi's, he cannot later claim that it is his!
Answer: He testifies, 'I know that Yehudah does not own the field'.
Question: If Shimon can (bring proof to) get his field back from Levi, he could also get it from Yehudah. Why would he prefer that Beis Din give the field to Levi?
Answer #1: Perhaps Yehudah is powerful, and it is easier to oppose Levi in Beis Din than Yehudah.
Answer #2: Shimon and Yehudah each have witnesses supporting his claim to the field;
In such a case, the land remains with the Muchzak. Therefore, Shimon does not want Yehudah to become Muchzak.