Besides two witnesses attesting to each signature on a Sh'tar, Beis-Din might also verify a Sh'tar - by calling each witness to attest to his own signature.

In the latter case, they do not require two witnesses for each signature - because in fact, when the witnesses themselves attest to their own signatures, they are merely corroborating the contents of the Sh'tar and not their own signatures.

If one of the witnesses is no longer alive - Beis-Din find two witnesses 'from the street' to attest to his signature (as we explained).

In a case where one of the signatories on a Sh'tar died, and the remaining signatory's brother came together with another witness to verify his signature, Ravina, based on our Mishnah - where the Tana believed three brothers, together with one stranger, to establish a Chazakah, intended to accept their testimony.

Rav Ashi objected to his intended ruling however, on the grounds that - three quarters of the money would then be extracted on the basis of two brothers, and the remaining quarter, on someone else.

The difference between this case and that of our Mishnah is that - here, the invalidation of brothers as witnesses is based on the fact that all brothers are counted as one witness, which is not the case there (since the four witnesses are simply considered as two). It will however, invalidate the current case, as we explained, because if three quarters of the money would be extracted by one witness and a quarter by the other, the Sh'tar would also be Pasul (as we learned in Kesuvos).

Our Mishnah lists things which are or are not subject to a Chazakah. Rearing an animal or setting-up any kind of oven or mill are not. The Tana must be referring to a moveable oven and hand-mill - because if either of them were attached to the ground, the other members of the Chatzer would obviously object and failure to do so would create a Chazakah.

In his list of what is subject to Chazakah (that is connected to the previous list), the Tana incorporates - building a wall of ten Tefachim for any of the above.

Rearing chickens and placing manure in the Chatzer also belong in the first list. What belongs in the second list that is connected with ...

... rearing chickens is - if one rears them in the house.

... placing manure in the Chatzer is - digging a pit three Tefachim deep for it, or building a wall of t Tefachim.

The purpose of the pit or wall is - to prevent the wind from scattering the manure.

The Chazakah we are concerned with here is - a one of three years.

According to Rabeinu Chananel, the opening phrase of our Mishnah 'Eilu Devarim she'Yesh lahen Chazakah' pertains to the cases listed in the earlier Mishnah in the Perek ('Na'al, Gadar u'Paratz) which refer to a regular Kinyan Chazakah.

We reject Rabeinu Chananel's interpretation of our Mishnah on the grounds that a. it serves no purpose, and is therefore superfluous and b. the Tana will continue listing cases where there is a Chazakah until the end of the Perek (so why make such a statement at this stage?).

We query the Mishnah's distinction between the Reisha of the Mishnah and the Seifa; why with a Mechitzah, there is a Chazakah, and without one, there is not. However, this Kashya is based on the mistaken premise that - the Tana is talking about an outsider who brings his animal into the Chatzer without permission from the residents. Consequently, it is obvious that the residents would not permit such a thing in any case, thereby enabling the Machzik to establish a Chazakah.

Ula's initial answer is - based on his principle that whatever acquires by Nechsei ha'Ger (such as building one of the above walls [which requires digging]) establishes a Chazakah, and whatever does not (such as rearing one's animals on his land), does not establish a Chazakah. Both of these, he assumes, are dependent upon the effectiveness of the Kinyan.

We could have refuted this answer from the Seifa - from the case of someone who rears chickens in the house, establishes a Chazakah, even though he would not acquire by Nechsei ha'Ger.

Rav Sheishes however, presents a more basic rejection of Ula's principle. For example ...

... plowing acquires by Nechsei ha'Ger, even though it does not establish a Chazakah, whereas ...

... eating the fruit establishes a Chazakah, even tthough it does not acquire by Nechsei ha'Ger.

To resolve the discrepancy between the Reisha of our Mishnah and the Seifa, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah where the one who began to rear animals ... in the Chatzer was one of the partners who owned the Chatzer. This reconciles the Seifa with the Reisha - inasmuch as partners, who might not be fussy about rearing animals in the Chatzer (and similar casual uses), are fussy about building a wall.

The Mishnah in Nedarim - forbids partners who have declared a Neder forbidding Hana'ah on each other from entering their shared Chatzer ...

... a proof that they are particular about the casual use of their joint Chatzer. Otherwise, it would be as if each one had declared his section of the Chatzer Hefker, and partners would be permitted to enter, even if they were Mudar Hana'ah from each other.

So Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah amends the previous answer, restricting our Mishnah to a wood-store behind the house which is not subject to Chazakah - because, even though partners tend to be particular about using their joint Chatzer, they are not however, particular about using the common wood-store at the back of the house.

Rav Papa establishes both Mishnahs by the actual Chatzer, only he holds that some people tend to be particular, whilst others don't, creating a Safek. Consequently - he goes le'Kula by Mamon (to permit a partner to rear his animals in the Chatzer, as a result of which he cannot later establish a Chazakah); and le'Chumra by Isur (Nedarim [forbidding the partners to enter the Chatzer]).

Assuming that the Machzik is forbidden to rear his animals in the Chatzer (because of Safek Gezel), we go le'Kula on behalf of his partner, to prevent the Machzik from making a Chazakah (see Rabeinu Gershom) - because the partner can claim to be from those who are not fussy, unless the Machzik can prove otherwise.

According to Ravina, partners tend not to be particular about entering the Chatzer (and using it casually, like we said at the outset), and the reason that the Mishnah in Nedarim is strict is - because the author is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that 'even foregoing (being Mochel) is prohibited by a Mudar Hana'ah' (as we will now explain).

If a storekeeper from whom Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah, sends the latter a nut or two extra, Rebbi Eliezer forbids him to accept it - because he forbids all Hana'ah, even Hana'ah that comes as a result of what the Mudar himself did for the Madir (such as here, where he gave him nuts [just as he would give anyone else who purchased something from him]).

The Rabbanan however, say that - seeing as he only gave him extra nuts because he purchased something from him, it does not fall under the category of Isurei Hana'ah.

The only thing, according to Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Bena'ah, that one partner cannot prevent the other from doing in the Chatzer is - allowing his wife to wash the laundry there ...

To avoid hyer having to wash by the river (as is otherwise customary), where she will inevitably uncover her legs as she stands in the water, washing, thereby creating a temptation that passing men might not be able to resist.

The Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Otzem Einav me'Re'os be'Ra" refers to - a man who shuts his eyes as he walks past women who are washing their clothes in the river.

This cannot apply to a case where the person concerned ...

... could travel by another route - because then, let alone not being praiseworthy for closing his eyes as he passes, he is a Rasha for choosing that route, placing himself in a situation of temptation.

... has no alternative route - because then, since he is an Oneis, why should he be obligated to close his eyes (as is implied by the Pasuk)?

We therefore establish the Pasuk - where in fact, he has no alternative route, yet it is praiseworthy for him to close his eyes as he walks past that spot.

When Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Bena'ah to describe a Talmid-Chacham's ...

... undershirt, he replied - one that reaches down to his feet, so that none of his body is revealed (see Agados Maharsha).

... cloak, he replied - one that reaches down to within a Tefach of his undershirt (and if it extends to the same length, all the better).

He also told him that the Talmid-Chacham's table was two-thirds 'G'dil' - (covered with a cloth) and one third uncovered.

The part that is 'G'dil' is the inside (where the participants eat), and they use it to wipe their mouths during the course of the meal, and to place the bread on it.

They refer to the tablecloth as 'G'dil' - because it is woven.

On the uncovered part of the table - they place the pots of food and the cups and the vegetables (?), so as not to dirty the table-cloth.

The ring is used to suspend the table on some sort of peg from the wall when not in use.

Initially, we reconcile Rebbi Bena'ah, who places the ring on the outside of the table, with the Beraisa, which places it on the inside, by establishing his statement when there is a child sitting at table with his father - where we are afraid that the child will play with the ring and move the table during the course of the meal.

Alternatively, both opinions speak when there is no child, but a waiter serving. The Tana is speaking when there is a waiter, and the ring is placed on the inside - to prevent him from knocking the table as he serves.

We conclude that both opinions might even be speaking where there is a servant. And the reason that Rebbi Bena'ah is not afraid that the servant might upset the table by knocking into the ring, even though it is placed on the outside is - because he is speaking about a day meal, where the servant can see what he is doing, and can take care not to knock the table during the meal ...

... whereas the Tana - is speaking about a night-meal, where we are afraid that he will knock the ring, because he does not see it.

According to ...

... the earlier answer, we display more concern about the waiter knocking the table than the other participants - since he is the one to be walking about during the meal.

... the latter answer, we display more concern about the other participants knocking the table than the waiter because they have less room to maneuver than he does.

In contrast - the table of an Am ha'Aretz has fire (heating facilities) on the outside (or in the middle, if the table is a round one) and the pots on the inside.

One can expect to find underneath the bed of ...

... a Talmid-Chacham - sandals in the summer (which he currently wears), and shoes in the winter.

... an Am ha'Aretz - just about anything ('ke'Otzar B'lus', meaning a mixed storehouse, containing food and vessels).