Inference: This is because he said "make for me a Pashut", but if he said Stam "make for me a Get" and he made for him Mekushar, it is Kosher, even in a place where they are accustomed to do Pashut.

Contradiction: In Kidushin (49a), it says that even if he said only "make for me a Get" (and he deviated from the local custom, it is Pasul). The text there says "in a place where the custom is to make Pashut, and he made for him Mekushar."

Inference: Here it connotes that only one [witness] in writing and one orally [do not join], but two in writing, each [in a document] by itself, join.

Possibility #1: This is according to R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (who says that witnesses can join even if they did not see the testimony together), and like the opinion that [two witnesses, each of whom saw one of] two loans given one after the other [from the same lender to the same borrower] join [to obligate the borrower to pay].

Possibility #2: According to the opinion that [a loan after a loan] do not join, in any case two documents, each with one witness, e.g. admission after admission, that each one specifies "the 100 Zuz that I admit that I owe you in this document, I admitted also in front of Ploni" (the witness on the other document), they join;

If they did not join also in this case, [Abaye] should teach this, and all the more so one [witness] in writing and one orally!

Rebuttal: We can say that one in writing and one orally does not discuss such a case that it would be applicable to discuss both in writing and in two documents. It does not discuss e.g. that both testify that they saw him borrow or they heard him admit;

In such a case it would be feasible to teach that both in writing do not join, if [it is true that] they do not join in such a case;

Rather, it discuss a case such as [the witness] in writing testifies about the loan that he saw, and the oral witness testifies that he saw him hand over this document in which the witness is written;

In such a case it could not discuss both of them in writing.

Consequence: Therefore, it is Kosher also according to Ameimar, for there are two Edei Mesirah about the handing over of this document;

The witness who signed is like an Ed Mesirah, for he proves that the borrower gave it to the lender, for [the witness] would not sign unless the borrower commanded him, and the oral witness testifies that the borrower gave it to the lender.

Therefore it is Kosher, even though only one witnesses signed on it, for there are two witnesses about the Mesirah, and we hold like R. Elazar (who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei, i.e. they empower the document);

Distinction: However, if both are written in documents with a lone witness, all agree that they are Pasul, for each document has only one witness;

This is logical, for we do not find anywhere a document with only one witness that helps.

Support #1: It connotes like this, since it counts one witness in writing and one oral witness one after the other;

Question: If it is like both testifying about seeing the loan or hearing the admission, why is this called one after the other? They can be at once!

E.g. he wrote in a document "in front of I, Ploni, who signed, and in front of Almoni, Reuven borrowed 100 Zuz from Shimon", and the oral witness testifies "in front of me, Almoni and in front of Ploni, who signed, Reuven borrowed 100 Zuz from Shimon"!

Support #2: According to what I explained, that one oral witness means that he testifies about Mesirah of the document in which the witness signed, it is fine that below (165b, Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael) asked Stam about one witness in writing and one oral witness, whether or not they join;

It connotes that Stam, without specifying, that both did not see at once, for the loan and the Mesirah were not together. One could find that both testify about the loan only in this way (if they were together);

If each testifies about seeing the loan or hearing the admission, the document does not help at all, and it is as if it does not exist, since no witness testifies about its Mesirah, like I explained.

Question: It seems that the signed witness is considered like a witness at the time of Mesirah, for through him we know that the borrower gave it to the lender!

Answer: The reason why we do not find that one witness in writing joins with one oral witness according to the first Tana of R. Yehoshua ben Korchah, is because when both of them testify about seeing the loan or hearing the admission, it is not proven from the document that they saw or heard together;

What the oral witness saw was at the time he saw or at the time he heard. However, we consider the seeing of the witness in writing to be at the time of Mesirah, because many times [he signs] without seeing the loan itself at all;

A Mishnah (below, 167b) teaches that we write a document for a borrower even the lender is not with him, and Abaye (Bava Metzi'a 13a) establishes it like the opinion even if it is not a Shtar Hakna'ah (in which the borrower puts a lien on his land immediately), for when witnesses sign, they acquire for [the lender a lien on the borrower's land].

Therefore, even though it is not proven from the document that [the witness who signed] did not see the loan, we do not consider his seeing [to be important], for he is not considered a witness who saw through this seeing, since we do not know about his seeing through the document;

Rather, his primary testimony is only that the borrower gave this document to the lender. Therefore, we do not consider his testimony like seeing the loan, even if they saw it.

Citation (Yerushalmi): Ze'ira asked about one witness in writing and one oral witness - do they join? [The Talmud (Yerushalmi) asked about his question] is one witness in writing [worth] anything?! [It answered that Ze'ira] needed [to ask] when two [signed on a document], and [the bearer] can validate the signature of one, but not of the other.

Observation: According to the opinion that in Gitin (86a) regarding [a woman who remarried after receiving] a Get with a date and only one witness, the child [from her new husband] is Kosher, that this is only when [her husband wrote it] in his own handwriting (it is as if he signed it), but if a scribe wrote it and one witness [signed], it is totally Pasul, this is fine.

Question: However, according to the opinion there that also when a scribe wrote it and one witness [signed], it is Kosher, even if the scribe is not expert (we cannot say that he would write only if he heard the husband command him), this is difficult. Why is it called a Pesul d'Oraisa?

Answer #1: That opinion holds like Abaye here.

Answer #2: Here we discuss when the scribe himself signed it (so we cannot consider the document itself like the signatures of a second witness), or a relative or Pasul [witness] wrote it.

Implied question: It is not truly mid'Oraisa, for a Get Mekushar is mid'Rabanan, like it says above (160b)!

Answer #1: Since the child is a Mamzer mid'Rabanan, just like there is a Mamzer from a Pasul Get Pashut, it calls it [a Pesul] mid'Oraisa. It is not precise.

Answer #2 (Rashbam): It is a Pesul mid'Oraisa that it may not be used to collect from Bnei Chorin (property that the borrower still owns. R. Simchah d'Esvi corrects the text to say "from Meshubadim", like the Rashbam wrote. Kovetz Shi'urim (610) says that the Rashbam holds that one witness in a document is like an oral witness, so two help for Bnei Chorin. Tosfos holds that he is not a witness at all, and even two in a Mekushar is "mi'Pi Kesavam" (the Torah requires mi'Pihem, i.e. oral testimony), so he does not collect even from Bnei Chorin. This is unlike what Tosfos wrote above (164a DH Gufa, and 165a DH Amar) that two witnesses in two documents join to force a person to pay - PF.)

Rebuttal (Tosfos' Rebbi): Even if it were a Pesul mid'Rabanan, he would not collect from Bnei Chorin!

Question #1 (Tosfos' Rebbi): What was the question? If you asserted a little (the minimum), you asserted (surely it is true. If you assert much, there is no indication that it is true!)

Answer: [Had we asked so,] we could have rejected that an ingot is less than a Dinar.

Question #2: In Kesuvos (110) we say that if it was written [in a document] Bavel, he pays coins of Bavel. If it is written Kesef Stam, the borrower pays whatever he wants, i.e. he gives the small silver coin. It asks "I could say that it is an ingot!"

This is astounding. If an ingot is less than a [silver] Isar, which is only eight (and sometimes only six) Perutos, why is an ingot different than kinds of Perutos (small coins)? "What he wants" that was taught there means the smallest silver coin. (Tosfos asks why we assume that he may not pay an ingot.)

Source: [The Gemara] asked "say that it is Periti!", and answered that people do not make silver Periti. This implies that he gives the smallest silver coin that people make.

Support: Also in our Sugya it connotes so, that [ingots] are worse than an Isur, if we explain that he asks due to inferiority "say that it is an ingot!";

If they were not less than an Isur, initially he should have asked "say that it is Periti"! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)