Question: When he said initially "it is not her", [Abaye] said that he can retract [and say that it is her]. All the more so when he said initially "this is her", he is believed, even though he does not normally look [well] at women!

Answer: Abaye means that "since he was meticulous, he was meticulous" and if he wants to retract [and say that it is not her], he cannot retract his testimony.

Support: It connotes like this in Nedarim (27a). A man deposited proofs in his favor in Beis Din, and said "if I will not come until 30 days, my proofs should be Batel", and he did not come. Rav Huna said that his proofs are Batel;

[The Gemara] asks from Rav Nachman, who said that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi, who said that Asmachta acquires. Why are his proofs Batel? This is the text is most Seforim.

Question: We say in Bava Metzi'a (66a) that Rav Nachman said that even at the time that money is given [Asmachta] does not acquire regarding one who lent to someone "on" his field (it was collateral), and said "if you will not pay me within three years, it is mine" (and he did not), it is his;

Rava asked [from a Mishnah after Rav Nachman retracted. Rav Nachman] said "I say that Asmachta acquires. Minyomi says that it does not."

Explanation (Rashi): [Rav Nachman meant that] Minyomi convinced me to retract from my words, but I used to say that [Asmachta] acquires, like the Mishnah from which [Rava] challenged him.

Question #1: Why did [Rav Nachman say that] Minyomi convinced him to retract? Just the contrary, [Rav Nachman's] Rebbi Rabah bar Avuha convinced him to retract! (Rav Nachman cited him to say that the Halachah does not follow R. Yosi.)

Question #2 (R. Tam): Rav Huna contradicts himself! There he said that Asmachta acquires, for at the time coins are given he acquired everything;

How did [Rav Huna] ask in Nedarim (27b) from Rav Nachman's teaching that Asmachta does not acquire? [Rav Huna] holds that it acquires!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Even if elsewhere Asmachta does not acquire, there in Bava Metzi'a it acquires more, because [the lender] did a favor for him, that he lent to him, and [the borrower] resolves more to be Makneh to him. Also, the lender is Tafis (has possession of the field).

Question: I do not understand. Also here in Rav Nachman's ruling, he did a favor for him (lent to him)!

Support #1 (for Answer #1): However, the reason that the lender is Tafis is fine. Here in Rav Nachman's ruling [the lender] is not Tafis, rather, the third party is (has possession of the field). However, in the case of Rav Huna in Bava Metzi'a, the lender is Tafis in the land as collateral.

Support #2: According to this, it is fine according to Rav Nachman who says that even [if he stipulated] after giving coins, he acquired everything, and also that Minyomi needed to convince him to retract, even though [Rav Nachman] knew the ruling of Rabah bar Avuha.

Answer #2: According to Rav Huna, in every Asmachta, everyone intends only that it be Asmachta, and they say it only to make the other rely on his words;

However, there, it is not so he will rely on his words. Rather, he absolutely lent to him with intent that [the field] will remain in his hand if he would not pay within three years.

Support: For this reason, it is fine also according to Rav Nachman.

Explanation: It seems that this helps to make it a loan with a document through [this] testimony (that they saw the faded document);

Due to the witnesses signed who come afterwards, it would be only a Milveh Al Peh.

Explanation: Beis Din makes the validation, unlike the Rashbam, who said that the witnesses make it.

Explanation: [The Mishnah] mentions specifically Beis Din, which is powerful to uproot money.

Support: Also below (171a) it discusses that he brings witnesses to Beis Din. Regarding one who paid part of his debt, in the Gemara it says that Beis Din tears the document...

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): These are the witnesses signed in the document.

Explanation #2 (Ri): [The Kiyum] mentions also the witnesses who testified that they saw the document, so if the borrower will want to disqualify them today or in the future, he can disqualify them (through witnesses).

Question: This is astounding if one must write them. The Gemara does not mention them! This requires investigation in laws of making documents.

Explanation: They write from the first date. If they would write from the current date, perhaps [the buyer] sold it back to the seller, and later he will take out the [Kiyum] document and say "now I bought it from you", and take it fraudulently.

Explanation #1: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that we do not write even documents of sale. Perhaps after he bought it, he returned the document to the seller and reversed the sale;

Now, if we will not make [another] document for this [buyer, after he sells it back, the seller] is believed to say "he returned the document to me and reversed the sale", for [the buyer] does not have a document;

However, if we make for [the buyer another] document, how can he [the seller] say "it is mine" when he takes out his document? The buyer holds a document that it is his!

He will say to the seller "the document in your hand, I did not return it to you. Rather, when you sold to me the land, you wrote several documents, for we write a document for the seller [in the absence of the buyer], and one [of them] is still in your hand!"

Chachamim say that [if a gift recipient returns the document], the gift is still valid [and similarly regarding a sale]. If so, there is no concern for anything regarding sales;

Even if this buyer has no document, for no [replacement] document was written for him, the seller cannot take the land, for even if [the buyer] returned the document to him, it is not his, for [this is like one who returned a gift document;] his gift was not returned.

And even if [the seller] has a proof that [the buyer] gave [the document back] to him, that he wrote to him [another] document that [the seller] should acquire [the sale document], and all hold that documents are acquired through Mesirah and a document (above, 76a), and even if [the seller] has a new document that was written afresh for him (showing that he bought it back)...

Also now there is no concern for anything, for if so (i.e. in this case, the buyer) cannot harm him at all, and even if [the buyer] has a [replacement] document that was written afresh for him, for it is written from [the original] date (and the seller has proof that he bought it back afterwards)!

Question: If he did not write for him a sale document, rather, [he returned the initial sale document and wrote] "acquire it and all its lien", why aren't we concerned lest the buyer cause a loss to him through the [replacement] document from [the original] date?

Even though both documents (the initial, and the replacement) will be dated on one day, in any case the seller will not be Muchzak more than the buyer, since also the buyer has a document;

Perhaps [the buyer] returned it to the seller on the same day that [the seller] was Makneh to him the sale document, for then they do not write a date, and [the buyer] will say afterwards that [the seller] returned and sold it [back to me] on the same day itself!

Answer (Ri): We are not concerned for such a remote possibility. Also, [the buyer] would not have the audacity to say that the same day he returned the document to him, and the same day [the seller] returned and sold it [back] to him.

Question: According to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, according to the opinion below (173a) that one must bring a proof (that a document was given to him), granted, [documents] are acquired through Mesirah. In any case, the seller must bring a proof that the document was returned to him, even if it is in his hand!

Answer (Ri): Here according to everyone he need not [bring a proof], for we are not concerned lest [the document] fell [from the buyer and the seller found it]. Also, we are not concerned for a deposit, for [the buyer] fears to deposit his document with the seller, lest he hide the document and bring witnesses that the field was his until now.

Question (Ri): Anyone who sells a field can harm the buyer! Since we write a document for the seller in the absence of the buyer, sometimes he writes two documents, and gives one to the buyer;

After three or four years, the buyer will lose his document. The seller will say "he returned the document to me", he will bring him to Beis Din and take back [the field] without a proof [that the buyer returned the document], according to the opinion that he need not bring a proof;

[The buyer] cannot say "initially you wrote it, for then you wrote many documents", since [the buyer] has no document, and he cannot prove that he did not return it to him.

Answer: We can say that since he made Chazakah for three years in the land, the Chazakah stands in place of a document, and he can say whatever he could have claimed if the document were in his hand;

He will say "the reason I have no document is not because I returned it to you. Rather, I was not careful to guard it after three years."

Question: According to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, in any case the seller can make two documents, e.g. Reuven wrote two documents that he sold his field to Shimon, and he gives one to Shimon and one to Levi, and schemes with Levi;

Levi will show the document after three years, after Shimon lost his document, and claim that Shimon gave [the document] to him and gave to him the field. He need not bring a proof, according to the opinion that he need not bring a proof!

Answer: In such a case, [all agree that] he must bring a proof.

Support: We say like this below (173a) that brothers, since they often take things from each other, one must bring a proof [that his brother handed over his document to him], even if we say elsewhere that he need not bring a proof.

Explanation #2: We can explain differently, and all of this will not be difficult for R. Shimon ben Gamliel;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, even documents of sale we do not write, like it explains below, that there is concern lest the buyer returned the document to the seller, and the sale was reversed;

If a second document was not written for the buyer, the seller can take the land from the buyer through the document that he returned to him;

However, if a second document was written for the buyer, even if the seller brings against the buyer the document that he returned to him, it will not help at all, for the buyer will say "I had two documents, and I returned to him only one." Since one document remains with him, the sale does not go back.

Implied question: Even when the seller has a document [and the buyer does not], why should it help? The buyer can say to him "before you sold the field to me, you wrote two or three documents, and they wrote for you like you wanted to, for we write a document for the seller even though the buyer is not with him;

The reason I have no document is because I lost it!"

Answer: This is not difficult at all Surely, it helps for the seller only if there are witnesses that the document in his hand is the one that he gave to the buyer, and now he returned it to him, or witnesses will clarify that the buyer returned to him the document in order to reverse the sale;