Explanation #1 (R. Tam): He clarifies the truth of the matter and establishes it on the truth. If [the witnesses] are found and they say "we never saw", he is liable. However, if he cannot find them, he does not lose due to this.

Source #1: It is unreasonable to obligate him to pay due to this, if he cannot find them. What kind of law is this, that he should lose for naught, if he cannot prove the truth of his words that he did not need to claim?!

Source #2: The words connote like this. "Also I said to clarify", but not to obligate. If he obligates him (if he cannot find them), what was [R. Yitzchak Nafcha's] answer "also I [said] to clarify"? In any case, he obligates him!

Just the contrary, what he says "to clarify" is difficult for his reasoning, like the Rashbam explained "and even Rebbi said only to clarify"! (If Rebbi obligates if he cannot clarify, he requires proof! And why did he say only? He could not require more!)

Therefore, it is not reasonable to obligate him due to this.

Citation (Shevu'os 41b): Ploni and Almoni came and said "nothing ever happened." Rava said, anything that is not obligatory on a person, he [might] say it unaware [if it is really true].

Question: Here it says that Ploni and Almoni must come and testify!

Answer #1: Rava holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, like Rav rules.

Answer #2: [Rava can hold] even like Rebbi, and like R. Tam, who explains here that if he did not clarify, he did not lose. He should clarify whatever he can. In any case, if he does not find them, or they say nothing ever happened, we can say that he does not lose.

Question: The Rashbam brought about this that Ploni and Almoni must come and testify. This connotes that he wants to establish [Rava] like Rebbi, even according to [the Rashbam's] Perush!

Answer: Perhaps he wants to say that it is worse when he does not bring them, than when they said nothing ever happened. I did not understand this at all.

Answer #3: [Rava] holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, and holds that the Halachah follows him, and even according to the opinion there that he is established to be a denier, this is properly like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for we can say that R. Shimon ben Gamliel said only that he need not bring.

Explanation (Rashbam): [R. Yehudah] said that witnesses tear the document. "He exchanges" connotes like this, even with witnesses (without Beis Din).

And so it is in the conclusion that he heard the Beraisa and he did not retract. [The Beraisa] is Machshir with witnesses, and [Rav] requires Beis Din.

However, Rav Nachman did not understand Rav like this, for if so, why did he tell Rav Huna "had Rav heard [the Beraisa], he would have retracted from what he used to say that the Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah"? Is [the Beraisa] stronger than our Mishnah, which also connotes with witnesses, and even so he argues with it!

Question: The Mishnah did not explicitly teach witnesses!

Answer: Even so, [Rav] holds that [the Mishnah] means witnesses, and he argues with it, for he is a Tana, and he may argue.

Explanation (Ri): Rav Nachman explains Rav as follows. The Halachah does not follow R. Yehudah, who says that he exchanges and we write for him from the second date. [Rav] holds that R. Yehudah discusses from the second date, since the Mishnah did not explain that they write a document from the first date.

Support #1: Also R. Yosi's response to him "this is good for him (the borrower must guard his receipt), and we should not weaken the rights of this one (the lender)" connotes that R. Yehudah discusses from the second date;

If it were from the first date, how are the rights [of the lender] weakened?

Support #2: Rav Nachman properly said "had Rav heard the Beraisa that witnesses tear the document and write for him another document from the first date, he would have retracted" from this that he requires Beis Din in order to write from the first date, and he would not argue with the Beraisa about this;

Rav's whole reason was only to argue with what he thought that R. Yehudah was not Machshir from the first date at all, even in Beis Din, since he did not say it in our Mishnah;

Rav comes to say that even though with witnesses, we can say that he should not be Machshir from the first date, in Beis Din it is proper to be Machshir.

Had [Rav] known that R. Yehudah is Machshir even with witnesses from the first date, he would not have argued with him.

Question: Above (168a), regarding a document that faded, they write for him from the first date! Also the Rashbam explained like this there;

It says there "on day Ploni", i.e. the date was written on day Ploni (but not that they write the current date). It connotes a little like this, since Beis Din is required.

Why don't they write here from the first date like there, according to R. Yehudah, according to Rav, who held that according to R. Yehudah they write from the second date?

Answer #1: We can say that Rav Nachman holds that Rav himself would establish the case of a faded document that we write from the first date, and according to R. Yehudah, from the second date;

From that Mishnah itself it is not proven according to R. Yehudah whether [they write] from the first date or from the second date.

Implied question: Beis Din is required (i.e. to enable writing from the first date)!

Answer: We can say that it is from the second date. Even from the second date, we can say that witnesses should not write without the borrower's consent;

Even the same witnesses who made the first [document] may not make another, for once they did their mission, they may not do it again.

This is like a Get. If [a man] commanded to write a Get and give it to his Shali'ach, who became a Shali'ach to bring it to her, and they wrote and gave to him, and it became erased or lost, they cannot make another [Get], like is proven in Gitin (63b).

Implied question: We can distinguish! Regarding a Get, it is proper that they not make a second Get, for we require the husband to tell the scribe to write and tell the witnesses to sign (Gitin 71b), and he did not tell them anything about the second;

However, here, without a command it can be Kosher. It is only a proof to reveal that this [borrower's] property has a lien on it through the first document. Once there was a lien, it is not uprooted!

Answer: Even though it is not totally like a Get, we can say that they should not write a lien against him without his consent, since the [document] that they wrote and gave to the lender based on the borrower's [authorization], was lost, they may not make another. All the more so other witnesses [may not write another];

This is because this document harms him, even if he will not deny anything.

Implied question: Also if the replacement document was not written, [the lender] would collect from buyers who bought after the first faded, as if it were intact, since this loan has a Kol (publicity), like it connotes above (42a);

If not because one who borrows, he borrows in private, a Milveh Al Peh would be collected from buyers, even though [the seller] could trick buyers and say to them at the time of the sale "I paid", and there is no document to bring against them.

Answer: Even so, the second document harms the borrower, for if he will pay [the lender] and [the lender] does not have a document, [the borrower] need not worry about anything;

If he has a document, sometimes he is evasive and does not return [the document at the time of payment], and he says "I will give it to you tomorrow or another day", and later he collects again.

Answer #2: We can say that Rav Nachman holds that Rav agrees that when [a document] faded, Beis Din makes a new document from the first date, because there, there is no concern if this is like predated, since Beis Din themselves write it;

Beis Din are powerful to uproot money. People will not come to sign on a predated document as a result of being Machshir this;

However, here witnesses write for him. They do not have power to sign from the first date, for it is like a predated document. [We forbid this] lest [witnesses] come to sign on predated documents.

Answer #3: A faded document does not resemble a predated document so much, since this is the first document, just they copy it;

However, here they write a new document. The first date resembles a predated document.

Answer #4: It connotes a little that also regarding faded, they write the second date. The wording connotes like this. It says "he showed a faded document on day Ploni."

Question #1: Just the contrary, according to Rav, who says that [after partial payment, the new document is written] from the first date, and according to R. Yehudah below, who says that even witnesses [write] from the first date!

Suggestion: When it is faded, the first date is not so proper, since both did not consent.

Rejection: The Perush of the Rashbam and Ri is primary (if a document faded, they write for him from the first date).

Support (for rejection): In Bava Kama (98b) regarding one who burns [another's] documents, it says "if witnesses know [what was written in them...]" - this implies that then, he does not lose anything [more than the cost to rewrite them]!

Question #2: Above when it was Nimchak, all agree that Beis Din is required, and here R. Yehudah says [that it suffices with] witnesses!

Answer (to Question #2 - Ri): Here it is written with the consent of both of them, so only witnesses are required;

However, a faded document is written not in front of the borrower. Since it harms him, it seems that witnesses may not do it without his consent.