Explanation (Rashbam): This is only for Hakna'ah documents. He does not discuss loan documents.

Observation (Ri): There is no difference between sale or gift documents. He discusses both. Even in sale documents we find [that one may write the day that Chalipin was done, even if it is before the document was written], e.g. it was written according to both of them (the seller and buyer);

There is no loss to buyers at all here, for sales have publicity (from the time of Chalipin), and there is no concern for anything.

Explanation: Hini and Shili are close to each other. Therefore it mentions them, that even for cities near each other, write the name of the city you are in at the time of writing;

Also, they were constantly in Hini and Shili. We say in Beitzah (25b) that they used to carry him on Shabbos of festivals from Shili to Hini and from Hini to Shili.

Note: Our text says that they used to carry Rav Huna. Perhaps Tosfos assumes that also Rav, Rav Huna's Rebbi, often went there to teach. Alternatively, Tosfos' text there says that they carried also Rav, and the text of our Tosfos says "they carried them."

Question: Why doesn't [Rava] say [that we do not make for him two documents of 50 each, because perhaps his loan of 100] was paid [and he can say that the borrower's receipt was for a different loan, of 100], like Rav Ashi says below?

Answer (Ri): Here we discuss even if we know that the loan was not paid.

Explanation #1: This is a question (may the Reish Galusa collect with this?)

Support: Similarly, Rav Huna's words "Chaishinan (are we concerned) for two [cities named] Sheviri" in Gitin (27a) and Bava Metzi'a (18b, is a question).

Explanation #1 (cont.): He asks "even from the Reish Galusa, who does not normally lend, will we say that even he collects, if he holds [this document]?"

Explanation #2: The Ri disagreed with the Perush that the Rashbam considered primary. He explained "even from the Reish Galusa", that we are concerned that [any] another person (perhaps even the Reish Galusa) lent to [the borrower], and it fell from [the lender], and this person [holding it now] found it.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): Why should he attribute the other one (the lender) to the Reish Galusa?!

Rebuttal #2: The wording does not connote like this at all.

Question (Rashbam): According to what [I, Tosfos] explained, it should have said [that "from you"] connotes "the man holding [the document]"!

Answer: This is not difficult at all. Rav Huna was unsure. He asked if we obligate [the borrower] at all. [I.e. do we say that "from you"] connotes even from the Reish Galusa, even though he does not normally lend at all?!

Rather, "from you" is not considered to connote (whoever holds it). This is folly. He does not collect from anyone. Or, not? (Rather, we say that he can collect!)

Implied question: Why does he say "today"?

Answer #1: This is not because it requires a date. Rather, ןf he makes any oral Tenai "if I will die from this illness", or [it should be a Get] "when he will die", then she will be divorced from now, like [the Gemara] ruled above (136a) that the date on a document proves about it. It is as if he said "from today."

However, when he does not stipulate at all, he does not need "from today" at all.

Answer #2: The Rashbam explained that he must write "from today" because Aba Sha'ul requires Yadayim Mochichos (it must be clear that he divorces her now).

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): We say in Gitin (17a) that they enacted a date [on a Get] only for Peros (to prove when her husband ceases to receive Peros of her property) or his niece (lest his she be Mezanah and he will want to save her through giving a Get without a date. Beis Din could not kill her, for it is not known if the Get was before or after the Zenus.)

R. Elazar did not require a date at all, for he holds that Edei Mesirah Karsei, like the Rashbam himself holds (according to R. Elazar)!

Rebuttal #2: Also, this is astounding to add a new reason for Aba Sha'ul, that he requires "from today" for a proof [that he divorces now].

Question: What is the relevance of [saying that Aba Sha'ul holds like] R. Elazar in the question? [Even] without this, he could have said that granted, "from you" connotes from that man [holding the document...]. Even so, we should be concerned lest it fell!

And even if [Aba Sha'ul] held like R. Meir, [Abaye] could ask this!

Answer (Ri): He means as follows. This implies that "from today" is the day that [the document] is shown. Similarly, "from you" is from the man holding the document!

Inference: He wants to say anyone in whose hand it is found, for it is a strong connotation, and not folly and frivolity.

Support: It connotes that anyone who finds it collects. So was the intent of the writing.

Regarding Hakna'ah documents it is fine. He obligates himself what he did not borrow yet. Therefore he obligated himself to him, even if he will never lend to him, like we say in Bava Metzi'a (16b);

[It says there] "if one found Hakna'ah documents in the market, he returns them to the owner. Will you say that he wrote to borrow and did not borrow? He obligated himself!" Therefore, it is not applicable here to be concerned for Nefilah (falling).

Observation: Even without Hakna'ah, he could have established it according to R. Tam in Kesuvos (102a), who explains there that one can become Meshubad to another even if he did not borrow from him, e.g. he writes in the document "I owe 100 to you", and he writes and gives to him for this purpose.

[The Gemara] asks that perhaps Aba Sha'ul holds like R. Elazar, and he does not require a date, and "today" connotes the day it leaves [the husband's] hand, and not when it comes to Beis Din. He needed "from today" only if he stipulated "if I will die", like I explained above (DH Edei);

However, here he should be concerned for Nefilah, for also "from you" connotes only that he gave it to him, just like "from today" connotes its Stam meaning from the time of divorce. He cannot save his niece, for [a Get] needs Edei Mesirah.

Support: It connotes like this here. Only the one to whom he gave it [may collect], but not one who finds it. If so, there is concern for Nefilah! [Rabah] answered that we are not concerned for Nefilah.

Explanation (Ri): Rav Huna's initial question was "from you" - even from the Reish Galusa, even though he does not normally lend at all, and even if we know clearly that he did not lend to him, and also it is not common [for a lender] to be Makneh to him and give to him a Hakna'ah document. Even so, he is Makneh to him, for the reason that I explained;

Possibility #1: Or not? Perhaps we should attribute only to the one to whom he gave it. Therefore, we are concerned for Nefilah, and he did not acquire it if he did not hand it over to him.

Possibility #2: Or, here we should be concerned for Nefilah - i.e. not only ["from you"] does not connote the one holding it... and it is folly. And even if it did [connote the one holding it], we should be concerned for Nefilah.

[Rabah] answered that we are not concerned for Nefilah. He was not concerned to answer the first question, because we cannot establish it like R. Elazar, for he obligates "from today";

The reason I explained above [to require "from today"] is difficult, and Rabah disagrees with that Dichuy.

Support: We find other places in the Gemara that it is not concerned to answer the first question at all.

Explanation: When we can attribute that it fell only from one person, we should not attribute to Nefilah. How did it occur that it fell from this one?! (It is very unlikely.)

Citation: Nefilah of Rabim. (Bach - this is the Dibur ha'Maschil of a new Dibur.)

Explanation: We can attribute that it fell from anyone in the world, from this one or this, it is proper to attribute to Nefilah.

Explanation: [The Beraisa holds that] we are concerned for Nefilah of an individual. Our Mishnah discusses when they have a Harsha'ah (power of attorney; his namesake authorized him to collect). In the Beraisa (173a), they bring [the document against the borrower] without each other (without Harsha'ah).