1)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if someone finds the receipt of a Kesubah, and the woman ...

1. ... admits having been paid her Kesubah he should return it to her husband.

2. ... denies having received her Kesubah he may not return it to either of them.

(b)We have a problem with the former ruling however, inasmuch as we ought to suspect that although the woman wrote the receipt in Nisan, she did not give it until Tishri, and the husband will now use the pre-dated Sh'tar to reclaim the Kesubah that his wife sold (legally) between Nisan and Tishri.

(c)To answer this Kashya, we extrapolate Shumel's Din from this Beraisa. Shmuel says 'ha'Mocher Sh'tar-Chov la'Chavero, ve'Chazar u'Machlo, Machul' (once the creditor has foregone his debt, the purchaser of the Sh'tar may no longer claim it). Consequently, the moment the woman handed her husband the receipt, the purchaser lost his rights to the Kesubah that he had bought from her.

(d)The same will apply if it is not the creditor who is Mochel the debt, but his heirs since Shmuel concluded 'va'Afilu Yoresh Mochel'.

2)

(a)Even assuming that the Tana does nor hold like Shmuel Abaye establishes the Beraisa where the woman produces the Sh'tar Kesubah (proving that she could not have sold it).

(b)Rava counters this however on the grounds that the woman may have had two Kesuvos (i.e. if she lost the one, which she found after the Beis-Din had written her a second one), one of which she handed to the purchaser, whilst the other, she retained.

(c)Abaye disagrees with Rava however, because he does not contend with the likelihood of the woman having two Kesuvos. In any case, he argues, even if the woman did not hand over the receipt until Tishri, there would be no problem because the husband would be entitled to claim from the date on the receipt.

(d)When we say 'Abaye le'Ta'ameih', we mean that Abaye follows his reasoning, with reference to the princple 'Eidav ba'Chasumav Zachin lo' (as we have already learned).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that someone who finds any form of Ma'aseh Beis-Din must return it, and it lists as examples 'Igros Shum, Igros Mazon, Sh'tarei Chalitzah, Mi'unin and Sh'tarei Birurin'. The definition of

1. ... 'Igros Shum' is a Sh'tar assessing the debtor's property on behalf of the creditor.

2. ... 'Igros Mazon' is a Sh'tar that obligates a man who undertook to feed his wife's daughter to fulfill actually do so.

(b)The purpose of a Sh'tar Mi'un is to enable the Ketanah to remarry.

(c)We do not suspect that the these Sh'taros ...

1. ... were meant to be handed over, but were in fact, not because Beis-Din will only write such a Sh'tar, if the obligation is already in effect.

2. ... have already been paid because in most cases there is nothing to pay, and in the case of Sh'tarei Shum (even assuming that we hold 'Shuma Hadar'), the debtor has only himself to blame for not tearing-up the Sh'tar (as we explained above).

4)

(a)The Tana also requires a Sh'tar that one found in a leather container, or a roll or a bundle of Sh'taros to be returned on the basis of Simanim, seeing as both of these are considered a good Si'man.

(b)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that someone who finds a bundle of Sh'taros where the same ...

1. ... borrower borrowed from three different creditors must return them to the borrower, because it is obvious that he is the one who lost them.

2. ... creditor lent three different debtors must return them to the creditor, because it is obvious that he is the one who lost them.

5)

(a)If a person discovers a Sh'tar among his Sh'taros, and he cannot recall why it was give to him he must put it away until Eliyahu comes (and clarifies to whom it belongs).

(b)The same will apply if he remembers that the Sh'tar was given to him for safe-keeping, but cannot remember who gave it to him, the creditor or the debtor or whether it was half paid, and both parties entrusted the Sh'tar to him, to prevent them from cheating each other.

(c)Someone who discovers a Sh'tar among his Sh'taros together with a receipt should consider the debt paid and return the Sh'tar to the debtor.

(d)We might otherwise have thought that we should ignore the receipt, which, after all. ought to have been in the debtor's possession.

6)

(a)The final case in our Mishnah is 'Sh'tarei Birurin', which we interpret as Sh'tarei Ta'anasa (i.e. documents containing the respective reasons of the two litigants, which were recorded by the Sofrim who sat at every court-hearing, to ensure that the litigants do not change their arguments during the course of the hearing).

(b)Rebbi Yirmiyah interprets 'Sh'tarei Birurin' as each litigant's choice of Dayan. Having made his choice of Dayan, he is not allowed to change his mind.

7)

(a)We already discussed the case where Rav Huna contended with two Sheviri's, whereas Rabah basing his opinion on our Mishnah 'Kol Ma'aseh Beis-Din, Yachzir', disagreed. When Rav Amram asked Rabah him how he could learn Isur from Mamon (which is usually more lenient see Tosfos), he replied that Sh'tarei Chalitzah and Mi'unin, which the Tana includes in his list, can hardly be considered Mamon.

(b)In his reply, Rabah conferred upon Rav Amram the rather uncomplimentary title of Tarda, which means either 'fool!' or 'stupid!'

(c)When one of the supports of the Beis-ha'Medrash broke ...

1. ... Rav Amram saw this as an omen that Heaven sympathized with him, because Rabah called him 'Tarda'.

2. Rabah read it as a result of Rav Amram having embarrassed him by querying him in public.

8)

(a)The Tana requires someone who finds a Sh'tar in a Chafisah or in a Deluskema to return it. Rabah ...

1. ... bar bar Chanah defines a 'Chafisah' as a small leather flask.

2. ... bar Shmuel defines a 'Deluskema' as a leather box used by old men to keep their personal effects.

(b)A ...

1. ... 'Tachrich' of Sh'taros is a roll of three Sh'taros, whereas ...

2. ... 'Agudah' of Sh'taros, according to our initial understanding, is a group of three Sh'taros tied together.

(c)In order to refute the proof from here that a knot is a Si'man, we cite a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya, which redefine an Agudah of Sh'taros as three Sh'taros rolled together.

(d)The difference between a 'Tachrich' and an 'Agudah' will then be that, whereas the former are rolled together, but one after the other, the latter are rolled together at one and the same time.

9)

(a)If, as we initially suggest, the finder announces the number (that he found three Sh'taros), the owner identifies them by stating how they were placed (whether they were a Tachrich or an Agudah).

(b)The problem with this is why there need to be three Sh'taros. Why will the same Din not apply when there are two.

(c)So we conclude that the finder announces that he found Sh'taros, and the owner must state how many there are and how they were placed (see Hagahos Maharshal).

(d)If there were only two Sh'taros then the fact that the finder announces 'Sh'taros' already indicates two (since the minimum of plural is always two), and it is obvious that the finder would not return them if the owner merely said that he lost two Sh'taros.

10)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel taught in our Mishnah that if one person borrowed from three creditors, the finder returns the Sh'taros to the debtor (since it is obviously he who lost them). They cannot have been lost by ...

1. ... the creditors, who had taken their Sh'taros to the Sofer of Beis-Din for verification because the Tana speaks in a case where the Sh'taros have already been verified.

2. ... the Sofer, who lost them before having managed to return them because we can be sure that the Sofer will not hold on to a verified Sh'tar for a moment longer than necessary.

(b)In the Seifa, he teaches that if three people borrowed from one creditor, then the finder must return them to the creditor. They cannot have been lost by the Sofer, to whom the borrowers had taken them ...

1. ... to be written because the Tana speaks where the three Sh'taros were written in three different handwritings (by three different Sofrim).

2. ... to be verified because it is the creditor who would take the Sh'tar to be verified, not the debtor.

11)

(a)Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Rav considers a Simpon (a receipt [or anything which invalidates something else]) that the creditor finds among his Sh'taros and that is written in his handwriting a mere joke, and renders it Pasul.

(b)We might have thought that it is Kasher because, seeing as the creditor is able to write a receipt, why would he write it unless the debtor had already paid ...

(c)... and the reason that he did not hand it to him there and then is because he had not paid him the Sofer's fee).

(d)It is Pasul since we assume that he probably wrote it in anticipation of the debtor turning up with the money one evening, and refusing to pay without a receipt.

(e)It would certainly be Pasul if it was written in the handwriting of the Sofer who is even more likely to write receipts in advance (in order to save himself time).

12)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if someone discovers a receipt among his Sh'taros, he should follow whatever the receipt says. The Tana must be speaking about a creditor because he found the receipt 'among his other Sh'taros'.

(b)We reconcile Rav's previous ruling ('Simpon ha'Yotzei mi'Tachas Yedei Malveh Eino Ela ki'Mesachek') with the Mishnah, by citing Rav Safra, who established the Mishnah where he found it among his paid (or torn) Sh'taros (though the Simpon itself was not torn).

(c)This might be because the mere location of the Sh'tar serves as a proof that the Simpon is valid. It might also be because we assume that the creditor placed it there when the debtor paid and forgot to take the receipt with him when he left.

13)

(a)The Mishnah in Bava Basra states that if a creditor has two Sh'taros on two Yosef ben Shimons who owe him money, and who discovers one receipt saying that Yosef ben Shimon paid him we consider both debts paid, and he may not claim from either of them.

(b)Here too, we cite Rav Safra (that the receipt or both Sh'taros [see Maharam] was found among his torn Sh'taros), in order to reconcile that Mishnah with the ruling forbidding a creditor to produce a Sh'tar against Yosef ben Shimon, when there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the same town. We reconcile the above Beraisa with the ruling that one cannot produce a Sh'tar against one Yosef ben Shimon if there is another man with the same name in town by establishing it where the names of the grandfathers were inserted too (but not in the receipt).

(c)The Mishnah in Shevu'os lists the three Shevu'os that Yesomim have to make when claiming their father's debts ... that he did not inform them 1. at the time of his death or 2. beforehand, that the debt had been repaid, and 3. that they did not find a receipt among their father's documents declaring the debt to have been repaid ...

(d)... a clear indication that such a receipt is valid (a Kashya on Rav, who considers it a joke).

(e)Rav Safra reconciles this with Rav by establishing the former where the creditor found the receipt among his paid Sh'taros.

14)

(a)The Beraisa states 'Simpon she'Yesh Alav Eidim, Yiskayem be'Chosamav'. If taken literally, the Beraisa means that despite the creditor's claim that the debt has not been paid, the Simpon is valid, should the witnesses testify that they signed it (a Kashya on Rav).

(b)To answer the Kashya on Rav we subtly amend the text to read 'Yiskayem me'Chosamav' (meaning that we ask them if the debt is paid, and only if they reply in the affirmative, do we declare the Simpon valid).

(c)We reconcile Rav with the Beraisa which validates a Simpon which is signed by witnesses by establishing it by Eidei Kiyum (witnesses who verify the Sh'tar, and not just the witnesses who signed originally).

(d)We prove this from the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'she'Ein Alav Eidim, Pasul' which can only mean that it was not signed by Eidei Kiyum, because if it was signed at all, it would be obvious that it is Pasul.

15)

(a)The Tana validates a Simpon ...

1. ... that is produced by a third person who claims that the debt has been paid because it is only the creditor who would entrust a third person with a Simpon (the debtor would tear it up), and since he believed him, we have no choice but to believe him, too.

2. ... that appears at the end of a Sh'tar-Chov because the creditor would not receipt a Sh'tar that has not been paid.