Question: In Gitin (2a), a Mishnah says that [a Shali'ach sent to bring a Get] in Eretz Yisrael need not say Befanai Nechtav u'Befanai Nechtam;

[In Gitin 4b, we derive that this is] even from Yehudah to Galil, because there are Olei Regalim and Batei Dinin, and witnesses are available to validate it!

Answer: There, a woman [who needs to validate her Get] pursues witnesses for Kiyum. Even though it is as if there is a ban between them, she will find Edei Kiyum, since people come [to Yerushalayim] for the festival;

However, one who makes Chazakah does not normally pursue to see if there are witnesses of Mach'ah.

Question: We say there that people of the city Mechuza are different, for they travel, so one must say Befanai Nechtav even for a Get within a neighborhood, for witnesses are not available to validate it;

Will we say that in Mechuza, Mach'ah not in front of the original owner does not help?!

Answer: There, when people leave the city, if they heard a Mach'ah, they say "Ploni protested", and others hear, until word gets to the one making Chazakah;

However, regarding a Get, it is not normal to say before going "we signed on the Get" or "we recognize the witnesses who signed."

Question: According to the opinion that one must pay with witnesses, our Mishnah here is difficult! It should have taught "I owe you 100"!

Answer #1: Tana'im argue about this in Shevu'os (41b).

Answer #2: He does not consider this difficult. The Tana prefers to teach that we do not make a Chazakah in a minor's property.

Question: What was the answer? Still, it should teach that if there are witnesses, and he said "pay me only in front of Ploni and Ploni", he is not believed!

Answer #1: He did not want to elaborate.

Answer #2: This is obvious.

Explanation: This is like we conclude, that he can be brazen to the son;

Therefore, we could not teach "if there are witnesses, he is not believed", for he is always believed through a Migo;

If he wanted to, he could have said "I paid everything", for he can be brazen to the son.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A Mishnah says that one who finds an Aveidah need not swear, for Tikun ha'Olam. Some texts explicitly say so.

Objection (R. Yitzchak): A Meshiv Aveidah is exempt mid'Oraisa, due to Migo. We do not ask based on that Mishnah.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Rather, we ask "does he not hold [that one is believed due to] Migo?!"

Support: In Gitin (51a), we ask "does R. Yitzchak not hold that one who finds an Aveidah [is exempt]?!", and answer "he holds like R. Eliezer ben Yakov, who says that sometimes one swears [based on his own claim];

We ask, "does R. Eliezer ben Yakov not hold that Meshiv Aveidah is exempt?!"

If we ask based on the Mishnah, the Gemara should have said that R. Eliezer ben Yakov does not hold one who finds an Aveidah is exempt, like we said about R. Yitzchak!

Note: R. Eliezer ben Yakov is a Tana, so we can say that he argues with a Mishnah. However, perhaps the Gemara asks because the Halachah always follows him, and we hold that Meshiv Aveidah is exempt.

Strengthening of support: Also, since we answer "he holds like R. Eliezer ben Yakov", he wants to say that R. Eliezer argues with our Mishnah;

If so, why did we ask "does R. Eliezer ben Yakov not hold that Meshiv Aveidah is exempt?!" Indeed, he does not!

Conclusion: Rather, we ask "does he not hold [that one is believed due to] Migo?!", like I explained.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Really, the case is that a minor claims from him.

Question: We asked that one does not swear due to a minor's claim!

Answer: That is when he claims due to himself. When he claims due to his father's property [that he inherits], it is an important claim.

Question: What is Rabanan's reason? It is unreasonable to say that they hold that even when he claims due to his father's property, his claim means nothing!

Answer: Rather, they argue about Rabah's teaching.

Observation: It seems that because we call it his own claim, we struggled to establish it when a minor claims.

Question #1: The primary answer is not in the text of the Gemara!

Question #2: In Bava Kama (106b), we exclude [from Shevu'as ha'Shomrim] when he gave the deposit when he was a minor and claims it when he is an adult;

[The Shevu'ah applies] only if the claim and giving are equal, i.e. he was an adult at both times;

Similarly, from this verse we exclude when he gave when he was an adult and claims when he is a minor, i.e. his father gave, and he (the son) claims when he is a minor!

Explanation #2: Rather, really we discuss an adult. However, do not say that it is called his own claim because it is his admission;

Rather, they argue about Rabah's teaching. According to Rabanan, who hold that he can be brazen to the [depositor's] son, it is his own claim.

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that sometimes one must swear due to what you (Rabanan) consider his own claim. According to me, that he cannot be brazen, it is another's claim.

Explanation: In Shevuos (42a), a Mishnah says "but we swear to a minor", and we explain that this refers to one who claims [what was owed to] his father; it is like R. Eliezer ben Yakov;

Also there, "minor" is not precise. He is an adult. He is called a minor, because regarding his father's affairs, he is [like] a minor, like it explains here.

Question: It should have asked and answered on the Mishnah there [which says that we swear due to a minor's claim], like it asks against Rav (who answered that we swear if the child claims money that was owed to his father);

In that Sugya, we do not ask against the Mishnah (the Seifa contradicts the Reisha), only against Rav.

Explanation: Even according to Rabanan who argue with R. Shimon, and do not expound the reason for Mitzvos, Rabah asks properly "why did the Torah say...?"

Why is he not believed without a Shevu'ah, through a Migo? If he wanted, he could have denied everything!

Alternatively, we should learn from here that we do not say Migo!

Answer: He answers that this is not a Migo, for one cannot be brazen to deny.

Question: In Shevuos (40b) we say that one who totally denies, we force him to swear Heses, because there is a Chazakah that one does not claim unless he is owed;

Citation (40b) Question: Just the contrary! There is a Chazakah that one cannot be brazen against his creditor!

Citation (cont.) Answer: He seeks to evade [the one whom he owes].

Inference: Also one who totally denies can be brazen to deny, for he seeks to evade him, just like one who partially admits!

Answer: In any case, here it properly says that one is not so brazen to totally deny everything. This is not a Migo, for he prefers to admit to part of the claim, which is not so brazen.

Suggestion: Rabah come to explain why the Torah said that Modeh b'Miktzas [swears], and not Kofer ha'Kol, and he says that it is due to the Chazakah that one is not brazen. Therefore, he is believed when he is Kofer ha'Kol.

Rejection: If so, in any case when he can be brazen, even Kofer ha'Kol would be liable [to swear];

Below, we say oppositely! Rabanan hold that one can be brazen to the son, and he is exempt even for Modeh b'Miktzas, because he is Meshiv Aveidah, Migo if he wanted, he could have denied everything!

Question: What is the source that Kofer ha'Kol is exempt?

Suggestion: Since we need a verse to obligate a Shevu'ah through one witness, this implies that Kofer ha'Kol is exempt.

Rejection: We need [the verse] for cases in which one witness testifies that he stole from Ploni, and Ploni does not know.

Answer #1: It is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. "Ki Hu Zeh" connotes that we require denial and admission.

Answer #2: We should obligate Modeh b'Miktzas to swear, for he owes the money he admitted to, and through this, we force a Shevu'ah on him, similar to Gilgul (once one must swear about one matter, his opponent can force him to include other matters in the Shevu'ah);

However, Kofer ha'Kol is totally removed [from the claimant].

Explanation #1 (Rashi, in Bava Kama 107a): One cannot be brazen because the other benefited him, i.e. he lent to him. However, one can be brazen about a deposit.

Rejection: If so, regarding a deposit, also Modeh b'Miktzas should be exempt through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have totally denied!

Everywhere, it connotes that Modeh b'Miktzas is obligated [to swear] regarding a deposit, e.g. "I handed over 10 laden vines to you" (Shevu'os 42b), which connotes a deposit;

Also, regarding "you lent to me a Sela based on this [collateral], and it was worth two" [a Shevu'ah applies];

Also, regarding one who found a Metzi'ah, we say (Gitin 51a) that Modeh b'Miktzas is obligated [to swear]. He is not believed through a Migo;

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This is like the Chazakah that a woman cannot be brazen to her husband [to say that he divorced her, if it is not true]. A person lacks the audacity to totally deny.

Explanation #3 (Riva): One cannot be brazen when his [opponent] knows that he lies. It is not appropriate to elaborate [here].

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Bava Metzi'a 3b): He comes to explain, so we will not ask why he swears. We should say that since he is suspected of [trying to steal] money, he is suspected also of swearing [falsely];

Therefore, he says that he would like to admit to all of it, and he is not suspected of money.

Question (Ri): It says in Bava Metzi'a (5b) that we do not say "since he is suspected of money, he is suspected also of swearing [falsely]!"

Suggestion: Mid'Oraisa he is suspected about swearing, and mid'Rabanan we say that he is not suspected;

This is because Chachamim saw that people are more lenient about money than swearing, and they enacted an oath on one who is suspected, as long as we do not know that he is a thief, for mid'Oraisa he is still Kosher. (Maharam Shif - in the Hava Amina, mid'Oraisa Shevu'ah applies only when we suspect that he wants to stall until he can pay. If he really wants to steal, he would also swear falsely! When he is suspected only due to his opponent's claim, mid'Oraisa he is totally exempt, and Chachamim imposed a Shevu'ah on him.)

However, a known thief, who is Pasul mid'Oraisa, they did not enact [that he swear].

According to this, the Shevu'ah "I was not Shole'ach Yad (use the deposit for my own needs)" is mid'Rabanan. The only Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa [of a Shomer] is "I was not negligent."

Question: It says "[he swears] if (i.e. that) he was not Shole'ach [Yad]"! (It is mid'Oraisa!)

Answer: He does not swear that he was not Shole'ach Yad. Rather, the verse says that he swears that he was not negligent. When is this? It is when he was not Shole'ach Yad, for if he was Shole'ach Yad, he is liable even for Ones.

Rejection: Regarding the ingot of R. Aba (one witness testified that Reuven grabbed it from Shimon. Reuven said 'yes, I grabbed it. It is mine!' R. Aba ruled that he must swear, but he cannot, therefore he must pay), it connotes that had he said "I did not grab", he would swear to contradict the witness, even though he is suspected of money!

There it is a Shevu'ah mid'Oraisa, for regarding a Shevu'ah mid'Rabanan we do not say that since he must swear, but he cannot, he must pay.

Bava Metzi'a (5a) connotes like this, regarding the shepherd. (He denied receiving animals. Witnesses testified that he ate two of the animals. We say that if he is liable only Shevu'as Heses, which is mid'Rabanan, we do not say that since he cannot swear, the claimant swears and collects.)

Explanation #2: It seems that [Rabah] comes to explain, so we will not ask, since one cannot be brazen, he should be believed about the part he denied;

Since we obligate him a Shevu'ah, we consider him to be brazen. If so, he should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have totally denied!

[Rabah] says that his partial denial is not brazen.

Question: Since he is not suspected of swearing [falsely], why is a thief Pasul for Shevu'ah?

Answer (R. Yehudah Chasid): Only when he is suspected about the same money that he comes to swear about, we say that he is not suspected about the Shevu'ah. Due to the Shevu'ah, he will refrain!

However, money that he already stole, he will not refrain (return it) due to the Shevu'ah.

Implied question: The shepherd was considered a thief because he ate two of them, even though he must pay for the two that he ate! (After he pays, he should be able to swear, for he is not a thief on other money!)

Answer: In any case he would not refrain from the others due to the oath, for what he is forced to pay is not a proper returning.

Explanation: Some say that mid'Oraisa, a thief can swear. He is not suspected about swearing. Only mid'Rabanan they disqualified him when he is a thief.

Question: Why is testimony different? He is Pasul for testimony, for it says "Al Teshes Yadcha Im Rasha...", but he is Kosher for Shevu'ah!

Answer: There is a great punishment for a false oath, about which it says "Lo Yenakeh" (Hash-m will not absolve);

Also, it says in Shevuos (39a) that the entire world trembled when Hash-m said "Lo Sisa [Es Shem Hash-m Elokecha la'Shav]";

Also, regarding false testimony there is only [one Lav, i.e.] Lo Sa'aneh. Regarding a false oath [to steal money], there is "Lo Sigzol", "Lo Sisa" and "Lo Sishav'u vi'Shmi la'Shaker."

Question: Why are they believed? It is a Migo against witnesses, for [we are so sure that] we can testify that they were not coerced or Pesulim!

Below (20a, if two witnesses say that the ones who signed were coerced or Pasul witnesses, and we can validate the document without them,) we call this two contradictory pairs of witnesses!

Answer: Since Chachamim obligated Kiyum, here it is not considered Kiyum, this that they say "this is our handwriting", since they themselves say Toch Kedei Dibur that they were minors or Pesulim;

Below, we consider them (the ones who signed) like two [Kosher] witnesses because it was already validated, for their signatures are available elsewhere.

Question: We should believe them through a Migo. If they wanted, they could have said that the loan was paid!

Answer #1: Since it was validated, this is a Migo against witnesses, like we explained.

Answer #2: They retract and testify [unlike their initial testimony]. Once one testified, he cannot retract and testify, like we say in the Gemara.

Answer #3: We do not apply Migo to two witnesses. In the Reisha they are believed, because they could have been silent.

Note: Below (19b DH v'Im), the Ri says that we do not apply Migo to two, for each does not know what the other thinks. I.e. therefore they could not agree to say the same lie, but they could agree to be silent.)

Explanation: They are not believed [to say that they signed falsely due to monetary pressure], because they cannot establish themselves to be Resha'im;

[They are not believed to say that when they signed they were] minors, like Reish Lakish taught (below, that there is a Chazakah that witnesses sign a document only if all the parties are adults);

[They are not believed to say that] they were Pesulim for testimony, for the lender himself is meticulous, like we say below.

Question: When they say that they were minors or coerced monetarily, we should believe them through a Migo. They could have said that they were coerced mortally!

In the Reisha, when there is a Migo, they are believed to say "we were coerced monetarily"!

Answer #1: Mortal coercion is not common [so they would not want to claim this].

Answer #3: We do not apply Migo to two witnesses, like I explained (Sof DH Ein).

Question: In Sanhedrin (9b), Rava holds that we divide his words, regarding [a man who says] "Ploni was Rove'a (had Bi'ah with) me, and I consented" and "Ploni had Bi'ah with my wife." (We accept his testimony that Ploni was Rove'a a man, or had Bi'ah with a man's wife, but ignore his words that it was with himself or his wife, for he cannot testify about himself or his wife.)

If so, here we should believe that they were coerced, but not that it was monetary, rather, [we should say that] it was mortal, for here we discuss Rava's opinion!

Answer #1: Since Kiyum of documents is mid'Rabanan, we do not divide his words in order to disqualify the document.

Answer #2: We should not say by ourselves that they were mortally coerced, for mortal coercion is uncommon, like I explained;

However, there it is as common that Ploni had Bi'ah with another Eshes Ish, just like with the witness' wife, or that Ploni sodomized another man.

Similarly regarding "I killed him", in Yevamos (25b), we could say that another man killed him.

Answer #3: Here is different, for "monetary" and "mortal" explain "we were coerced." Therefore, we do not divide his words;

However, "willingly" or "had Bi'ah with his wife" is an independent clause.

Answer #4: Here, the primary testimony that comes from saying that they were coerced is that they did not see the loan;

If so, immediately they make themselves Resha'im for signing, unless they explain their words. Therefore, dividing his words does not apply;

However, in the case of "I killed him", the primary testimony is to say that he was killed, in order to permit his wife to remarry.

Similarly, regarding "Ploni was Rove'a me" or "he had Bi'ah with my wife", the primary testimony is to kill Ploni. Therefore, we divide his words, and he is not believed to make himself a Rasha or regarding his wife.

Explanation: According to Rabanan, it is not even [testimony about] a Milveh Al Peh (a loan without a document), for the beginning and end must be b'Kashrus, like it says in Bava Basra (128a).

Implied question: We could have said also regarding minors, that the lender himself is meticulous [to ensure that the witnesses are adults]!

Answer #1: He prefers to give a different reason for each.

Answer #2: Also Reish Lakish's reason is because the lender is meticulous.

Implied question: [If so,] why didn't we cite Reish Lakish's teaching [to explain why there is no concern] for Pasul witnesses?

Answer: Reish Lakish mentioned only minors.