Explanation #1 (Rashi): It taught "they are not believed." This does not mean that we collect with the document. Rather, we do not tear it;

This is relevant if [the lender] seized [the money]; we do not remove it from him.

Question #1: We say in Bava Metzi'a (6b) regarding a Safek Bechor (of a cow or Seh) that if the Kohen seized it, we take it from him.

Inference: Seizure after the Safek arose does not help.

Suggestion: We can ask also from Bava Metzi'a (102b). It says that if one rented a house to his friend for 12 gold Dinarim for the year, one Dinar per month [and it became a leap year], if he came [to Beis Din] at the beginning of the month, the landlord gets the entire month (the tenant must pay if he wants to stay there).

Inference: It is in the Chazakah of the landlord. Even so, it says that if he came at the end of the month, the tenant gets the entire month!

Rejection: There is different. Since he did not come at the beginning of the month, we can say that he admitted to him.

Answer: We can say that a Bechor is different, for the Kohen seizes based on Safek. He does not know if it is a Bechor;

However, here he claims Bari, so seizure helps.

Question: In Bava Basra (34b), regarding "this one says it was of my fathers...", Rav Nachman said Kol d'Alim Gavar (whoever overpowers the other keeps it. Beis Din does not rule about it);

The Gemara asks from one who trades [through Chalipin] a cow for a donkey. (The cow was not in front of us at the time. Later, we find that it gave birth. The seller says that it gave birth before the sale,] and he (the buyer) says [that it gave birth before the sale], they divide [the calf].

What is difficult? That [Mishnah of the sale] is like Sumchus, and Rav Nachman holds like Rabanan. Rabanan say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah. This is Kol d'Alim Gavar, since seizure helps when he claims Bari!

Answer: We ask that since even Rabanan argue with Sumchus only because one of them is Muchzak, and we can say ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah;

However, here neither is Muchzak more than the other. They agree with Sumchus that they divide.

Answer #2: Here we discuss when one of them seized before the Safek arose.

Explanation #2 (Rashba): The Beraisa discusses a receipt. Therefore, they are not believed, for we keep money in the Chazakah of its owner, and we establish the witnesses of the receipt to be Kesherim, so he does not pay.

Question: According to Rav Nachman, why don't we collect with the document?

Rav Nachman holds like Rav Huna (Bava Basra 31b), who says that when two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, each pair may testify by itself [in another case], even though according to each pair, the other pair is Pasul for all testimonies;

Also here, since they do not contradict them, to say that he never borrowed, just they say "you are not believed about this, for you were Pesulim", they (the ones who signed) should be Kesherim!

Why don't we collect with the document?

Answer: There, each comes by itself and testifies, because we establish each in Chezkas Kashrus;

However, here they say that they were minors or relatives from birth until now that they became [adults or] unrelated. We cannot say that we establish them in their Chazakah, for we disqualify them from birth;

When they say that they were mortally coerced, we cannot establish them in their Chazakah, for we do not disqualify them at all!

Answer #2 (Rashba): Here we do not establish them in their Chazakah, like he said above, for if they were here, perhaps they would admit.

Explanation: We say so only about land, but regarding Metaltelim, we say that they are in the Chazakah of the original owner, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (100a) regarding one who trades a cow for a donkey;

We ask that we should see in whose Reshus the cow is, and the other party is ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah, and answered that it is in the swamp (it is not in either's Reshus)!

Distinction (Ri): Here it is not relevant to say like we say in Kidushin (79b) and Bava Basra (153b), that if now [one who give a gift] is a Shechiv Mera [and he wants to retract], they (the recipients) must bring a proof that he was healthy [when he gave it, and he cannot retract]; if now he is healthy, [he must bring a proof that he was Shechiv Mera. If not, he cannot retract];

Bar Shatya, since he is sometimes healthy and sometimes insane, there is no proof from his current state [to his state at the time that he sold].

Explanation (R. Tam): This is only when we recognize the signature only through comparing signatures;

However, if we recognize the witnesses' signature through sight, even if he (the bearer of the document) has another signature in his possession, we are not concerned lest he forged it;

Since we recognize the signature, if he forged it, it would be recognized well.

Explanation: Through the document he remembers it. However, if he does not remember it at all, no (he may not testify), for testimony must be mi'Pihem (from their mouths) v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam (and not written).

Support: We say so in Yevamos (31b) regarding "why didn't Chachamim enact a date in a Shtar Kidushin?"

Citation (13b): If we would leave the Shtar with the witnesses, if they remember, they can testify by themselves! If they do not remember, sometimes they will see the writing and testify, and the Torah said mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam!

Question: Also here, why don't we forbid to write testimony in a document, lest he totally forget, and testify based on the writing, like we are concerned there?

Answer: Surely, there Chachamim were concerned, since Beis Din gives the document to him, and he will think that they gave it to him to testify [from it], even if he does not remember;

However, here he writes testimony in a document by himself. Chachamim were not concerned for this.

Question: Why can't they see what is written and testify?

A Mishnah (Bava Basra 168a) says that if one's document was [getting] erased, he gets witnesses [to see, or who know] what was written in it and comes to Beis Din, and they make a Kiyum for him. The Gemara explains what is its Kiyum.

Also in Bava Kama (98a) regarding one who burned another's documents, we say that he is exempt b'Yedei Adam [but liable b'Yedei Shamayim];

Citation (98a) Question: What is the case? If there are witnesses who know what was written in the document, we should write another for him;

Inference: This is not considered mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam!

Answer: In Yevamos (31b), we are concerned lest they come and testify Stam, as if they remember the testimony;

However, surely if they testify that they saw their signatures, this is not [forbidden due to] mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam;

This is because witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony was investigated [and accepted] in Beis Din. It is as if they testify "we saw testimony that was investigated in Beis Din.

Question: Here, even if he does not remember at all, what is the problem? He will bring his document to Beis Din!

Answer #1: One witness in a document is not considered a document, only one with two witnesses, which is like "Sefer ha'Miknah."

Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (165a) that one witness in writing and one witness who testifies verbally do not join;

Inference: Two witnesses in writing, even in two parchments (one signed in each) do join!

Answer #1: There (Bava Basra) we discuss one witness in writing and one witness who testifies verbally. This is not when he says that he saw the loan;

Rather, he saw the borrower hand the document to the lender. This is like two witnesses signed on a document, according to R. Elazar, who says that Edei Mesirah Karsei (the witnesses who see a document handed over, they empower it).

Answer #2: Also, the Yerushalmi explains that one witness in a document is when both of them signed on a document, and they were Mekayem the signature of one of them, but they could not be Mekayem the signature of the other;

Distinction: In any case, even though one witness in a document is not considered a document to say that if two come and say "so we saw written in a document", they are considered like Ed mi'Pi Ed (a witness who testifies about what he heard from another witness)...

Even so, it is testimony, and one can send something written in his handwriting to Beis Din, and mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam does not apply, since he remembers the testimony.

[However,] Rashi in his Perush on the Torah explained that "mi'Pihem v'Lo mi'Pi Kesavam" forbids sending written testimony to Beis Din.

The Ri's opinion: One witness in a document helps if there are two documents, and one witness signed in each of them. It is considered a full document. (This is unlike Answer #1 (h).)

Repeat of Question (g): If so, in our Sugya, one should [be allowed to] bring his writing to Beis Din, even if he does not remember at all!

Answer #2: It is considered a document only when the borrower consented, for he is liable [due to it]. Then it is considered a document;

However, here he wrote his testimony without the borrower's consent. It is not considered a document.

Question (R. Shmuel of Vardon): In Bava Basra (40a), we say that a Mach'ah must be in front of two, and he need not say "write";

What does it help for them to write it? It is not with the consent of the one making Chazakah [whom the document harms]!

Answer #1: This is fine according to what we explained (a), that it is testimony as long as he remembers it.

Answer #2 (Ri): Chachamim were lenient about Mach'ah, which is only mid'Rabanan;

Support #1: They were lenient also to say that Mach'ah not in front of him [the original owner] is valid, even though sometimes he does not hear;

They relied on the fact that your friend has a friend [... so word spreads].

Support #2: Also regarding a Moda'ah in front of two, they were lenient [to allow witnesses] to write it to save one who is blackmailed from his Ones.

Answer #3 (Ri): We do not require both parties' consent. Here he could bring his document if it were written the way documents are written;

However, here we discuss when it is not written like a document. It is a mere commemoration of the matters.

Explanation #2: Based on the Yerushalmi, we can explain our Sugya differently.

Citation (Yerushalmi): Rav Huna holds like Rebbi, and R. Yochanan holds like Rabanan [in the coming Mishnah].

Explanation: When witnesses come to confirm their signatures, if they remember the loan without the document, even according to Rebbi we need not join with them another from the market [who recognizes their signature], for they testify about the money in the document;

When they do not remember the loan even through the document, even Rabanan agree that we must join with them [another who recognizes their signature], for you are forced to say that they testify only about their signatures;

They argue about when they remember the loan through the document. Rabanan consider this remembering, and they testify about the money in the document;

Rebbi does not consider this remembering.

Objection: The text [in our Sugya] "one may write" connotes unlike this.

Question: Here we mention first what is less obvious;

Similarly in Yevamos (41a) "[a woman] may not become Mekudeshes or have Nisu'in until three months [of being widowed or divorced, lest she gave birth within nine months of when she was with her former husband, and there will be a Safek about who is the father], whether they are Besulos or Be'ulos", it mentions Eirusin before Nisu'in, and Besulos before Be'ulos, i.e. the less obvious case first.

However, in Rosh Hashanah (29b), a Mishnah says "the same applies to Yavneh and every place with a Beis Din (the Great Sanhedrin, they blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah that is on Shabbos)." It mentions first what is more obvious!

Also in Bava Kama (50b), "the same applies to one who digs a Bor, Si'ach or Ma'areh" (round pit, long pit or cave. He is liable for damage that occurs through it. Bor is more obvious, for the Torah discusses a Bor)";

Also in Sotah (43a), it says "the same applies to one who built or bought [a new house] regarding [returning from] the ranks of war." (The Torah taught the former.)

Also Rashi's text in Sukah (20a) regarding "a big mat made to lie on, it is Tamei (Mekabel Tum'ah), and one may not use it for Schach. R. Eliezer says, the same applies whether it is small or big"...

The Gemara asked "he should have said 'the same applies whether it is big or small'!" The text was written oppositely in Seforim, and Rashi switched it, because Tana'im generally mention first what is more obvious.

Answer (Ri): When [a Tana] refers to an argument or a verse, he mentions first what is more obvious, like there in Sukah, where R. Eliezer argues with the first Tana;

He should have said 'the same applies whether it is big, in which case you agree with me, so you should agree with me about a small [mat]!"

Similarly, "the same applies to Yavneh" argues with R. Eliezer, who says that R. Yochanan ben Zakai enacted to blow only in Yavneh.

In Bava Kama (50b) and Sotah (43a), he refers to the verse.

Distinction: However, here and in Yevamos, he does not refer to anything (an opposing opinion or verse). We need not be concerned for which is taught first. (See Tosfos in Shabbos 20b, Pesachim...)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Close mounds, even if they are new, are Tamei, because she goes alone, and it is not known if she buried there;

For far mounds, she takes a man with her. Had she buried [a miscarriage there], the man who accompanied her would reveal [to people].

Therefore, old mounds are Tamei, for even though she took a man with her, the matter became forgotten.

Question #1 (Ri): If so, why must we say below that she takes a man with her and goes to the cemetery? It should have mentioned only that she takes a man with her!

This is why new mounds are more [likely to be] Tahor, for had she buried there, the matter would be known!

Question #2: If she goes to the cemetery, why are old mounds Teme'os?

Answer (Ri): It is better to explain like R. Chananel, that old mounds are Teme'os even if they are far, for we are concerned lest they were close. The city was nearby, and it was destroyed;

According to this, we (the text) does not say that she takes a man with her, it would be known more. Therefore, we needed to say that she goes to the cemetery.

Explanation (R. Chananel): They found a rib and attributed the Tum'ah to that rib, and they were Metaher the rest.