Reason: Despite the fact that, based on the Pasuk "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem", they are equal with regard to 'Chakirah' and 'Derishah', it would not be logical to compare them with regard to matters concerning merit and guilt, since these are not relevant to money matters.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that they postponed writing the Sh'tar until the first of Nisan, and wrote it in the place to which the witnesses referred.

Refutation: This pushed explanation however, was quite unnecessary.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): What the Gemara really means is like the Sugya in 'Get Pashut', which rules that 'A Sh'tar that is dated on Shabbos or on the tenth of Tishri is a 'Sh'tar Me'uchar' (i.e. post-dated) and is Kasher.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Here too, the Sh'tar under discussion was written before the first of Nisan of the Sh'mitah in the location written in the Sh'tar. It therefore transpires that when the first of Nisan of the Sh'mitah arrived, which is the date on the Sh'tar, they were not in that place, since they had moved to another location.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara say that it is 'because they post-dated it? Even if they hadn't, the Sh'tar ought to be Kasher, as the Gemara says in Bava Basra 'If you know the date on which the Kinyan took place, then insert that date in the Sh'tar!' So maybe the Sh'tar was predated, in that it was written after the first Nisan in the location mentioned in the Sh'tar?

Answer: Our Sugya is discussing a Sh'tar Milveh, which one is not permitted to predate, so as not to claim from the purchasers illegally.

Inference: In any event, we can extrapolate from our Sugya that, in the case of a Safek, we can rely on a leniency and declare the Sh'tar Kasher ...

Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi at the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, though here is not the place to elaborate.

Clarification: This does not mean that we know for sure that it is a 'Din Merumah', because if it was, then, based on the Pasuk "mi'Devar Sheker Tirchak", Beis-Din would not be permitted to accept it in the first place, as the Gemara explains in Shevu'os,

Clarification: Rashi explains that this occurred during the decree of the ruling power forbidding them to circumcise their children. Afraid to publicize the Milos, when they performed them, they fixed this sign instead.

Proof: And so it is implied in the Yerushalmi in Kesuvos, with regard to 'the decree that they issued in Yehudah', where the Gemara asks what Siman (sign) they introduced? And it answers 'The noise of the grist-grinder in Burni (or in town - Tosfos ha'Rosh) meant that there was a wedding in progress; Whereas the light of a lamp in B'ror-Chayil signified a B'ris Milah (see Maharam).

Question: Then how come that the Navi Yirmiyah (who lived long before the time of the Greeks currently under discussion) already warned "And I will eliminate from them the sound of rejoicing and happiness, the sound of Chasan and of Kalah, the sound of the mill and the light of the lamp!"?

Answer: Perhaps in the times of the first Beis-Hamikdash they used the same Simanim to publicize their Semachos.

Ruling #1: The Minhag to kindle lights at a B'ris stems from here (see Maharam).

Ruling #2: Furthermore, there is a Minhag to hand a cloth a hanging at the entrance ...

Source: This stems from the Gemara in 'ha'Mocher Peiros, which states that 'There was a major Minhag in Yerushalayim, permitting guests to enter, as long as there was a cloth hanging at the door.

Clarification: Rashi explains that this pertains to after they have accepted the testimony of the witnesses.

Question: In that case; how does one encourage them to withdraw, seeing as we have a principle that 'Once witnesses have testified, they are not permitted to withdraw'?

Implied Answer: Perhaps we make them withdraw 'Toch K'dei Dibur' (in the time it takes to say 'Shalom Aleichem, Rebbi', as Rashi explains?

Refutation: But the words 'Mi Yeimar ke'de'Amrisu Havi?' ('Who said that it is like you said?') that we say to them takes longer than 'Toch K'dei Dibur' to say.

Implied Answer: Perhaps this is not called an interruption (to negate 'Toch K'dei Dibur', seeing as it is all part of the process of Din and of the testimony - Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Refutation: If that is so, then Ula ought to have answered that we say it to them after 'K'dei Dibur (See Maharam), even though this introduction does not count?

Answer #1: Ula could indeed have answered that, but it is not necessary, since he has an equally good answer ready.

Answer #2: Alternatively, as long as the witnesses have not been cross-examined, they are entitled to claim that they have been lying, and to retract from their original statement.

Refutation: Rashi however, explains that Beis-Din begin to deal with the merits of the defendant only after the Derishah va'Chakirah.

Proof: And his explanation is substantiated by the Mishnah in the fifth Perek which states that 'If the words of the witnesses are found to be accurate, Beis-Din began ... '.