Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (173a) that documents are acquired through Mesirah (handing them over). Abaye said that he must bring a proof;

Explanation: [He must bring a proof] because we are concerned lest it fell, or he deposited it with him!

Answer: There we discuss Nefilah d'Rabim (there are many people from whom it could have fallen);

For Nefilah d'Yachid (there is only one from whom it could have fallen), i.e. Yosef ben Shimon and another Yosef ben Shimon found it, surely we are not concerned.

Support: The Gemara distinguishes like this in Bava Basra (172b) between Nefilah d'Yachid and Nefilah d'Rabim.

Question: How can we say there regarding the Mishnah that two Yosef ben Shimon's [who live in one city] can bring a loan document against others [and demand payment], and a Beraisa says that they cannot...

[The Gemara says that] they (the Mishnah and Beraisa) argue like Abaye and Rava, about whether or not one must bring a proof;

The one who says that they cannot, he holds like Abaye, who is concerned for Nefilah.

Summation of question: Abaye is not concerned for Nefilah d'Yachid, lest it fall from this Yosef ben Shimon and the other [Yosef ben Shimon] will find it!

Answer: The Gemara does not mean that they argue exactly like Abaye and Rava;

Rather, just like Abaye is concerned for Nefilah d'Rabim, that Tana is concerned even for Nefilah d'Yachid.

Question: How does Abaye bring a proof for his opinion that one must bring a proof because we are concerned for Nefilah, from the case of a brother holding a loan document?

[We say that] he must bring a proof. This shows that we are concerned for Nefilah.

Brothers are a case of Nefilah d'Yachid. Abaye is not concerned for this!

Answer: He compares brothers, who take from each other, like it explains there, to Nefilah d'Rabim;

If we are concerned for Nefilah d'Rabim, also there (regarding brothers) we should be concerned.

Question: How can Rava bring a proof from this? Abaye answered it very well!

Suggestion: [Rava] is concerned for Nefilah and deposits.

Rejection: It says in Bava Basra (173b) that documents are acquired through Mesirah. Abaye said that he must bring a proof. Rava said that he need not bring a proof.

Why doesn't he need to bring a proof, if we are concerned for Nefilah and deposits.

Answer: Rava holds that documents are not acquired through Mesirah.

Therefore, he brings a proof that if we were concerned for two Yitzchak's, also here regarding Chavi bar Nanai, we should be concerned lest he gave it to him, and now retracted.

Implied question: It says in Bava Basra (173a) that documents are acquired through Mesirah... Rava said, he need not [bring a proof. This connotes that he agrees that they are acquired through Mesirah!]

Answer: Rava does not hold like this. Rather, he argues [with Abaye] according to Rebbi, who holds like this in the Beraisa there.

Question: [If one had two wives with the same name, and wrote a Get for the older wife, the Gemara] Gitin (24b) infers that he cannot divorce the younger wife, but it can divorce the older;

Rava infers that [either of] two Yosef ben Shimon's living in the same city may present a loan document against others.

What is the proof from a Get to a loan document? We need not be concerned lest one wife give her Get to her Tzarah to be divorced, for it is known that it cannot divorce her;

Regarding a document, perhaps he (the lender) gave it to him (the other Yosef ben Shimon)!

Answer #1: The text there says "Rabah", for Abaye challenges him. (First Rabah was Rosh Yeshiva, and later Abaye was, and after him, Rava. Usually, the senior Chacham's opinion is taught first.) Here, the text says "Rava".

Answer #2: Even if the text also there says "Rava", we can explain the inference there as follows:

Just like he can divorce the older wife, and we are not concerned lest the younger [received it and] gave it to her to cork a bottle, also here we are not concerned for two Yosef ben Shimon's, lest one of them gave it to the other to cork a bottle;

They know that it cannot be used to collect the debt, for Mesirah does not help for this, for documents are not acquired through Mesirah.

Answer #3 (R. Elchanan): We compare a [loan] document to a Get. Just like we should have been concerned lest a Get fell, since she is not careful with it, we should have been concerned for a document, lest he gave it [to the other];

Since we are not concerned lest a Get fell, likewise we are not concerned lest he gave [a document] to him.

Inference: If they were not acquired through Mesirah, we would be concerned lest he gave it to him.

Question: What is this different than things that are not normally lent and rented? The one Muchzak in (holding) it is believed to say that it is his;

Even if it is known that they trust each other, we are concerned for a deposit only regarding things that are normally lent and rented, and Godros (small animals, which can go by themselves), for it is known that he did not buy them.

If so, also regarding a document, we should believe him when he says that it is his!

Answer #1: Since documents are not acquired through Mesirah, rather, one needs a [another] document [to transfer a document], and the bearer does not one have a document [of transfer], we are concerned that it is not his.

Objection: In any case, we should be concerned lest he was Makneh (transferred ownership) to him Agav (together with) land! (I.e. this is a reason to believe that he may collect the debt!)

A document is acquired Agav land, like it says in Bava Basra (76b) in the Sugya of how documents are not acquired.

Defense #1 (of Answer #1): Perhaps Kinyan Agav land is not common.

Defense #2: Kinyan [of a document] Agav land helps only for the document of that land, like we say there "once one acquired the land, he acquired the document wherever it is, for it is the handle on the land";

A regular loan document is not acquired Agav land, for it is unlike Metaltelim.

Question (Ri): Why don't we say that it is his, and he did not give anything to his colleague?

Answer: Perhaps because his name is like his, and it is not proven in the document that it is his, and he did not make a sign [to show which it is], we should be concerned lest it is of his colleague;

It is impossible that there is no Siman in one not found in the other.

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Ri): Surely, he may keep the parchment, lest he lose his Chazakah, even if it is normal to deposit with him;

However, he cannot collect the debt as long as there is doubt lest he deposited with him.

Support: This is what it says in Bava Basra (173a) regarding "brothers are different, for they take from each other." The one holding the document cannot collect the debt;

However, the Ri holds that he can keep the parchment. The same applies to any other item [for which there is concern lest it is not his].

Question: In Makos (5a), Rava said that if two [witnesses] came and said that on Sunday morning, Ploni murdered in Neharde'a, and two others came and said "on Sunday afternoon, you were with us in Sura",

Citation (5a): We determine if between morning and afternoon it is possible to go [from Neharde'a to Sura], we do not kill [the first two for being Edim Zomemim]. If one cannot go, we kill them.

Citation (cont.) Objection: This is obvious!

Citation (cont.): One might have thought that we are concerned lest they went on an [abnormally] fast camel. [Rava] teaches that this is not so.

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here, [we are concerned that] since he intends to ruin another's wife, he went on a fast camel;

There, if they went on a fast camel, this would ruin themselves more (make it look like they testified falsely. Therefore, we are not concerned for this - Tosfos ha'Rosh.)

Answer #2 (R. Menachem): There, if they went on a fast camel, they should have claimed this! Since they did not say so, this shows that they testified falsely.

Explanation (R. Tam) Shili and Hini are two places near each other, like it says in Beitzah (25b), that on the Shabbos of the festival, they would carry Rav Huna on the shoulders from Hini to Shili;

The Gemara mentioned these places for a bigger Chidush. Even though they are close to each other [one must write the place where he writes].

Pesak (Ri): The Halachah follows Rav Hamnuna, for the Stam Gemara asks from his opinion.

Support #1: In Kesuvos (22b), regarding one who says "I was captured", we are meticulous to establish the Amora'im like Rav Hamnuna.

Support #2: Also in Gitin (64b), we challenge R. Yochanan from Rav Hamnuna.

Implied question: In Nedarim (91a), Rabah rejected Rav Hamnuna's law!

Answer #1: That is a mere Dichuy.

Answer #2: Also, even if he argues, the Halachah follows Rav Hamnuna, like I explained.

Question: In Kesuvos (89a), regarding one who showed a Get, Rav Yosef said that the case is, there are no witnesses of divorce;

Migo he could say "I did not divorce her", he can say "I divorced her and paid her Kesuvah."

How could he say so ("I did not divorce her")? She is believed to say "you divorced me"!

Answer: When she claims her Kesuvah, she is not believed. She is believed only about ability to remarry.

Explanation: According to the opinion that she lies, she fears to lie so much [to say that he died], since she loves him;

Note: Tosfos said "lie so much", for she already lied and said "you divorced me."

According to the opinion that she says based on estimation, since they are quarreling, due to a small [Raglayim l'Davar] she will say based on estimation [that he died].

The text: The text does not say "she initiated [the quarrel]", for [then] we are always concerned lest she lie, since she hates him.

Note: It seems that "we are always concerned lest she lie" means even in a case when there is no concern for saying based on estimation, e.g. "he died, and I buried him."

Question: [Even when he initiated the quarrel,] why won't she lie? She already lied, and said "you divorced me in front of Ploni and Almoni", and we asked them, and they said that this never happened!

Answer: She would not lie to say "my husband died", and (i.e. for) if he comes, she must leave both husbands, and all the fines [of the Mishnah 87b] apply.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Why did they say "in the harvest"?

Note: Tosfos Yom Tov says that this entire Dibur applies to the Reisha, in which Beis Hillel say that the law applies only to the harvest. Aruch l'Ner says that the Yerushalmi's text of the Mishnah did not say "like the episode that occurred." If not, what was the question?!

Citation (cont.) Answer #1 (R. Mana): A common Ones is different. The sun shines on a person's head during the harvest.

Citation (cont.) Support: "The child (that Elisha predicted would be born to the Shunamis) grew. One day, he went to his father, to the harvesters, and said to his father 'my head! My head!'"

Citation (cont.) Answer #2 (Rabanan): Snakes are common [during the harvest].

Explanation: [They enacted] because they saw that there will be excessive Igun if she is not believed.

Question: Why don't we believe her through a Migo, that she could have said that he divorced her, according to the opinion (Kesuvos 23a) that Rav Hamnuna's law applies even not in front of him?

Answer #1: This is not a Migo, for if we would believe her to say that he died, often she would say based on estimation. Therefore, we do not believe her, unless there is concern for Igun.

Answer #2: The Amora who says that even not in front of him, she is not brazen [to falsely claim that he divorced her], says so only regarding the Mishnah there. She says "I was married, and divorced";

We believe her due to ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir (she we know that she was married only from her, she is believed to say that she was divorced), even though there is Isur Eshes Ish, since also not in front of him she is not brazen;

However, normally (when there is no Peh she'Asar), she is not believed.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (38b) that when we heard that a captured man died, all agree that we put a relative on his property!

Answer #1: We can establish that this is when we heard through two witnesses;

If we heard through one witness, we find that a woman [who says that her husband died] is like one witness, and even so the brothers do not receive their inheritance through her!

Question: Still, it is difficult according to the conclusion there, that they argue about when we did not hear that he died;

Explanation: We did not hear through two witnesses, rather, through one witness. If we did not hear at all, obviously we do not put a relative on his property!

Summation of question: How did Shmuel say there that we put a relative on his property?!

Answer #1: Here we discuss going onto the property to sell it. There we discuss [going onto the property] to eat [the Peros], like it connotes there.

Consequence: Based on this, we can establish that we heard that he died, i.e. through one witness, and in order to eat. If we heard through two witnesses, he could go onto the property even to sell.

Question: If so, how do they argue about when we did not hear that he died, to put a relative on his property?!

Answer: We did not hear that he died through one witness, rather, through mere rumors, like it says in Gitin (89a);

Citation (89a): Ploni heard from David, and Almoni heard from Levi, and they (David and Levi) went overseas.

Disclaimer: However, in Kesuvos (107a) there are many cases of hearing that he died, and they refer to two witnesses.

Answer #2: We can also say here that he left intentionally, and there (i.e. in such a case) we do not put a relative on his property, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (38b).

Note: Maharam connotes that this is Answer #2 to Question (a). Maharsha connotes that this is Answer #2 to Question (c). If we heard through two witnesses, he may go onto the property even to sell. If we heard through one witness, Shmuel says that there we put a relative on his property to eat, but not here, for he left intentionally. The other opinion holds that we never put a relative on his property based on one witness.