עמוד א. אמרו רבנן. דאמרו רבנן I'm gonna learn. שנים אדוקין בשטר. If two people come holding onto a שטר, this is all בהמשך to to Mishnah: שנים אוחזין בטלית. Two people hold a טלית, each one says it's his, so the דין is יחלוקו. They swear and יחלוקו, you divide it. What happens if two people are holding on a שטר? Now, the two people are holding on here, it happens to be the מלוה and the לוה. The lender and the borrower are both coming to beit din holding onto the שטר. The שטר says that this borrower borrowed money from this lender. And the מלוה אומר, the מלוה, the lender says, "שלי הוא", my שטר, I lent you money, you gave me the שטר and it's mine. ונפל ממני, and from I dropped it. ומצאתיו, and I found it, and this guy came and grabbed the other end. Wait, basically what he's saying, you never paid yet, and it dropped from me, and I want him to pay me. לוה אומר, לוה says, "שלי הוא", it's mine! I paid, but I did, I paid you. I paid you, and I had it, and I dropped it, because you gave it back to me after I paid. So יתקיים השטר בחותמיו, דברי רבי. So Rabbi says, you got to certify the שטר. A שטר has to have a a קיום, which is called a הנפק. A שטר is supposed to have the certification of the beit din, and if at this point, we assume, what does that mean? That you, in order to be able to collect for the שטר, you got to certify it. If he certifies it, he collects with it. Basically, what he's saying, you give the שטר back to the מלוה. That's what it comes out. Huh? No, he's saying in other words, if it's not מקוים, you have to be מקיים it, and it seems, there's probably some words you have to put in. Wait, wait, just wait. Just start it. You said you're rushing, you want to help. דברי רבי, this is what Rabbi holds. So, Rabbi says that you have to be מקיים the שטר, and as it seems, if it's מקוים, you think the שטר is a good שטר, and you would give it back to the מלוה.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר יחלוקו. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says no, you divide it, just like in the Mishnah it says you find, you divide, here also you divide it equally. That means he pays them half, so there's a loss on this side, half on his. Comes the Gemara, tries to explain: אמר מר, you just said before, what did רבי say? יתקיים השטר בחותמיו, that you have to certify the שטר. And, fregt di Gemara: וגבי ליה מלוה כולה? And then you're saying if you do certify the שטר, the מלוה collects it. Why? ולית ליה לרבי שנים אוחזין? Rabbi doesn't hold of the klal that when you have two people holding, you divide it? So why wouldn't we, let's say we do certify the שטר, the שטר is a good שטר, but they're both holding, we don't know who dropped it, so why doesn't he say יחלוקו? Why does Rabbi say not יחלוקו? אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן says, you didn't understand the pshat: במקוים דברי הכל יחלוקו. Rabbi also agrees יחלוקו. And therefore, if you find the שטר, if the שטר is certified already, מקוים, yeah, everyone agrees that this is the דין יחלוקו, like by a case of a טלית, in the case of a שטר. כי פליגי, the machloket is כשאינו מקוים. You find that it's not מקוים. The question is, do you

have to be מקיים the שטר or not? רבי סבר, רבי says, מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו. Rabbi says like this: he asked before a good question, why do you have to be מקיים the שטר? The guy himself, the borrower, admits, he says it's a good שטר. אלא מאי his טענה is I paid, but he's not saying the שטר is no שטר, why do you have to certify? So, Rabbi holds if a person is modeh, admits that the שטר is good, it's not called kiyum. צריך לקיימו, you still have to be מקיים it. So, he says like this: if you found the שטר, and the loveh says, "Yes, it's a good שטר, but I paid," if you're not מקיים the שטר, then the שטר is worthless. But if, huh? Yeah, you bring kiyum is there are a few ways. Rashi gives one example. How are you מקיים the שטר? There are three ways: or you bring the witnesses themselves who signed and say, "We signed it," or you bring two other witnesses who recognize the signature, or you bring another שטר which has the same signatures and you compare it and the בית דין sees that, you have to bring two שטרות and they're מקוים. So, here, this is what the machloket is. Rabbi definitely agrees that this is a case of יחלוקו. He just says the machloket is a different machloket. If there is no kiyum, in order for the שטר to be a good שטר, do you need kiyum? Rabbi says you need kiyum even though he is modeh. So, Rabbi says we have to remember these words because I'm going to keep on using these words instead of repeating every time: מודה בשטר שכתבו, if you're modeh a שטר that you wrote, if the loveh, the borrower is modeh, still צריך לקיימו. You still have to be מקיים it. And if you're not מקיים it, it's like a שטר that has no kiyum. What's the din by a שטר has no kiyum. So then, no, by שטר has, no, regular case, what happens if a שטר has no קיום? Right, if the guy says, "I don't want to pay," he doesn't have to pay, because the שטר is not valid. So, Rabbi says even though he is modeh. ואם מקיימו, יחלוקו, רבי says. If you're mekayem the שטר, then it becomes a good שטר, and what do you do? יחלוקו. So said you could be mekaymo afterwards? Yeah, you could always be. What was he even coming here? Here, I'm telling you that there. ואם לא מקיימו, רבי says, and if you're not מקיימו, לא יחלוקו, you don't collect, because if you're not Even though he is modeh the שטר, and he says why: מאי טעמא? Why don't you collect at all if the שטר, if he's not mekaymo? Because חספא בעלמא הוא, the שטר is like חספא. חספא means a piece of earthenware, worthless. Why is it worthless? Because איי this guy says the שטר is good, even the לוה, the borrower says it's good, because מאן קא משוי ליה להאי שטרא? Who makes the שטר into a good שטר? לוה. So, you want to believe the לוה that the שטר is a good שטר, הא קאמר דפריע, says it's paid. ממה נפשך, if you're believing him that the שטר is a good שטר, so you trust him, but he says, "I paid." So, that's what Rabbi means to say here, that when you find a שטר and it doesn't have קיום, you still got to have קיום. In order to say יחלוקו, you got to have this, the

קיום. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel סובר, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. If a person, meaning the לוה, the borrower admits that the שטר is a good שטר, you don't have to be mekaymo, that's קיום. And therefore, אף על גב דלא מקיימו, יחלוקו. Even if he's not מקיימו, it's as if it's מקוים. And what's the din if it's מקוים in this case? So, when they're not holding it, and just the מלוה has it, then you pay. In the case where they're both holding it, and the שטר מקוים, יחלוקו. So, the bottom line of the Gemara is that the machloket, Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, is a general שאלה: if the לוה himself is מודה that the שטר is good, and there is no קיום, do we believe the לוה if he says, "פרעתי"? That's really what it is. The לוה says, "The שטר is a good שטר, but I paid." So, if you say that the שטר is called not מקוים, so a שטר that's not מקוים, he could say, "פרעתי." He could say, "I paid," because you don't have a שטר. If it's a שטר מקוים, if someone has a שטר that's certified, you can't answer, "פרעתי." Because if you could answer, "I paid," and we believe him, what's the worth of the שטר? A שטר is worthless, because any old guy would say, "I paid." So, if it's a שטר that's מקוים, you cannot say, "פרעתי." A שטר that's not מקוים, yeah, you could say, "פרעתי." No, that's right. If it's a שטר מקוים, it doesn't matter. The שאלה is here, in this case, when the שטר is not מקוים, but the לוה himself says it's a good שטר, can he still say, "פרעתי"? Do we look at it as a שטר מקוים, and a שטר מקוים we do not believe you that you said you paid, or we say no, we do not look at it as a שטר מקוים, and if it's not מקוים, you could say, "פרעתי"? The question is Like a notary public, no? Which is another way to be מקיים, I mean, we mentioned three ways to be מקיים a שטר, there's a fourth way: have the עדים sign in front of the בית דין, and the בית דין gives the certification right away. That's a notary public, that the notary public has to watch you sign, and then the notary public, which is the representative of the court, signs and certifies it, but sure you have to see him sign. In a different situation, but the idea is the same. Okay. The question that I'm asking now is: if that's the machloket, why in the world did they pick to argue in such a funny case? You ask, a case where they lost the שטר, and they're holding The machloket has nothing to do with it, the machloket is a general machloket, when the לוה is מודה that the שטר is מקוים, is it called מקוים, and then he cannot say, "פרעתי", or is it not called מקוים, he could say, "פרעתי"? That's a she'elah always. Whatever the machloket is there will automatically apply here. If it's מקוים, then you say יחלוקו. If it's not מקוים, you will not say יחלוקו. Why did Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel pick to argue in such a strange situation, when they should have argued very generally, a very simple machloket? They should have said, if someone brings a שטר, a מלוה brings a שטר to a לוה, and it's not מקוים, but the לוה says, "I paid." So, is he מקיימו and he's not believed he paid, or is he not? They should argue there. To answer this, why they דוקא argue here, obviously, there is some chidush that will come out that will teach us, just because they're arguing in this case, okay? This is the situation, this is what could be the peshat, like this: in this מחלוקת, מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו, a guy is מודה himself, is it called מקוים or not, there are two ways to learn. And the two ways to learn The question that we're discussing here is the קיום, right? If it has no קיום, so the question is, and he says, "I paid," do we look at it that he was מקיים it and he can be believed he paid, or not? Where does the whole idea of קיום come from? So we have the

Gemara who said in many places in Shas: מדאורייתא, מן התורה, the Gemara says, עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין. If you come with a document and it has עדים, מדאורייתא, there's no need to worry. We're not חושש that it's forged, the Torah trusts the שטר, and this שטר is a good שטר, beseder. The רבנן hold after קיום. The רבנן are the ones that said, "No, we want you to be מקיים it." It means it has signatures of עדים, or just the real עדים have come as witnesses? No, no, no, no, no signatures, a שטר that comes with a signature. And דאורייתא said, מדאורייתא, that is enough to be a good שטר, and that's it, you could come and collect with it. But the רבנן said, "No, you can't collect with it unless you're מקיים it." I guess those days, the time of the Chumash, people the were were trusted, I mean the she'eilah is people how are people חשוד to do this? So, earlier, people were not suspected to do it, so it was חזקה. מה שאין כן later, the רבנן said it's not. The she'eilah is, what, which way did the רבנן do it? Did the רבנן say like this: the שטר is a שטר. Since מדאורייתא it's a שטר, they didn't take away its practice, it's still a שטר. What we did, we added. We added another point, that we want you, in addition to the שטר being a שטר, we want you to also certify it, מקיים. Or you could say that what the רבנן did, they came and they said that we are מבטל, we rule we say that it's not a שטר anymore. As long as you're not מקיים, it's not a שטר. And ממילא it won't even be מדאורייתא anything. Now, how could the רבנן take away a דין דאורייתא? They could. Actually, we had Rabbi Zinner, Harav Zinner speak in the yeshiva a few days ago, so he, not about this, but he mentioned a Tosafos, which is a a famous Tosafos in Sukkah. The Gemara says in Sukkah that מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל, not to go in the פרטים, that the din is that the Sukkah, when you eat in the Sukkah, not only should you eat in the Sukkah, but the table you're eating over has to be in the Sukkah. The ראשו ורובו ושולחנו, the table. Mid'oraita, if the table is outside the Sukkah, it doesn't matter, as long as you're eating in the Sukkah. The Rabbanan made a gezeirah. We're afraid that if you eat or that you might stick your head out and you'll eat outside the Sukkah. So they said no. The Gemara tells us, now, there's a Mishnah in Sukkah that the Chachamim came to Rabbi Yochanan there, to one of the the Tannaim, and they saw him eating, and this table was outside the Sukkah. So they said to him, "No, if this is how you eat, לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך. In your whole life you never were mekayem the Sukkah." So Tosafos asks, what do you mean in his life he's not mekayem? It's only mid'rabbanan. Mid'oraita he's mekayem. How did he say you're not mekayem the mitzvah at all? So Tosafos says that when the Rabbanan said that in order to eat in the Sukkah you have to have the table in, they made it that if you eat with the table out, even mid'oraita you're not mekayem the mitzvah. In other words, the Rabbanan have a right to do this, that they say that they're mevatel the mitzvah if you don't keep the way they did it. So that's by the case of a mitzvah. It's nogea to many other dinim. L'mashal, that doesn't really That's like a condition. No, I'm saying, but not a condition. L'mashal, מדאורייתא the Alter Rebbe paskent, לילה זמן תפילין. Night is the time of tefillin. The Rabbanan said you shouldn't put on tefillin at night. So what does it mean if a person puts on tefillin at night? He definitely did an aveirah, an issur derabbanan. But was he mekayem the mitzvah of tefillin מדאורייתא? Or when the Rabbanan said that you shouldn't do this at night, they were mevatel the mitzvah. Better, you can't blow shofar on Rosh Hashanah on Shabbos. If a guy does blow shofar on שבת, Rosh Hashanah, so he did an issur derabbanan, but was he mekayem it mid'oraita? And take other things. Are women allowed to put on tefillin? Women? No. Means מעיקר הדין they're allowed to, but they don't. Rashi's daughters did. Yeah, the ones who put on the tallit. Anyway, not to get beyond, get to this. So we see from there that there is a possibility of the Rabbanan making a דין, וממילא they're saying that the דאורייתא'דיקע דין, if you don't keep the derabbanan, the mid'oraita is not. So is it the same thing, a possibility here? You could learn that when the Rabbanan said that you need kiyum, they didn't take away the דין דאורייתא. The shtar remains a shtar, and alright, they want an extra little piece to it want a kiyum to it. Or you could say that the Rabbanan said that if you're not mekayem, the shtar is no shtar. Mai nafka mina? What difference will it be? I'll tell you what the difference is. In a case where מודה בשטר שכתבו, the loveh himself is modeh that he wrote it, so he's mekayem it. And if you hold מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו, you still need קיום. In other words, we don't accept what he said and we still need קיום, and therefore he's not he's believed to say פרעתי. Yeah? Why is he believed to say, "I paid"? You could learn it like this. And the other מאן דאמר says that he's not believed to say פרעתי. He says מודה בשטר שכתבו he is believed to say. One says he is and one says The שאלה of what is it? If you say that you don't accept his word and it's not a שטר מקוים, so he's believed to say פרעתי. Since it is not a שטר מקוים, his being מודה doesn't work, מודה בשטר שכתבו, it's צריך לקיימו, it means it's not a שטר מקוים, you still have to be מקיים it, so he can say פרעתי. Why? There are two ways to learn it. On one hand you could say, you know why? If it What is the condition again? Okay, so a מודה בשטר שכתבו, if you hold צריך לקיימו, you still have to be מקיים, which means the שטר is not called a שטר מקוים. So then would you believe him if he says, "I paid"? So the question is, why is he believed? If you learn that without קיום the שטר is no שטר, so you know why he's believed to he is believed to say פרעתי? Because then I'd hold it. No, no, not because he could deny it, because anytime a person says פרעתי to a חוב that has no שטר, you're believed. If I come to you and I say, "You know, you owe me a" מלוה על פה, no שטר, nothing, and I come to you and say, "You know you owe me $100," and you answer me, "Sure, I borrowed, but I paid." What's the דין? You're believed. So this case, if the רבנן said that the without קיום it's not a שטר, and we're holding if a guy is מודה it's not called קיום, so what is it? No שטר. So the שטר is no שטר. If the שטר is no שטר, why is the guy believed to say, "I paid"? Because the guy is asking for money, he has and it's no שטר, so it's like a מלוה על פה, and he answers פרעתי, he's believed. It has nothing to do with a migo. You don't need a migo. You can deny that you have money that you owe him. Huh? Where the פרעתי is not believed because you can deny the whole thing? Parati at all. I would just say, "What are you talking about?" Well, what? You have to answer. If I come and claim that you owe, what do you answer? Well, then do you owe or not? That's what we'll ask you. Sure. What do you mean? A claim is a claim. If a guy has a claim, you don't have to have a shtar for a claim. Yeah, but they'll say, but you have to answer. But if you admit If you're quiet, maybe you're admitting. Aren't there cases in the Gemara that if you're quiet, you admit something that you owe? שתיקה כהודאה. That's how they took out re'aya. That's a ta'anah. If I come with this I say you owe, and you say you paid, you're believed, because I have nothing, no shtar, and the din is you're believed. Same thing here also, if we hold that if the guy is modeh it's not called kiyum. If it's not called kiyum, this guy who has the shtar has a shtar without kiyum. If a shtar without kiyum the rabbanan said is no shtar, so this guy has no shtar. If he has no shtar, so the other guy is believed parati. If you hold the second way that the shtar is still a shtar, אלא מאי the rabbanan wanted kiyum, but the shtar is a shtar. So you know why you believe him parati? Not because he has no shtar, there is something he has, he's believed parati with a migo! You could have said mezuyaf! That's what it is. The shtar is a shtar, but you could have said it's forged! What would be if a guy comes with a shtar that's that's not mekuyam, and you say the shtar is forged? But then they can go and certify it. If he certified, fine, so fine, but But he gets like, it's not a real migo. Yes, it is! Because you could say it's forged and then you'll go and prove it's not, and that guy will get punished. But then you'll lose! Yes, so? But you could say it's forged. So if that's what it is, it's a migo, that you have a migo that you could have said mezuyaf. Since you could have said mezuyaf, we believe the guy with a migo. פרוע, מיגו דמזויף! But the other way, you don't have a migo! It's not a real migo. A real migo is you have a I could say something that would be the end of the case. We'll see, we'll see. What you're saying is sevara from the other side, which other מאן דאמר holds. We'll get to that Tosafot. There's a Tosafot in Ketubot that's trying to say what you're saying. We'll We'll get the whole picture first. So there are two ways to learn this Gemara, this דין: when a person says the שטר is not מקוים and he says, "I paid." So he's מודה that the שטר is is he's מודה that the שטר is good, so if you hold his קיום is no קיום, and if you hold that if a שטר has no קיום, the שטר is no שטר, so he has no שטר. If he has no שטר, anybody who says, "You owe me money" without a שטר, and the guy answers פרוע, he's believed it's פרוע. If you're going to say the other way that the שטר is a שטר, אלא מאי it's missing קיום, so the שטר is a שטר, so why do we believe the guy in this case who says, "I paid"? Migo he could have said it's forged. And had he said it's forged, he would win. Unless the guy is מקיים it, but as long as guy's not מקיים it, he would win. So if he could have said מזויף, and he says פרוע, he's believed with a פרוע, מיגו דמזויף. Yeah, but since there's a שטר and he says that I paid, shouldn't they check out

the שטר that it is? Yeah, because of what the guy the other one run the person to check it out, but if he can't be מקיים, there's nobody to check to recognize him, and he's so פסול? So again, so there are two ways to learn. What's nafka mina lafoal? The bottom line's all the same. The bottom line is if you hold if you hold that the קיום is no קיום, if אי אפשר לקיימו because וממילא פרעתי is believed, what's nafka mina? What difference is if he's believed פרעתי because he's believed פרעתי against a no שטר, or he's believed פרעתי there's a migo he says it's, they're both the same. It's not the same! What would be if it's a case where there is no migo? Will he still be believed פרוע if there is no migo? If you hold the reason is because the שטר is no שטר, and against that you believe פרעתי without a migo, so if there is no migo, he's still believed, who cares? If you hold the only reason he's believed is because of the migo, in a case where there is no migo, he won't be believed. Where is there a case where he has no migo? I'll tell you. Our Gemara! What's the case here? They both came with a שטר. He says I paid. He has a migo, he could have said it was forged. Yeah, he said the שטר is good, but I paid. The migo would be that he says forged, but he could have said forged!

When is a migo? A migo is a pshat that the טענה that you could have claimed is as good as the one you're claiming or even better, but not worse. But if the טענה you could is worse, it wouldn't be. What would be if the טענה is here מזויף and they're going to go and be מקיים the שטר, what's going to be? You'll have to pay the whole thing, because he said מזויף. What would be if he says פרוע? Yeah, and what will he pays. He says פרעתי, I paid. And let's they're going to be מקיים the שטר. What's going to happen here? He'll pay half only, because it's חולקים. So why should this guy be נתפס and claim מזויף, taking a risk that he might have to pay the whole thing? He'd rather say פרוע. So it's no more migo! So in the case where there is no more migo, so in a case like this, depends which way we're going to learn why this guy is נאמן to believe that he פרעתי. And that's the reason why Rabbi and Rabban Shimon argue in this case. Had they argued in a regular case, you wouldn't know what the reason is. Rabbi says that the guy is believed to say פרעתי. Maybe he's believed because he has a migo! So according to that, would come out in a case like this where there is no migo, Rabbi would agree he's not believed! So they're arguing here where Rabbi wants to show that that's not my reason. The reason is not because of the migo, וממילא the reason is because the שטר is not מקוים. And if the

שטר is not מקוים, I'm believed to say פרעתי, I don't care if there's a migo or not. So פרעתי is believed. And that's Rabbi's שיטה, and it fits the words of the Gemara. The Gemara says that he has to be מקיים, if he's not מקיים, you don't divide it. מאי טעמא? What's the reason? If I if I write the Gemara, I'd write it differently. You know what's the reason? The reason is why if it's not מקוים, you don't divide? Because he's believed if you're not מקוים, we believe him that it's paid. Yeah? So why do we believe him that it's paid? פרוע מיגו דמזויף, if it would be for that reason. It doesn't say that. It says, you know why? Because חספא בעלמא, the שטר is nothing worth. It's like מזויף. No, I'm saying because it's not we don't accept what he says. The שטר is not מקוים, so it's not a שטר. He wants to tell you, 'My reason is not because it's פרוע מיגו דמזויף. The reason is because since it's not מקוים, the שטר is no שטר.' The text says, 'מאי טעמא? חספא בעלמא.' Right. And that's why he's believed פרעתי. And that's why even in this case where there is no מיגו, רבי still says he's believed. Had that been the reason because of the migo, in this case he wouldn't be believed. A migo is a claim, because he's using that as an Oh, a migo that the טענה you could have claimed is a worse טענה, then that's not a migo! No, migo is a פשט, I will explain soon. Migo is if he's a liar, he could be a better liar, but if it's a worse lie, no one says that. So in this case you just said when he says if the שטר is not a שטר, but also says פרעתי. Yeah, vadai. He's saying פרעתי. So why do we believe him פרעתי? Because he has no שטר, and against no שטר פרעתי is believed. This shtar is חספא בעלמא! So he's trying to tell, because really why did he have to say חספא, the shtar is worthless? He shouldn't say that, he should say because you have a migo, if the reason would be because of a migo, he should say פרעתי מיגו דמזויף. It doesn't say that, it says because the shtar is worthless. He's trying to stress that point, and he's and he's saying it here. Had he said it in a different place, we would not know why, because in those cases there is no difference which way you learn, so maybe you could learn that it's a migo. And what would be the problem if you learn it because of a migo? Then in this case where there is no migo, we would think Rabbi agrees! But Rabbi comes and says, like the Gemara tells us on the לשון להודיעך כחו דרבי, to show you that Rabbi holds even in a case like this where there is no there is no migo of מזויף, we still believe him. Why? Because the whole reason is because there is no קיום, there is no What is the difference between a שטר שאינו מקוים and חספא בעלמא? אינו מקוים, the word אינו מקוים could mean not מקוים, so it doesn't have 100%, it's missing something. No, who said it's nothing? I said it's two ways to learn. But I'm trying to say, they're trying to tell you the other way, that it's not the peshat it's missing קיום. The peshat is, the shtar is no shtar. What do we gain from it? So you're מקיים. If you're מקיים the shtar, You double that. No, but until then there's At this point, you're believed, פרוע, even if there's no migo. At this point, he says, פרוע, and he has no migo, because at this case, where they're both holding, he'd rather not say מזויף, so there is no migo. But, a שטר שאינו מקוים is good לגבי what? לגבי שאינו מקוים, it's nafka mina lagabei this, that theoretically what's the nafka mina if it's because they added it, or because it's not a shtar at all. This is an nafka mina. The nafka mina would be that when the guy says, פרוע, and it's not מקוים, what will be? Do Is it a migo, or is it stam not? And the nafka mina would be where there is no migo. Not even a שטר. It's gone. Not even a שטר. And if not a שטר, he doesn't need a migo to believe him פרוע. But you can מקים the שטר even after like מזויף, if he said מזויף, you can מקים the שטר. But they're afraid to lose. If he No, because if you're holding, if he says מזויף, and they find out he's lying, But then he'll pay the whole thing. He says it's מזויף. But if he says פרוע, so then we're מקים it, so it was no problem, he agreed to it, he didn't lie, and they're both holding it, so they say, יחלוקו. So, he'd rather say פרוע to only pay half instead of saying מזויף which is losing the whole thing, if they're מקים it. To go a little bit deeper, this is, It's sure it's like that. I can hear him ask. The Gemara talks about migos of these guys. These guys aren't who, folks from all over, guys off the street, they're not chap the sevarot of the Chachamim. Says, "Yes." That's the vort of the Gemara, when it comes to you, it's נוגע to you, you'll chap the deepest sevarot. You see, it comes to cases As a lawyer, you probably know the most people who are, the most stupid people when it comes to these things, they come up with ideas, absolutely sevarot. Yeah. They were talking smart. They were, there he talks about שפחה, the שפחה כנענית, the שפחה. The Gemara says, דינים that she's supposed to have a migo. Okay. See the Chachamim are smarter than them. Oh, the the donkey that fell in the בור, Shabbos, again, with the Rav, he said, "What are we going to do? The donkey is, "Don't don't touch it. But is this your donkey? Oh, this is חיות, Then, you can feed the donkey. To explain a little bit, this whole thing of what's the two sevarot, why would there be a sevara to say that the שטר is no שטר at all? You said, the chachamim have a right to do that if they want, but why would they do it? Why would they say, we're mevatel the whole inyan of a shtar? So, be'emet, it's a whole אריכות, but it's noge'a to Tosafot in Kesubot.

Tosafot in Kesubot, דף י"ח, עמוד א'. That's the place where the Gemara has a מחלוקת, מודה בשטר שכתבו, if the guy is modeh in the shtar, even though there's no kiyum, is he believed parua or not? So, Tosafot here says, דף י"ח, עמוד א', מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו, according to the opinion that if you're modeh in a shtar you don't have to mekayem, which means what you said is a good kiyum. And if it's a good kiyum, you're not believed to say parua, because it's a good shtar in all places. So, Tosafot asks, ואם תאמר, מאי תעמא לא מהימנא למיגו דאי בעי אמר מזויף? Why doesn't we give him a migo? Why would there be a מַאן דְּאָמַר who says that if you're mekayem the shtar, you're not believed to say parua, why? Because it's against the שטר מקוים. But, you should be believed because he still has a migo. He still have a migo, so why shouldn't he be believed? So, Tosafot gives one terutz, and then Tosafot says, ופירש הקונטרס במקום אחר, there's a Rashi someplace, which we don't know where it is, Tosafot says, you should know that Rashi says a different vort. Rashi says that the טעמא, שמן דבר תורה אין צריך קיום. מן התורה, you don't need kiyum. עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין. Because עדים who signed, a שטר with two signatures is a כשר שטר. רבנן הוא דאצריכו קיום. It's the רבנן who wanted a kiyum. כי טעין מזויף הוא, when did the רבנן say it needs kiyum? If the guy says it's forged. אבל בשאר טענות כמו פרוע הוא, לא הצריכו קיום. But if he doesn't טענה מזויף, he טענה, the חכמים never made a kiyum, the חכמים never made בעצם every שטר needs kiyum. If you טענה מזויף, then it needs kiyum. Yeah, that makes sense. So the mefarshim asked, how does this answer the kashya? How does this answer the kashya? The kashya was, why don't you believe the guy with פרוע מיגו דמזויף? No, but he could have said מזויף, no? He's talking about at this point, you're not yet מקים it. He had a choice to say מזויף. What would happen if he would say מזויף? Yeah good, but till they're מקיים it, they wouldn't Buy yourself 20 minutes. No, why? Most cases you can't even מקיים, so go look for somebody's שטר, it's 20 years old already. But why at this Every time you're talking about till you're מקיים it, till you're מקיים it and there's no קיום. So you say he don't have a migo. Why doesn't he have a migo? Because there's no דין קיום unless you're טענ'ינג מזויף, and you didn't. Who cares there's no דין קיום? What does Tosafos stand for? The mefarshim ask: sof kol sof, look at a very practical way. When he brought the שטר, he could have answered מזויף! Yes, because everybody would do the same trick. מענטש וואלטן געזאגט, you want to say, oh Baruch Hashem, I have a migo to claim? No, that's not a migo. Azoy! Azoy! It's not It's money! But obviously this We're talking about this migo always. There's no questioning that this is a full migo. The

question is why they don't give it to him. It's a complete migo! When they're mekayem the shtar, he loses his migo right there. We're not talking if the guy If the guy If a guy says parati, if you give him 10 migos and he goes and mekayem the shtar, he loses his migo now, and he pays. The שאלה is if he's not mekayem, till you're mekayem the shtar, what's the דין? So we're saying he has a migo he could have said מזויף and he'd win. So if you're saying parati, you should also win, because of פרעתי מיגו דמזויף. And we're saying we don't give him this. מאן דאמר holds we don't give him this. Why not? Didn't you say that last week, the רבנן made that הלכה, that people wouldn't lend money borrow money to other people, so That's תקנות wherever they made it, here they didn't make anything. This is a regular case. So the whole point of a migo is that I'm in control of what happens. I I can say this, or I can say that. If I lie, the second, the bigger lie I would say it would be better. it would be better, and I'm in control of that lie. That's not a lie that somebody else can come No, this is also in mine! Till they're mekayem it, after they're mekayem we have no problem! It's not a real migo if Once they're mekayem it, parati won't help either, nothing will help. The שאלה is if you're not mekayem it. Till you're How are you not mekayem it? He wants to get out of paying. He knows that if you're mekayem the shtar, he doesn't care what he says, he's going to lose. He's trying to get out by saying something. So why doesn't he say מזויף which would be better than parati? And he could do it. And so believe him with a migo. מזויף is always better. So Tosafos is answering, why? Because there is no חיוב to be mekayem it unless you're טענ'ינג מזויף, and you're not. Who cares? The bottom line, he has a migo. He could have said mezuyaf no matter what. So one the first terutz Tosafos gives a different terutz. Tosafos says, you're right, another zechus that a person is afraid to claim mezuyaf. Yeah, they might find it, they'll prove... That's the first. I read, I didn't want to read it because I don't want to waste time. יש לומר דשמא ירא לומר מזויף, פן יוכשר. They lack a migo. That's a practical sense, but I'm talking about the second answer. The second answer is not that. The second answer is that be'etzem there is no din migo here. Why? Tosafos says because you don't have to be mekayem it, because chachamim only said kiyum if you're ta'ning mezuyaf, and you're not, so you don't need kiyum. But I could have said mezuyaf anyways! The answer is here's the key of a migo. What is it? You don't have to be mekayem it. So, but now, but if I say mezuyaf, you'll have to be mekayem it. But then that's that's what makes it mekayem, it's not the migo. The migo Okay, mekayem, but I have, should be believed. A migo means whatever I say, I could have said a worse lie. It's better than something else. No, because mezuyaf is better always! What's better than what here? There's no ta'anah here. You don't have to say para'ti, because you don't have to be mekayem it. What? No one? In essence, if you just say I The question is why, nu, this that the kushya is why the one that says you don't have to be mekayem it, which means that's mekuyam, he's asking what, and therefore you're you're not believed para'ti, why not? He's asking on that din. You're saying why not, why aren't you believed para'ti migo d'mezuyaf? He has a migo, he could have said. Why don't you believe him? And he could have said, and you're answering me because you don't there's no din kiyum here. So there's no din kiyum, who cares there's no din kiyum? Sof kol sof, he could have said mezuyaf. Every time you could have said a better ta'anah and you ta'ant this, so you're believed. So the pshat in Tosafos has to be like this, just mamash bekitzur. The shaila is what does that din migo mean? The taytsh of migo is, you can learn it two ways, practical way, בעלבתישע way, a birur. Since we don't know if you're saying the truth or not, maybe you're lying, so we have a sevara: if you'd be a liar, you'd lie a better lie. He's coming saying the truth, you've got to be stupid to say, to lie already, might as well lie a better lie. That's a practical. Then they have a sevara that a migo is something else, it's a זכות הטענה, it's not because of this. The ta'anah that you could have ta'ant and you would have won, had you and you have a right to claim that, you don't lose that right! You don't lose that right! You If you claim a different ta'anah, you still have the right of winning as if you would claim that ta'anah. What does that mean? That's what they all have to be osek in, that's what they are. But let's explain what it means, not to go into other peratim. The shaila is like this.

When a person claims something and we have to prove, prove that your ta'anah is wrong, here comes a shtar and you have a ta'anah and you have to prove that it's wrong that your ta'anah is wrong, when does that din that you have to prove the ta'anah is wrong start? Is it because you're claiming that is me'orer, that awakens a chashash, oh, now you've got to prove it? Or be'etzem it's like that? Every shtar that comes be'etzem there's a problem, we're not sure if it's Anything a guy says, you could say one way, you could say if a guy comes to claim, say you owe me money, חזקת כשרות, סתם a person is saying the truth. If you're challenging it, oh, maybe you're saying the truth, I don't know, somebody told me, "Prove it." So if your challenge that makes a chashash, a safek in my words, or maybe not? If I come and I say you owe me money, right away there's a safek is it true or not, there's be'etzem a safek. So all shtarot, what, maybe the shtar was forged? So the shaila is like this: when we say that you need kiyum for the shtar because maybe the shtar is forged, is this a din that the chachamim, so we're saying, so we're saying לגבי מיגו, let's let's I'm jumping too fast. So לגבי מיגו, every time with migo, so the other way to learn migo is not the pshat that we say, we tell him you're saying the truth. The chashash that you could have טענ'ט means since you could have טענ'ט it and the Rabbanan would accept such a טענה means that be'etzem that that's the problem. That that חשש is there be'etzem and that's why you win. And all שטרות need קיום? All שטרות need קיום, yeah. So comes out that the whole that din of migo is, according to this, not that we're saying you could have טענ'ט another טענה, we don't care what you could have טענ'ט. You could only have proved The fact that you could have טענ'ט the other טענה is a proof that that טענה is a problem, and that and that means that be'etzem there's a problem of that שאלה. So since that's be'etzem and you haven't proved it, you haven't proved it, so you win even if you didn't טענ' it, because you could have טענ'ט, and what does it mean you could have טענ'ט? It's not the fact that you had a right טענה, you could have טענ'ט is only a re'ayah that that חשש is there. Comes Tosafot, and Tosafot says that מזויף is not a חשש בעצם. The Rabbanan never said that when they said it needs קיום, they didn't mean it needs קיום because be'etzem every שטר is a חשש. If I come with a שטר and it's not מקוים, בעצם there's a חשש maybe it's forged. The Tosafot is no, that's not the pshat, it's not be'etzem. The Rabbanan only said that when the guy טענ'ס, that's when the חשש starts popping up, till then there's no chashash. If there is no chashash be'etzem, you can't believe him with a migo. The whole taytsh of migo according to this is the peshat that's a מזויף. That the מי... Vadai you can say it's מזויף, but what is the migo? Not because what he could have done. The fact that the other chashash is there, and you claim that you don't owe the money and there is a חשש מזויף, so as long as the guy didn't prove that it's not מזויף, we chachamim are afraid maybe it's מזויף, and if we're afraid it's מזויף, and as long as the guy didn't prove it, you win. So that's the peshat that a a you're believed פרעתי, the migo is the מזויף, not because what you could have said. The fact that you could have said it is a re'aya that that other chashash be'etzem. Zogt Tosafos, but by other cases the migo is like that. מזויף, you should know, Tosafos says, is not the peshat like this. מזויף is the peshat that the chachamim never said that be'etzem it's no good, the chachamim said that if you טענ' מזויף. So that way, that's what Tosafos means, there is no migo. Now if he's that It should have a חזקת כשרות. When I claim it? No, it don't! No, the other thing could be a hoax! We're saying how can this Why do you think the חזקת כשרות it is? No, it's not known. I have people forged and they're claiming this שטר. That's not that's not So so it's the she'eilah is like this. So

Tosafos says, that's the chidush of Tosafos. What what other פירוש opposite? So this is the one That's what Tosafos That's why this מאן דאמר holds there is no migo. What does the other מאן דאמר who says צריך לקיימו, and you are believed to say פרעתי, obviously according to this peshat, holds? That מזויף is a חשש בעצם. It's a חשש בעצם! That mimeila you have a migo, adrabah! Since it's a חשש בעצם, so mimeila בעצם what the חכמים said that it needs קיום, בעצם it needs קיום, there's a חשש בעצם, חשש בעצם we would believe you with the migo. So it means that it's מזויף until proven it is not. Right! The חכמים made it מזויף, it's a חשש מזויף until proved not. Mimeila the other פירוש is, so you don't need a migo even here! The moment you say that every שטר has a חשש maybe it's מזויף בעצם until you prove it, it's no שטר at all! I'm going back to what I said before, there's two ways to learn: that if a שטר if the חכמים up-added something, or is why is it no שטר at all? Because the moment we say that you come with a שטר and בעצם there's a חשש maybe it's מזויף, that's like I keep on saying every time, there's no such thing as a ספק בירור! A

שטר is a בירור. I I know this שטר is good. If you don't know the שטר is good, then there's no שטר! The whole מציאות of a שטר is to prove. If the שטר is a ספק and we can't prove, there's no שטר. So I'm trying to show where I would get this idea. I said before that in in the Gemara it says that they argue here for this reason to show that the reason is not because of a migo. The reason is because without קיום there is no shtar, why would I say that? So I'm saying, according to this, this man d'amar holds, if you want to give him a migo, if you want to say that you believe parati, whoever says you believe parati, so he's believed because of a migo, we said. That's one way to learn. What's the peshat you believe him with a migo? So according to this peshat, the migo means that the migo is mezuyaf. What is that migo? Mezuyaf. Be'etzem there is a חשש מזויף. Turn around and say be'etzem there is a חשש מזויף, automatically, there is no shtar. There's no such thing as a shtar with be'etzem a חשש מזויף. Imagine you come with a shtar, and lechatchila we look at it and we say it's very possible it's forged. So you say, okay, but it's a a bissel a shtar. A little bit pregnant. It's not such a, a little shtar. It's a a bissel, a whole shtar. So, if no shtar, then you don't have to come onto migo. The reason, I'm going a step further, you can say it's a migo. But anyway, according to that peshat in Tosafot, that if you say it's a migo, it means to say the one that says it's not a migo, why? Because there's no חשש בעצם, so you can't believe. The one that says it is a migo, because a חשש בעצם. So, I want to feel it. If you say a חשש בעצם, that's the peshat migo, automatically there is no shtar. Yeah, but then you Now, that's why you believe parati. But you're believed through the best point of parati? Yeah. When the guy, yeah. Well, now we're holding Therefore, yachloku. We believe parati, we believe him also, so it's yachloku. So, there's a middle ground, because you can mekayem the shtar, so the shtar You can mekayem it, it's pasul. Or the shtar is good, or the shtar is nothing. There's no middle. If I'm going to say So why, why even, why even get to the point of parati? Why do you believe the malveh? Because even without a shtar, if the guy says, "You owe me money" So why talk about the shtar? Because the guy is there, but wait, because there are two opinions, you see. It's very late, but I'll tell you. I don't want to go into all the details here. If you're here and I tell you something, and you don't answer, that's a problem. Even though there's a chashash on what I say, but if you don't answer, you're modeh, and you have to pay. The question is if you're not here. So, there's a din,

ta'aninan layasmei. Ta'aninan layasmei means it's, if a person died and his children inherit, and someone comes over to them with a shtar, "Your father owes me money." So, and there's nobody to answer that it's a shtar mezuyaf or something. So, the Gemara says ta'aninan layasmei. Beis din will ta'aneh it. "Prove that it's not mezuyaf" or "Prove whatever proof." So, that gufa has two pshatim, why does beis din say it? Because if beis din wouldn't say it, pashut, no one could live. Anytime a person died, a person leaves town and leaves property, somebody can come to beis din with a shtar, no one is there to deny and he will collect. So we say, we ta'aneh. So, there's two pshat, one pshat is we ta'aneh, be-emet there is no chashash. Shtar is a good shtar. The Rabbanan just are afraid, protecting the guy, they say. But the real pshat is not that. When you come with a shtar, be'etzem there is no, is a chashash right away on it. Anything signed on the side, a guy comes, "You owe me money", there's a chashash. The reason we always listen to you and we don't take these chashashot, because you're here. So we'll hear what you answer. But if you're not here, we ta'aneh for you. Why? Because be'etzem we're choshesh all these chashashot. So, that's takeh be-emet when a guy comes and ta'aneh's, anything he ta'aneh's, whatever chashash is possible, is there be'etzem. So every shtar is there be'etzem, according to this pshat, be'etzem a חשש מזויף. If be'etzem a חשש מזויף Then there's no migo. so there's no shtar! You don't need a migo. All right. But the

only, the only one thing you could say is that it wasn't paid, that I paid, right? Parati, that's the only thing you could say. You can't say, you can't say מזויף, because automatically we assume it's מזויף. Adaraba, so he doesn't have to pay it. But he has to say, "I don't owe", because maybe he's מודה. So, no, you could say מזויף also. So, the fact is he's Right. But it's already given that it's Yeah, but he won't pay either way. What, what he really has to say is, "I don't owe the money." What about an יורש? How can the יורש say, how can somebody say He can't. No, so beit din says for him. Beit din comes up and ta'anah's, any ta'anah he could have ta'anah'd, beit din ta'anah's for him. Why are we, why are we with the מלוה here at all? Why? Because there's a shtar. There's a shtar, but Yeah. Well, he doesn't have him usually, even on a migo. No, but there is a shtar. If he could force it to come forth If he would, there's a shtar, and the shtar is not מקוים, he takeh don't believe him. So, then he has no Yeah, but if the guy doesn't answer that At all? Guy, the guy doesn't answer, "I don't owe you", so you owe. You know what I'm saying? I don't owe you because You have to say because. Huh? You have to say because. Okay, say because of something. Say what? Parati. The shiur is going overtime, excuse me. Yeah, now I have to run out. You didn't want to, you didn't even get to parati, you don't Don't make no musar, I have to run. You leave the מלוה now? What does he have to, how does he, how did he, when he is sending that? Because a priori, he has a shtar. Got that. No, you're talking in which case? If you hold this is called קיום, if if it's called קיום, then that's why we believe him, that he's not believed parati. And if it's not called קיום, then he has a ta'anah, we don't know if the other guy is right, because maybe he has a shtar. I mean, I'm not Who's supposed to מקים the shtar? Is the beit

din, or the the the the the the No, you have to do it for beit din. It's the מלוה. No, but did beit din take it upon themselves to מקים the שטר because of this חשש? חשש? Beit din would never, because they already have that חשש, they מקים. Or does the מלוה have to go out The מלוה. You tell the מלוה, "You go bring עדים." Now, they don't have to wait till their proof is