כ״א ע״ב. Where are we again? Mishnah in Kesubos, דף כ״א ע״ב, talks about קיום שטרות. The din of קיום שטרות. קיום שטרות, we all know, is that when you have a document that says, let's say, Reuven owes Shimon money, and there are two עדים signed, two witnesses are signed, we have to verify that the signatures are not forged. So, you have to have קיום שטרות, that's called קיום שטרות. Now, there are different ways of how you can מקיים a שטר, how you could verify or certify, let's call it, a שטר. One of the ways is people come to recognize the signatures. So, they come and they look, and Or you could take another שטר, which has the same signatures, and it has to be certain conditions, and you compare. Then there's another way, that the people who signed themselves come to Beit Din, and they say, \"Yes, we signed this, it's our signature.\" Now, if strangers, not the people who signed, but other people come to testify, you must have each signature must have two witnesses. Now, they could be the same two, doesn't matter. You have two people coming, and each one says, \"Yes, I recognize this signature and that one,\" and the other one said, \"I did.\" So, each signature has the testimony of two people. The question is, if the people who signed themselves come, what's the din here? So, here, there's an argument between Rabbi and the Rabbanan. So, I'll read the Mishnah. First, the Mishnah tells the simple case: זה אומר זה כתב ידי וזה אומר זה כתב ידו של חבירו, וזה אומר זה כתב ידי וזה כתב ידו של חבירו. If one witness who signed comes and says, \"Yes, this is my signature,\" and the other one, \"Yes, I recognize is his,\" the other one comes and says, \"This is mine, and this is his.\" That's two on each, הרי אלו נאמנים. That's for sure. Everyone agrees that this is good, they're believed, and this is called קיום. What happens if זה אומר זה כתב ידי, וזה אומר זה כתב ידי? One says, \"This is my signature,\" and the other one said, \"This is my signature.\" Each one says, I don't know, on his own, but not on the other. So, the first opinion says, צריכין לצרף עמהן אחר, דברי רבי. So, Rabbi says, each one must get another guy to testify together with him. Since each signature needs two עדות, so he's one, he needs somebody else. Now, the truth is you could have one person to say for both, doesn't matter, but it'll come out that each one has two. That's the opinion of Rabbi. וחכמים אומרים, the Chachamim say, אינם צריכים לצרף עמהן אחר. You don't have to combine another one. אלא נאמן אדם לומר זה כתב ידי. A person is able to say, \"This is my handwriting,\" and that's that. So, if the people themselves are coming, he could say, \"This is mine,\" he says, \"This is mine,\" and that's okay. This is the Mishnah. What would be the theory why there's if the one who holds you can't you need more than one, how can you What's the theory? Is it just like this is One second. the law, or is there a theory?

Zogt di Gemara, zogt di Gemara: כי שתמצא לומר, if you start thinking about it, when you Rashi says, כי שתעמוד על עיקר דבר, when you look into it, you'll come to a conclusion to understand what is the reason behind these two opinions. Gemara says? Yes. Gemara says כי שתמצא לומר, so Rashi explains it means כי שתעמוד על עיקר דבר. So, you'll come out like this: that לדברי רבי, Rabbi holds, על כתב ידם הם מעידים, that when they come to testify, they're testifying on the signature, and that's why you need two. But לדברי חכמים, according to חכמים, על מנה שבשטר הם מעידים. When they're testifying on the signature, really they're testifying on the loan. So, you need two people to testify on the loan. So, if this guy says, \"My signature,\" and, \"My signature,\" so the two people are testifying on the loan. Gemara goes into a whole אריכות. It's simple. Why? One if it's different people then? No, different people would for sure different people is not on the מנה שבשטר. For sure. Different people will come, they're only talking about the signatures, they don't know. But if the same people who signed come and say, \"We recognize, we're telling you that we signed,\" so really what they're talking is about the money, the מנה שבשטר. מנה and money is the same letters. מנה means $100. So, there's So according to the Chachamim it's על מנה שבשטר, and that's why two is enough if they themselves come. Comes Rashi, and Rashi טייטשט אזוי: לדברי חכמים על מנה שבשטר הם מעידים, that according to Chachamim they're talking about the מנה שבשטר, the money of the שטר. So, Rashi says, because they're saying, when they testify that this is this our signature, they're saying, אנחנו ראינו המלוה, we've seen the loan, וחתמנו, and we signed. הילכך בתרי סגי, that's why two is enough, you don't need four, but you don't need two on each, but two ולא צריך חד מינייהו לאסהודי אדהאי, you don't need one to tell on the other. Or, since they're saying that we remembered the loan and we signed a שטר, so they're talking about the loan. So it comes out from Rashi, it seems, and it's not it seems, that's how it is, what would happen if they say we don't remember the loan? They test on their signatures. Yes, this looks like our signature, yes, exactly like that. But I don't remember the signing, I don't remember... Yeah, the Yerushalmi also. So Rashi comes out, Rashi holds that that won't work. That means even according to the Rabbanan, who always say that they're talking about the מנה שבשטר, about the money, and therefore you don't need two on each signature, but that's only if he says, \"I remember.\" But if he said, \"I don't remember,\" it's not. Fine. Tosafot. Yeah, another one on each.

Tosafot comes and says like this: when the Gemara says by Rabbi, that Rabbi says you need two on each even if they come themselves, because על כתב ידם הם מעידים, because they're talking about the signature, נראה, Tosafot says, נראה, דלרבי, according to רבי, אפילו אומרים בפירוש דמעידים על מנה שבשטר, according to Rabbi, even if they come clearly and they say, \"You know, I remember the loan, and they're talking about the מנה שבשטר,\" כאילו מעידים על כתב ידם. According to Rabbi it's still no, this is only two, we look at it as they're talking about the signatures. וכן לרבנן, אפילו אומרים דעל כתב ידם הם מעידים, according to the Rabbanan, even if they say clearly, \"We are talking about the signatures,\" we still say no, they're testifying on the money, on the loan. Yeah, that's what Tosafot says. So according to the Rabbanan, even if they say clearly, \"We are talking about the signatures,\" they're really testifying on the money, and therefore you don't need two on each, but these two themselves are enough. Lichorah, it would seem that even if they say, \"We don't remember...\" Tosafot didn't say these words, Tosafot says if they're saying על הכתב. It seems, so it could be against Rashi. Now, Lichorah, it would seem that Tosafos says that even if they say, \"We don't remember,\" it's law, that's not like that. Why? Because Tosafos here, spoke about it last week, brings in דף כ״ב עמוד ב׳ a Yerushalmi. Now the Yerushalmi says like this: we have to keep track of the exact opinions. The Yerushalmi says that the machloket between Rabbi and the Rabbanan is like this: if they remember the loan without looking into the שטר, everybody agrees that they're talking about the מנה שבשטר, even Rabbi. If they don't remember even after they look into the שטר, everyone agrees, even the Rabbanan will agree that they're talking about the כתב. When is the machloket? When they don't remember, but after they look into the שטר, oh, they remind themselves. That's where Rabbi says that's not called reminding, and therefore you're called on the signature, and the Rabbanan say that that's called reminding. But we see from the Yerushalmi that if they say clearly, \"We don't remember,\" then even the Rabbanan say that it's not on the money, and you need two. Now we said that Tosafos seems to be saying that even if they don't remember, we still say that it's called on the money. So it's different than the Yerushalmi. And that's not such a problem, it could be Tosafos holds like the Bavli and not like the Yerushalmi. The problem is, not a problem, the Rosh brings the Yerushalmi and brings the Tosafos, and he פסקנ'ס like both. So it can't be it can't be a contradiction. Therefore, the Korban Netanel says that it's not a contradiction. When Tosafos says that even if they say כתב ידם, we still say even if they say clearly, \"We're talking about the signature,\" we still say they're talking about the money, that's in a case where after they looked in the שטר they remembered. But Tosafos could still hold that if they looked in the שטר and they still don't remember, so we don't say So he's only arguing on one of the two. Right, right. So let's go along with this, and come out that Rashi and Tosafos both hold the same thing, like the Yerushalmi. So it comes out that the Yerushalmi, Rashi, and Tosafos hold that when the Rabbanan say that you don't need two because of מנה שבשטר, it's only if they remember the loan. If they say clearly, \"We don't remember,\" then it's not, then the Rabbanan will agree that you need two on each. And then, because the Yerushalmi and Tosafos argues? No, how is that, you know, the Yerushalmi says that if they do remember by looking in it's good, Tosafot doesn't? No, I'm trying to say there's no מחלוקת. At all, in any Tosafot just says that if they say על כתב ידם הם מעידים, if they're saying on כתב, but it doesn't mean that they don't remember. They finally remembered, and they're talking, \"We're talking about the כתב, we're not talking about the money,\" that nevertheless it's still talking about the money. But if they say clearly, \"We don't remember,\" Tosafot will go by the Yerushalmi. It's a little complicated to go one remembers and one doesn't. So the one that doesn't remember is a problem. So you break them up? One doesn't need or one does need... Exactly, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, so we have this שיטה now that if they say clearly, we don't remember the loan, even the Rabbanan hold that they're talking about the כתב and you need two on each.

In Shita Mekubetzet he brings Rav Hai Gaon. Rav Hai Gaon who was from the Geonim, he was the last one of the Geonim, who was before the Tosafot, before Rashi, before the Rambam, before everybody. He was the Geonim yet. Right, no, Savoraim the Geonim came after the Savoraim, and after the Geonim came the Rishonim. Rabbeinu Gershom is considered from the first Rishonim, the Rif is from the first Rishonim, and the Rif was the rebbe of the rebbe of the Rambam. The Rif was the rebbe of the Ri Migash, the Ri Migash was the rebbe of the Rambam. So you want to understand how far back it goes. So the Rav Hai Gaon says clearly that the מחלוקת between Rabbi and the Rabbanan is in a case where they say clearly, we don't remember. That means that they say, we recognize that's our signature, yes, clearly my signature, but I don't remember at all. That's when Rabbi says that they're talking about the signature, and therefore, you need two on each. And the Rabbanan over there say clearly that even though they don't remember, they're talking about the מנה שבשטר. They're talking about the money of the שטר. Even if they don't remember, is that a problem? Not only the Rav Hai Gaon says that, Tosafot Rid, right here! The Rid is inside. Tosafot says like this. Tosafot Rid, I mean. ופירש המורה, the teacher says peshat. Who's the teacher? No. No no, this is Rid. Rashi. Rashi is called המורה. ופירש המורה שהם זקוקין לומר אנחנו ראינו המלוה וחתמנו. That for the Rabbanan to say that they're talking about the money, they need to say that we saw the loan and we remember, and we signed. ואינו נראה לי! I disagree, Tosafot Rid says. שבין שזוכרין עדותן עליו, whether they remember it, ובין שאין זוכרין עדותן, if they don't remember, שכבר שכחוה, because they forgot it, אלא שמכירין חתימתן, all they do is they recognize the חתימה, ומעידין עליה, they testify on the חתימה, פליגי רבי ורבנן. That's when they argue. דרבי סבר, Rabbi holds, דאף על פי שזוכרין ההלואה ומעידין עליה, he says, even if they remember, אפילו הכי על כתב ידם מעידין. We don't care, it's on the כתב. And then ורבנן סברי, Rabbanan holds, לא זו אף זו אם זוכרין המלוה, certainly if they remember the loan ומעידין עליהם, they speak about the loan, אז אוודאי they're talking about the money. אלא אף על פי שאין זוכרין אותה, even if they don't remember, כי אם מכירין חתימתן, they just recognize their signatures, על מנה שבשטר מעידין. They're still testifying on the money. שמתחילה כשחתמו, and this is what he says, because in the beginning when they signed, העידו כוחם על המנה, what was the signature signing about? About the money. גם עתה, so now too, שבאים לקיים חתימתן, now that they're going to verify confirm the חתימה, כל עדותן אינה באה אלא על המנה. So they're testifying the money. ואף על פי שעכשיו אינם זוכרין אותה, even though now they don't remember it. אבל כיוון שבאים לקיים החתימה שנעשית על המנה, since they're verifying the signature which came for the money, נמצא שכל עדותם על זה, so their whole עדות is on the money. So that's that. So the Rav Hai Gaon, Tosafot Rid, the Ritva says the same thing. The only thing is that the Ritva and the Tosafot Rid say a little different. According to the Tosafot Rid it comes out because the signature was on the money, so whatever they're saying now, we put back to the signature. Whatever the biur, whatever. According to the to the Ritva he says that because they signed that, so therefore now they're talking about the money. In other words, he's going this way, he's going that way, but the bottom line is that they both all three of them hold, the Raavad holds, that even if they claim they don't remember the money at all, we don't believe them? No, we say that they're testifying on the money, and therefore, you don't need two on each signature. Two together is enough. What's the ביאור? That's what they said. What's the ביאור? But l'foal now they don't remember. So there are different ביאורים that could be given in what the מחלוקת is between this group of מפרשים and this group of מפרשים. Yeah, the Yerushalmi, Rashi, and Tosafot, and then the other side is Tosafot Rid, and Rav Hai Gaon, and the Ritva, and the Raavad. So we have to know what are they arguing, whether you say they're not. Now, usually when we have a we need to explain why they're arguing, what they're arguing about, there's always one that makes more sense, and one that needs explanation. In this case, the one that says like Rashi that they they don't remember, you can't say that they're talking about the money. That makes sense, I mean, they're not talking about money. What needs really explanation is the Tosafot Rid and the Rav Hai Gaon. But, okay. Now, this could be the ביאור could be like this. Why does he... Wait, that's wine there, okay. I wiped my hands... When people sign documents, it's to pay money. It's not for Well, sure, the document says the money. But can we say that they are talking about, yeah, can we say they're talking about the money when they say we don't remember the loan? They're talking about their their the חתימה, and then automatically after you have the חתימה, then it goes on the money. Just like strangers would come, two strange people, four strange people come. They're not talking about the money. על פי דין, the עדים עדים's job will be that this will make you pay the money. But that's not what they're talking about, so that's why you need two. So, and if they themselves say it, and they don't remember, should be the same. Okay,

we have a חקירה like this. The Gemara says in a few places: עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין, ורבנן הוא דאצרך קיום. That means like this: מדאורייתא, when two עדים are signed on a שטר, it's a full-fledged שטר, and there is nothing to to to to be afraid of. And this is a שטר as if as if it came through בית דין already. As if בית דין already said, \"This is fine.\" But the רבנן... Who cut the tree? Look at that picture. It's awful. But the רבנן what came and said, \"No, a שטר needs קיום. A שטר needs verification.\" פשטות is because when the Torah said it, people were more honest. So, people would did not forge signatures, but later on the חכמים said people are not so honest anymore, we're afraid. So, they changed the דין. So, מדאורייתא you don't need קיום and you come, a guy comes with a שטר to show, \"Look, you owe me $100,\" you got to pay. The רבנן said, \"No, you need קיום.\" So, there is a שאלה: what way did the רבנן deal with this? Did the רבנן say that we, because of the situation, whatever now, we took away the דין דאורייתא? דאורייתא, מדאורייתא a שטר is fine. We said, \"No, without קיום a שטר is not fine, it's not a שטר. You need קיום.\" Or the רבנן didn't do that: a שטר is a שטר, but we added a din that we want you also to be מקיים. And this we find, I use I just brought this examples a few times in the shiurim, we find this in other cases. I'll give you an example that I'm sure you'll remember. That sometimes the רבנן, when they make a din different, against the דאורייתא, they would מבטל the whole דין דאורייתא, sometimes not. A משל, יום טוב של ראש השנה שחל להיות בשבת. Rosh Hashanah comes out on a שבת, מדאורייתא you have to blow shofar on Shabbos too. The רבנן said not. Now, but the רבנן said not, did they did they, or do they have the power to make there's no more mitzvah? They took away the whole din, and they said there's no more mitzvah. Or, they don't say there's no mitzvah, there's a mitzvah, but we have a right to tell you don't do the mitzvah. שב ואל תעשה. And they have a right to it, because יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בשב ואל תעשה. The חכמים have a right to take away a din of the Torah by telling you don't do it. You can't come and tell you do something against the Torah, but stay back, don't do don't blow shofar. So, it could be they didn't take away the mitzvah, they just said we don't want you to do the mitzvah, and they have a right to tell you. Or they said, \"Now there is no mitzvah.\" Now, nafka mina, if a guy didn't listen to the חכמים, and blew shofar on on Rosh Hashanah on Shabbos, he did an עבירה that the רבנן said not to do it, you can get Did he do a din de'oraita? Now, you could say lichora that since it's an aveirah, so it's a mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah, and even if it's a mitzvah, it still wouldn't be. But let's say, crazy example, I mean it's far-fetched, we're just using it just bring out a point: what happens if the doctors tell a guy, \"You're sick, and for your pikuach nefesh, you have to blow a horn today\"? If I heard it, am I If he does it, is he yotzei also the the mitzvah? That's the she'eilah. The she'eilah now that now there's no aveirah, now, if the rabbanan took it off, so he's blowing a horn, he have to blow like take medicine. But if the Torah, it's still a mitzvah, ela mai the rabbanan said you're not allowed to, but this case when he is allowed, so he's doing a mitzvah. So, what's the difference? Does he have to make a berachah? Also, should we all come and listen? Right? That's right. Can we listen? Yeah, should we come and listen because he's going to blow shofar? I was told this there's a guy used to There was a guy in Eretz Yisrael, a rav, his name was Rabbi Schlesinger. He lived about 80 90 years ago, I don't know. He ta'an'd that He had a peshat in the Gemara, and then he ta'an'd that by the Kotel HaMa'aravi, nowadays also you have to blow shofar on Shabbos, Rosh Hashanah. Just like in the Beit HaMikdash, in the בי״ד, so in the Kotel HaMa'aravi. So, he was going to do it. The police didn't let him. He went He was going to the Kotel on Rosh Hashanah on Shabbos to blow shofar. So, there was a whole discussion about the other people: should we go listen? Cuz if he's blowing anyway and according to him he's allowed, so according to us we're not allowed. But if he's blowing anyway and it's That's the she'eilah: is it still a mitzvah or not? If we hold you're not allowed, maybe they took away the mitzvah. Or another she'eilah, similar she'eilah: mi-de'oraita, the Alter Rebbe says, לילה זמן תפילין. Mi-de'oraita, you could put on tefillin at night. The rabbanan said you shouldn't, not allowed to. What happens if a guy puts on tefillin at night? Is he mekayem the mitzvah? If he missed during the day, that's what... Let's say he put on at night and missed the next day. Right, is it considered the point is taluy in this. Because there are two ways. Sometimes the חכמים they could do it, they could take it away, and sometimes not. Okay. Bracha is not me'akev, yotzei. Anyway, על דרך זה, the same she'eilah here. The she'eilah here is when the חכמים said that the shtar needs kiyum, is the pshat that the חכמים took away the דין שטר and there is no shtar till you mekayem it, or the חכמים said, a shtar is a shtar, fine, but we added a דין that you have to have kiyum, and you're not allowed to collect without kiyum. And I'm going to bring out a few places where we will see a nafka mina between these two sides, whatever it is.

There is a machloket, which we have in a few places, actually earlier in the Gemara in Ketubot before also, הודה בשטר שכתבו, צריך לקיימו, אין צריך לקיימו. That means if someone brings a shtar which was not mekuyam, and the לוה, the borrower, looks at the shtar and he says, \"This shtar, I paid.\" By saying \"I paid\", he's automatically confirming the shtar is a good shtar. Is he believed to say that he paid? So, the one opinion says, how could he be believed to say that he paid? He confirmed the shtar, and the דין is against a confirmed shtar, you cannot say you're not believed \"paid\". So he he confirmed it. On the other hand, there is a מאן דאמר that says that he's believed. What is the reason that he's believed? So, there are two pshatim in two different places, two different מפרשים. Or it's a מיגו דמזויף, or it's a הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. Now I'll tell you what the difference is, and that's going to be the difference. You could say like this: If, yeah, I'm going to On one hand, you could say like this: The shtar is not a shtar unless it's mekuyam. So you say like this: How could he not say, but I feel, since, how could he not say \"I paid\"? Who made the shtar into a shtar? Him! If he made the shtar into a shtar, he says, \"I paid.\" That's called hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir. If you're the one that turned said, \"Yes,\" you made it up. I'll give you an example of hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir. It says in the Gemara that if a woman comes and says let's say a woman comes and says a a a married woman comes and says, \"I was divorced.\" We don't believe her. \"I was divorced.\" Don't believe her. What happens if we knew we never knew she was married, and she comes and says, \"You know, I was married, but I was divorced.\" We believe her. Who made the whole problem? She herself! And now she's saying she was divorced. Or a שבויה, a woman was captured by goyim. So the din is she's asur to marry a kohen, because we assume we're afraid that a goy had relations with her. What happens we we didn't even know she was captured. She comes in, and she says, \"You know, I was captured and I'm טהורה אני and nothing happened to me.\" You believe her. Actually the Gemara tells a story, the daughters of Shmuel. The daughters of Shmuel were very smart. They were captured, two daughters of Shmuel were captured. And when the their captors came to bring them to the Yidden to ask for for for ransom, they asked him for a favor. They came to the yeshiva, they said, \"Don't come in, please. Let us go in ourselves.\" So they let them. They came into the yeshiva and they said to the I forgot who it was, \"No, we were captured, but טהורה אני.\" So they had sure they believed it, because no one knew they were captured. And after that they told them to come in. And after they remarried them. And they were smart. Had the other guys come in and they would know that they were captured, then they wouldn't be believed. This is a hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir. The same thing here. If you learn that the shtar is not a shtar without kiyum, so the shtar that this guy brings is worthless. How do What makes a shtar into a shtar? The fact that I say that it's a good shtar, I paid, meaning I'm saying it's a good shtar. That's a hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir. Who made the shtar into a shtar? I did, and I'm saying I paid. But there is another opinion, another sevara in the in the mefarshim, that it's not a הפה שאסר. It's a different thing. It's a migo. You could have said the shtar is mezuyaf. You could have said it's forged. You said parua, you said paid. So we believe you פרוע מיגו דמזויף. We believe you that you paid because it's mezuyaf. Why does this opinion hold that it's for a migo, we don't say a הפה שאסר? Because he holds a shtar is a shtar without kiyum. Our whole kashya was, is a shtar a shtar after chachamim made is it totally So if a shtar is not a shtar without kiyum, then it's a הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר because you made it a shtar. If it's a shtar anyway, אלא מאי, the chachamim said kiyum, so then you can't say you made your shtar into a shtar and therefore you should be believed. You're believed for a regular migo, because you could have claimed it a different ta'anah, you could have said mezuyaf, it's forged, and therefore you would and you would have been believed, so therefore you're believed without too. So here we see how these two things are noge'a. Another place I'll show where these two things are noge'a. If chachamim said this shtar is a shtar then what how was it how does this person if he says a migo, how could he say mezuyaf? How could he say mezuyaf? But the chachamim believe you if you say mezuyaf. The shtar is a shtar. That is a shtar. A shtar is a shtar, but the chachamim said if a person טענה'ס מזויף, you gotta go and mekayem it. That's the חכמים'ס דין. If a person טענה'ס מזויף, you gotta go and mekayem it. If a person tells the guy it's no good, it's mezuyaf, it's forged. Right, right. They don't just take your word for what you said. No, no, they don't. What they find that means you tell the guy you gotta go and mekayem it. If he says? Yeah. Sure, they're mekayem it. If they're mekayem it anyway, then he doesn't have a migo. Doesn't matter. If he proves it later, no, he has a migo as long as there is no kiyum. If there's kiyum, then it's not him. Even after the fact, if they're mekayem the shtar, now he loses his migo. Then here too also, here is both, whatever it is, see? He's always mezuyaf cannot be said and then no patur anymore. Another Gemara.

תנו רבנן. Yeah. Gemara Bava Metzia דף ז, we learned it not long ago. A year ago. דף ז, I think so. Always דף ב. Okay, the order is clear. שנים אדוקין בשטר, two people are holding on to a שטר. The same thing like שנים אוחזין בטלית. Two people hold a טלית, two people hold a שטר. מלוה אומר שלי הוא ונפל ממני, the מלוה, the lender says it's mine, I dropped it, I should have the שטר. And לוה says, \"It's mine. It means I paid for it, and you gave it back to me. פרעתי.\" Yeah. יתקיים השטר בחותמיו, בחותמיו. So Rabbi says you gotta go and מקיים the שטר. That's the whole point, otherwise this doesn't won't be. The first guy is something else. So Rabbi says you go מקיים it. And what'll happen if you be מקיים it? It seems like so the guy will have to pay, because if the guy won't have to pay anyway, why would you be מקיים it? So it seems like that's what Rabbi says. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר יחלוקו. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says you divide it like שנים אוחזין בטלית, like two people find the טלית, you divide it. Here also you divide it. Okay. So the Gemara, well, because without קיום it's no שטר at all. Yeah. But after it's קיום, so what happens? Fregt the גמרא, יתקיים השטר בחותמיו ויגבה בו מלוה כולו? If you say they have to be מקיים it, obviously he'll collect. Why would he collect? ולית ליה לרבי משנת שנים אוחזין? Doesn't he hold of the דין of שנים אוחזין, so that you divide it? So what why would קיום help? אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן במקוים דברי הכל יחלוקו. No, there's no שאלה. If the שטר is מקוים, everyone agrees that you divide it. That's a poshute din. כי פליגי בשאינו מקוים. The case here is that it wasn't מקוים yet. They found the שטר not מקוים. Now, what did the לוה say? \"Parati, I paid.\" So it's a מודה בשטר שכתבו. By him saying \"I paid\", he is like mekayem it. So that's the machloket. רבי סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו צריך לקיימו. Rebbe says that even though the guy is modeh that he paid, and he's modeh the שטר is good, so normally he's believed that he paid. So therefore Rebbe says go be mekayem it. At the moment you're mekayem it, then he won't be believed anymore that he paid, and what will you do with the שטר? Why? Why? They're both holding on to it. יחלוקו! If מקוים, יפלוג. In other words, the din of יחלוקו, that's for sure. The only he says, when do you say יחלוקו? If the שטר is mekuyam. Because if the שטר is not mekuyam, he's he's believed parati. Even if the malveh would be holding it, but he comes and says parati, \"Pay me,\" and he answers \"parati\", if the שטר is not mekuyam, he's he's believed. He is mekayem it by saying \"I paid,\" mekayem it, but that doesn't help. He's still believed to say parati. So that's what Rebbe says, that really if we know the שטר is mekuyam, you divide it. If the שטר is not mekuyam, and he says \"I paid,\" so if you're not mekayem it, then you don't pay then he doesn't pay a penny. So he says go be mekayem it, and then you'll divide it. Half the money then. If the שטר says 50 dollars, each took his 25. Go find, right, to recognize the witnesses. So he'll pay 50. The borrower pays 50. And the other guy loses 50. The other guy loses 50, he loses 50, he loses 50. Now, אי לא מקיימת ליה, if they're not מקיימת ליה, לא פלגי. You don't divide it. Why? Because the שטר is not mekuyam. Ah, he was mekayem it, but he says it's parati. מאי טעמא? And he says what's the reason? חספא בעלמא הוא. The שטר is worthless if you're not mekayem it. מאי קא משמע לן? The Gemara asks, why? Because who made the שטר a שטר? The לווה! והוא קאמר פרוע. He says פרוע. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said יחלוקו, he didn't say to to be mekayem it. What he meant was סבר מודה בשטר שכתבו אין צריך לקיימו. He says that if a person admits that the שטר I wrote, you cannot טענה פרעתי. So therefore, אף על גב דלא מקיים יחלוקו. So you have to divide it whether you're mekayem or not. Why does he hold that? Well, that's a machloket in the Gemara. That's a big machloket. The she'elah that the mefarshim ask here is a very simple she'elah: the bottom line, after the Gemara explains it, what is the machloket between the רבנן and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The machloket is very simple: if a שטר is not מקוים and the לווה, the borrower, says, \"I paid. The שטר is good, but I paid.\" Is he believed or not? So why do they argue if a שטר that fell and the two people are holding it? The the the falling there's no machloket. The fact that two people are holding it, you say יחלוקו. That everybody agrees. The machloket is only what is the דין of מודה בשטר שכתבו? So why don't they argue about that? Why don't they argue about מודה בשטר שכתבו? He says צריך לקיימו, he says you believe פרעתי, he says you're not believed פרעתי. Why are they talking about this strange case? Maybe that's the way to bring up this case? No. If it would be a מעשה שהיה, you'd say, okay, a story happened. But they're telling us a דין, that they're arguing over a דין when really they're not arguing over that דין. So why are they arguing over such a thing? Why didn't they argue this the the direct case? So, the answer will be this: If they would be arguing over the same case, we would not know what would be the דין in the case where it fell. Why? In this case, because we said before that there are two reasons to say why he's believed פרעתי: or because it's a פה שאסר, that that it's not a שטר and you're making the שטר, or because of a migo. If it would be because of a migo, in this case there is no migo. Why? Listen to this: What's the migo? When they're both coming and this guy says The לווה says it's mine, and he says it's mine, you owe me the money, the לווה says it's mine, I paid. What's the migo? He could have said מזויף. He could have said מזויף. Okay. Why would he be holding it? One second. A migo is always when the other טענה is a better טענה, you could have said a better טענה. If he would טענה מזויף, and then they would be מקיים the שטר, what would he have to do? He'd have to pay the whole thing. By טענה'ינג פרעתי, what does he have to do now? Half! So he'd rather טענה פרעתי! You said that But he's holding it. And? Because he's Because he's holding it. Yeah, because whole time So, if they would just argue about the case of מודה בשטר שכתבו, we wouldn't know what is the reason. Is the reason because of a migo? Then they would not know that in this case he doesn't have a migo, so he's not believed at all. That's why he told you this case, to tell you that that's not what I hold. I hold it because of פה שאסר, not because of a migo. And a פה שאסר applies here also. So, it could decide a migo. But there's a possibility that it would be a migo. So I'm just bringing out that this you have these two ways, or it's because of a פה שאסר, but it's all based on one point. And the point is: is it a שטר? Min haTorah, for sure it's a שטר because you don't need קיום, but דרבנן, when they said you need קיום, did they take away the דין שטר from here or not? Okay. First, you see, I brought other Gemaras, this, but we're going to have to here we'll discuss I have to leave soon. So, The other Gemaras are just more of the same Huh? More along the same to Yeah, other Gemaras which go along the same line to show there's a machloket in Gemara whether it's called a שטר or not. Because really in Gemara there's no such machloket, we have to like bring it out. So, the other Gemaras are where we could bring out this inyan to show that there is a sevara to say that the שטר without קיום is a שטר, but just needs קיום, or it's not a שטר at all, it's just a חספא.

What is the nafka mina to our Gemara, and that's that we're going to finish? Our Gemara is like this: If the שטר is not a שטר, the people that are מקיים the שטר are creating a שטר יש מאין. There is no שטר here, they're making a שטר. It's late, huh? They're making a שטר. Thursday. If If the שטר is a שטר, then they're not making anything new. All they're doing is they're extending whatever is They're already They're doing something to to give it תוקף. That's all it is. קיום is only giving it תוקף. Yeah, megaleh more, yeah. It comes out like this: If you're saying the שטר is no שטר before, and the people that are coming are making something new, so the עדים come and say, \"We don't remember the loan, and just we recognize the חתימה.\" So, how could you say that they are testifying on the money, when they don't remember the money? They don't remember the money. How might this כתב, כתב, okay, so they're saying on the כתב. But if you hold the שטר is a שטר from before, and all they're doing is coming to take the חתימה that's there, and making that stronger, so we don't care if they remember or not. They are not something new, they are only taking is what's there and bringing it to us. And if they're not making anything new, so it's really the extension of the מנה שבשטר that the חתימה was. So therefore, if it's strangers, other people from the outside that come and do this, dos farshteyt zich, you can't say they're talking about the מנה שבשטר, because they're not the עדים. But if the same עדים are coming, and the שטר is a שטר from before, and all they're doing is making the שטר strong, so really they are not saying something new, they are only giving strength to what this what the חתימה says, and what the חתימה says is the מנה שבשטר. If you look into the Tosefot Rid, these are the words of Tosefot Rid: שמתחילה כשחתמו העידו כולם על המנה, when they signed it was on the money, וגם עתה שבאים לקיים חתימתם, now that they're מקוים, כל עדותן אינה באה אלא על המנה, because they're not they're not doing something like two stages. If you hold that it's no shtar, so two stage, they are coming to make the shtar a shtar. Now, after it's a shtar, the shtar is on the money. Here it's not, it's no there's no two stages here. And therefore it's going on the shtar. And he says later again, אף על פי שעכשיו אינם זוכרים, they don't remember, שכיון שבאים לקיים החתימה שנעשית על המנה, all they're coming is to mekuyam the signature that's on the money, נמצא שכל עדותם על זה, so it comes out that the whole עדות is on that. Why? Because there is nothing new that they're doing. Ke'ilu the shtar is talking through them, that's all it is. Let's put it in these words maybe: The shtar is talking through them, because that's all they're doing. And therefore, we say it's on מנה שבשטר. So why, so then according to the other ones, according to according to Rashi, Tosafos, the first Tosafos, and and the Yerushalmi, then that they don't hold that it's Right. They hold they hold it has to be They hold it's a new shtar. A new shtar? Right, the shtar becomes a new shtar. And that was the problem, it It fits with the other שיטה in Rashi, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Does it answer the shofar, we cut it out? No, it doesn't answer the shofar. Everything is an example of where we cease it, no. No answer to that. Oh, there is none. Did anybody bring an answer to that? It's it's such a hypothetical that it's really Mhm. Yishar koach. So where are you going to be next Shabbos? Are you going to be right here? No. No, you're not going to be here. Yes, where As long as I'm going to be, where Oh, okay, I didn't know. Next Shabbos also, I'm going to be here. Even though Friday yahrzeit, but I'm coming back on Friday. Coming back on Friday. So Mincha I'll daven here in shul, Shacharis I'll daven in yeshiva. Tonight he's coming back? Tonight he's coming back. Used to be Sunday night and come back Thursday, now it's Monday nights and come back Friday. It's interesting with the shofar with Israel that the guy goes and blows a shofar. I mean, it really happened. And and and then eventually it didn't happen. He did. Okay. Yishar koach, yishar koach, gut yom tov. גרוס צו דיין שווער. Large? All right, סדר השתלשלות, התלבשות, and השראה, the יש מאין, no, because at first when he says, yeah, come, we'll get it. Thanks for calling, Mrs. I ate six, but the the the better half of the orange chicken. It says La Mediana. You know that's in in Spanish, la media naranja, the better half means, yeah. These are these were delicious. Yeah, they are, they're good. They're really good. I'd get them again. The other ones the other ones Yeah. were insipid. The other ones were insipid. Plus they weren't they weren't fresh. These are really But I look I can't Because I try to get good ones all the time. Sometimes you stumble into something 9.99? Yeah, that's And it's yes, not bad. Passaic usually they're a fortune. All right, so it's probably late. You have to wait online for an hour just to get through all the Then then it's a harder trip, yeah. But you said the other one was $6 a pound? Yeah, for wild, it said wild on it. Fillet or slash? I don't know, it was a loin, long bone. Wild is different. What you're saying you got a loin, The loin is with the bone. It's it's Yeah, but it's what it's called. So, that's what it says on the Salmon being $9 a pound? For wild. Same price as the others doesn't make sense, because it's not the good cut. It's not the fillet cut, it's a loin cut as a part of the bone or something. That's what he said? I didn't see it yet, my wife But you eat what, you eat harvested Try to eat wild. Try to eat wild, mhm, we try to get wild from the Alaskan Cannery. The Alaskan is, yeah, the anything I was reading But it's expensive, 12, 18 Probably more. Yeah, it's expensive. Good thing you didn't buy it. By the way, if you order Coho online, they'll give you sockeye, because they're out of it. So they'll call you back and get you give you the better salmon. Sockeye? Yeah, for the same price. What's Coho online? No, I'm I'm saying Order it online. Where? The Alaskan Cannery. Why not also buy some gelete? Sockeye is a better, it's a better, yeah. It's a better, it's a better taste. Can you buy 15 lb? Yeah. You get it online? Yeah, that's where I ordered it online. And it's a it's free shipping overnight. And it's cheaper than getting obviously in all the stores? Shipping, yeah. I mean, it's I don't know if it's cheaper, but it's Can't be cheaper. It's more than eighteen. No, no, no, it's expensive. But nevertheless, it's top quality. Top quality, yeah yeah yeah. Alaskancannery.com, I guess. The last couple I got Alaska Cannery. The last couple I got from Kasser's um the fish was really... I got one I didn't know Sometimes it has some bones. It's... It was supposed to be bones. It was bones. Smelled good. It was so it was strong. It's not supposed to be that strong. Steaks. Steaks, exactly, when it says scotch then it's top quality. So it has to say scotch got it? That's what I've seen, my Hebrew. They also have halibut, which is also expensive. And what else? Sea bass too. I don't eat sea bass, a lot of mercury in it. All big fish have mercury, especially women. Kiddush to us. He's what? Kiddush for Shabbos? I didn't hear I don't think about Alaska. I think we should have a Kiddush because there's no Kiddush. Right. Alaska Cannery? Say a l'chaim. Yeah, alaskancannery.com. Very good. I saw twenty dollar fish. You know, they they send it in a styrofoam box with all the ice pack, and so when you get it, it's it's frozen, frozen as a rock. Yeah. It's uh I was supposed to get it before Shabbos, and we'll get it next week, so when I get it, I'll give I'll give you one to see the... How much can you get a 15 lb? I don't know if they have a whole 15 lb. No, you can get it all. You can get 5 or 10, but it's more expensive. What, you want to split? All right, you want me to order 15 lb? We'll split that. So try to get the Coho. Get the Coho? It's about about $210, something 12, something like that. But how many how many how many pieces? They they cut it up and package it, and you can maybe get It's all frozen. Can you put it in a freezer? Is it good for Pesach? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You got that for next six months. For Pesach? So, they just wait they put the weight on each one. So you could get maybe out of 15 lb you can get maybe 18 pieces, maybe. Wait, can you only be till Pesach, or for Pesach? I don't know, it's fish. You keep it in the freezer. You can. It's fish. If you have room in your freezer to keep it, it's okay? Yeah. I got an extra freezer. I got three freezers. All right, let's see what everybody else... All right, let's see who are here though. All right, take care. Take it easy. Good night. Good night. Okay, Morty, Morty, let's party. Everybody's leaving, let's party. You didn't eat enough mezonos now? That's right. That's our money that's dark. You don't know? I don't know. You always ask if you don't know, you ask. Why? I'll clean up. Please, I'll clean up. Don't worry about it. Did you show Did you show the... Big A, yeah. Pick up uh Publix. Oh, the Publix had that? Yeah. They got what you need. Have a good night. Is the other place closed? It's going to turn crazy. Kash World. Kash World closed. Kasser's going crazy in the process. Are they? The other day, they went in. They got all those Israeli brands of... I love taking crackers, packaging nothing. Some chunk that is in Western. I don't like it. Israeli packages? No. I didn't know what the hell it is, the package. Right, you can't read it. Yeah. Hebrew. You need a translator in that place. All right, take care. Have a good night. What are you going to do? Watch a movie? What are you going to do? Connect somehow. Call me tomorrow. I'll come by and look at that thing if you want. All right. Okay. If so, we'll see you on Sunday, Monday, whatever. Monday, I'm heading for Austin. Oh, good for you. Wednesday, uh... Where are you going to stay? Stay by Shalom's uncle. Oh, very nice. Wait, Shalom's uncle lives here? No, no, he has a condo and he says stay there if you wish. Oh, I know. Very good. So, what? See you for Shabbos? What? You'll be up there for Shabbos? Oh, yeah. Tentatively, next Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, we'll be back here. Three-day thing. That's good. Thursday, we leave for New York. All right. Kill those bugs. See you later. Take care. Good night.