Gemara here Chazakat Habatim דף ל״ב עמוד א׳ towards the bottom of the amud. Gemara says like this, ההוא דאמר לחבריה, there was this man who said to his friend, מאי בעית בהאי ארעא? What are you doing in my field? אמר ליה so he said to him, מינך זבינתיה, I bought it from you, והא שטרא, here I have a shtar. This is different than the previous cases where he didn't have a shtar, but what he did have was a chazakah of three years. You live in the field for three years, even though you don't have a shtar, you don't have the document, that's good enough to prove that it's yours. The case here was that he didn't have a chazakah, but he had a shtar. What's better than a shtar? The whole inyan of a chazakah is that if you don't have a shtar, then you have three years chazakah, it takes the place of the shtar, but this guy had a shtar. Doesn't matter how many years, and he takeh wasn't there for three years, but he had a shtar. אמר ליה so the other fellow says to him, שטרא זייפא הוא, it's a forged shtar. גחין ולחיש ליה לרבה, so he bent down and he whispered into רבה's ear, אין he's right, שטרא זייפא הוא, this is a forged shtar, but מיהו but שטרא מעליא הוה לי ואירכס, I had a good shtar and it got lost, ואמינא so I said, אנקיט האי בידאי כל דהו, let me at least have this, this is a forged one, but at least I'll have something. So he admitted that this shtar was forged, but he claimed that he has another shtar which was good and he lost it. אמר רבה so Rabbah said, מה לי לשקר? Why should he lie? אי בעי אמר, if he wanted, he could have said שטרא מעליא הוא, it's a good shtar, which basically means Rabbah said we believe him. Why do we believe him? He doesn't have a chazakah, and he doesn't have a shtar, because the shtar is false, he admitted it's false, but what he does have is what we call a migo. A migo means that when a person says something and he could have said something else, which means had he been a liar, he would have lied a better lie, and if a person could have done that and nevertheless didn't say that better lie, that proves that what he's saying now is true. Now this

guy could have said that this shtar is a good shtar. Who asked him to admit that the shtar is forged? And as the Rashbam explains, that the case here is where the shtar could have been verified. In other words, or it was forged very good, or it was a real shtar where you could have verified the signatures, but the problem with the shtar was that it was a שטר אמנה. It was written, but never used. So they could have verified fake signatures. Now had he wanted, he could have said the shtar is a good shtar, here, verify the signatures, and what would have been had we verified the signatures? He would have kept the field based on the shtar. So we believe him, he says, with a migo. That's called a migo. So we believe him that since he could have said the shtar is a good shtar and he didn't, so we believe him that it's really his field and he has another shtar. אמר ליה רב יוסף so Rav Yosef said to him, אמאי קסמכת? Why do you want to believe him, on what are you relying? אהאי שטרא? On this shtar? האי שטרא חספא בעלמא הוא. This shtar is a piece of of חספא, in English how would you say חספא? Earthenware, pottery, it's nothing, it's it's garbage. What is this shtar? How could you rely on this shtar? You have nothing here. Then the Gemara tells the same story happened, but not with a field, but with money. This man said to somebody, \"Hey, you owe me $100. Here I have a shtar.\" So the guy says it's a forged shtar, so he said, \"You're right, but I have another shtar and I lost it.\" And here we have the same argument between Rabbah and Rav Yosef. Rabbah said we believe him with a migo, and Rav Yosef said no. And what was Rav Yosef's expression? You're relying on this shtar, this shtar is nothing worth. Then the

Gemara tells tells a third story. Story with an ערב, a guy guarantor, who came to a person with a shtar and he says, \"You borrowed from somebody $100. I was the ערב, I guaranteed it. I paid for you. Here I have a shtar. The shtar that you signed for him, I have it now, because I paid for you, so the מלוה gave me the shtar.\" So the guy says to him, \"Yeah, but I paid you already. Right, you paid for me, and I paid you back.\" So he says, \"Yeah, but you took from me a second time.\" Now for the second time, this shtar is no good, because this shtar is not written for that loan. So here we have the same same connection. The shtar is not good, but a migo he has. Because he didn't have to admit, he could have said, \"No, here I have the shtar, you never paid me.\" So we have the same question, and the Gemara asks, is this similar to the case before? And in the case before by the money we pasken like Rav Yosef, and the end was that it is similar to the case before. He trusted him, he trusted him. Right, yeah, to the לוה, but he trusted him. This is the story here. Now basically what we have here is Rabbah says in this case we believe him with a migo, Rav Yosef says we don't believe him. The problem in the Gemara is that Rav Yosef didn't give a reason why not! Rav Yosef said, \"You can't rely on this shtar, this shtar is a piece of pottery, that's all it is.\" That's it! But did Rabbah say that we believed him because of This shtar, Rabbah never said that we believe this shtar. Rabbah said that he has a migo and we believe him with the migo. What Rav Yosef should have said, why there is no migo here. So there are two things: first of all, why didn't he say it? Whatever his reason was, it's missing, we call that והעיקר חסר מן הספר, the main reason is missing. But besides that, what is the reason? What is the reason, why doesn't Rav Yosef believe him with a migo? We always know in the whole Gemara that when a person has a migo, that's enough reason to trust him. So all the מפרשים talk about it. The Rashbam has a whole thing here why we don't believe him with a migo. Let's read what the Rashbam says. Tosafot has a different reason, another reason, all kinds of reasons, but let's learn the Rashbam. The

Rashbam says like this: אמאי קסמכת? אהאי שטרא? Are you relying on this shtar? דשני חזקה לית ליה, חזקה לית ליה, he has no חזקה. האי שטרא חספא בעלמא הוא, this שטר is nothing. וכיון דאודי אודי, since he admitted that the shtar is nothing, so this shtar is nothing. Okay, now he comes to explain: ולא דמי לשאר מה לי לשקר שבגמרא, this is not similar to all the other mah li l'shaker. Mah li l'shaker is the Gemara term a lot of times for a migo. This is not like a regular migo in the Gemara. Why? Because in a regular מיגו, שתי טענות יכולות להיות אמת, both טענות, both ideas could have been true, זו שהוא טוען, the one that he says, וזו שהוא היה יכול לטעון ולא טען, the one he could have said. What's a regular migo? Let's give an example of a regular migo. This is not this is just a classical example, not that this is a real migo according to everybody. If a guy comes with a shtar to someone and he says, \"Here, a shtar, you owe me a hundred dollars.\" The guy says, \"I paid you.\" So we say the guy could have answered the shtar is false, it's a forged shtar, so he has a migo. He has a migo, we call it פרוע מיגו דמזויף. He could have said it's forged, and had he said that, we would believe him. And as long as the guy wouldn't have verified the shtar, he wouldn't collect. But instead of that, he said it's paid. So here's a case where he could have said either one. He could have said the one he said, which was \"I paid,\" he could have said the other one. Both of them could have been true. Then we say migo. אבל הכא, here, דמי למה לי לשקר במקום עדים. This almost looks like a מיגו against witnesses. Why? שעיקר כל כח חזקתו בקרקע זו על ידי האי שטרא הוא, because the whole כח that he has in this field is based on this שטר. והיכא נימא מה לי לשקר כדי שיטול קרקע, how could we say that we believe him in a מיגו and to get the field in a מיגו of saying that this field is his based on the שטר, אי בעי אמר שטר מעליא הוא, because he could have said it's a good שטר, והרי מודה שהשטר פסול, didn't he admit that the שטר is פסול? והודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים, and when you admit yourself it's like a hundred עדים. ואילו באו שני עדים שאמרו שהוא פסול לית ליה משום מה לי לשקר. Had two עדים come and say the שטר you have is פסול, not he admitted, two עדים, then we wouldn't give him the field. If he admitted it himself, it's like two עדים said it because whatever you admit is like עדים and we don't believe him. This is what the Rashbam says. The Rashbam says and says a lot of things here and we don't know what he says. Because after all, why is this not a migo? The pshat is, he says, \"I bought this.\" The fact that he shows the shtar is a proof to his ta'anah. What's his ta'anah? Let's analyze this. His ta'anah is the field is mine, I bought it from you. That's his ta'anah. What's your proof? The proof is the shtar. When we find out the shtar is no good because he admitted, that proof falls off. He has a new proof! He has a migo! A migo is also a proof. Why does the Rashbam say this this is like a migo against edim? The edim, which are in this case his admission is in place of edim, is not against his ta'anah. If edim would come and say, \"You never bought it,\" then you could never believe him that he bought it, he could have a million migo's, because a migo that's backing his ta'anah is not stronger than edim who are going against his ta'anah. But in this case the migo the admission that which is the place of the edim, not against his ta'anah, it's against his re'ayah. He first brought a re'ayah that the shtar the proof the shtar is from the shtar. This falls off, but now he has a different thing: he has a migo that will back it. Comes the Rosh, and the

Rosh tries to explain the Rashbam. And the Rosh says, here, he quotes the רשב״ם, פירוש רשב״ם, okay, he quotes the whole רשב״ם, דדעת רשב״ם דמחשיב מנך זבנתיה והא שטרא חד טענה. The Rashbam, he says, considers his ta'anah saying, \"The field is mine, I bought it from you,\" and \"This is the shtar\" as one ta'anah. What we said before was, it seems like, the ta'anah is \"I bought it,\" that's the ta'anah. Prove it? I have a proof, the shtar. That proof fell off, so now he has another proof, a migo. So he says no, the Rashbam must hold that the fact that he says, \"I bought it from you\" and the shtar is one ta'anah. כיון דאין לו כח בקרקע כי אם על ידי השטר, since he has the koach in the field through the שטר, ואותה טענה נתבטלה בהודאתו, that ta'anah that \"I bought it from you based on the shtar\" is batal, why? כאילו עדים מבטלים, like עדים מבטלים. So mimeila this is not accepted. But then this is a he explains the Rashbam. And the Rosh says, ולית ליה להאי טעמא, I don't hold of this reason, because it's not true, because מינך זבינתיה is one טענה, והשטר אינו כי אם לראיה בעלמא. The shtar is just a proof. And טענתו יכול לקיים במה דקאמר שטרא מעליא הוא, בטענה אחרת על ידי מיגו. He could back his ta'anah with something else. So he says he doesn't And therefore he learns a different pshat in the Gemara why Rav Yosef did not accept the migo. The Rashbam learns he didn't accept the migo because he admitted the shtar the way he learns the shtar and the ta'anah are one, and that shtar fell off, so you can't use the ta'anah anymore. And he gives a different reason. He gives the same reason as Tosafot, the Ribam, hold. But we have to do here is understand the Rashbam. What does the Rashbam learn here? That this case you can't accept his ta'anah because it's one ta'anah with the shtar. But it's not! I mean, why is it one ta'anah with the shtar? Why the fact that he originally brought a shtar, and the shtar happens to be false, spoils the ta'anah that he ta'an't that I bought it from you? Now, there could be a sevara because how could you believe him, he's already a liar? That's Tosafot' sevara, that's a different sevara, that's not what the Rashbam says. But the question is, what is pshat in the Rashbam? That's the she'eilah we have to understand. Wait, there's no migo. There is. Because his ta'anah is that he has a shtar, right? My field That's not his ta'anah. He says the shtar is not That's his re'iyah. His ta'anah is, I bought it from you. He says, my field, he says, I bought it from you. Now, he could have a re'iyah through a shtar, he could have a re'iyah through a chazakah, he could have a re'iyah through a migo, all kinds of ways to back your ta'anah. He can't have a migo, he's a liar. Why? Cuz he can't he can't have a can never prove that, you know, he Well, a migo is a proof here. He couldn't have a He couldn't have that proof because the the shtar could never be proven Not the shtar. The fact that he could have said the shtar is good and he didn't, so we believe him in his ta'anah. That's a migo, that's every migo like this. He can't take away that He couldn't say it was good because Sure he could. Why not? He's coming with a shtar. He's coming clean. And had he could stay stay that way, that this shtar is a good shtar, no one could have changed it, it would have been a good shtar, because like the Rashbam says They would have to check to see if They would have checked and they would have And they would have That's what I said before. Right. Right, right, right. So therefore he couldn't No. No, but it says it's a case where it was good signatures, the cases were where there were good You could have been mekayem. If you couldn't be mekayem the shtar, it's no migo. The whole case here is where you could have been mekayem the shtar. So, a good You could have stayed with that ta'anah and it's a good migo, and that's what Rava says. He came clean. He came clean, and it was he himself who admitted that it's false, but I have another shtar. Fine, so let's believe him. Why is it not a migo? Now, there are a lot of details here, other peshtim. Why can't we just say that within it's within three years, right? Yeah. So? Within three years, he doesn't have a shtar, is it? When you say whatever you want, at the bottom line is he had The Gidulei Shmuel the Gidulei Shmuel says that the reason we don't believe him, because there is a chazakah against him. There is a chazakah, a person within three years doesn't lose a shtar. So, what we have here is we have a migo to believe him, a migo which proves he's saying the truth, we have a chazakah which proves he's saying he's not saying the truth, and therefore, he says we can't believe him here with the migo because of that chazakah. It's a very fine sevara. That's not what the Rashbam says. A baal habayis has to come within three years or else So, it's less than three years. This is less. So, he doesn't have to come. He can't allow three years to pass, but this was under three years, so that's not a problem. And this is a very good sevara, and you could say that sevara. There are other sevarot, maybe even better sevarot, Tosafot says and the Ribam says, all kinds of reasons why it's not a migo. What we're doing now is not trying to find a peshat in the Gemara, trying to find peshat in the Rashbam, the way he learns peshat in the Gemara. That's what we have to understand, it's all one ta'anah, and what is the peshat here? Then another thing, a lot of more details, but, you know, we'll just go to the major things here. In the

third case, the case of the arev, so the Gemara says that when this case happened, it was Rav Idi bar Avin who sent the she'eilah to Abaye asking him whether this is similar to the previous case. What's the case here, again? That the arev came with the shtar, he says, I paid for you and the malveh gave me the shtar. And had he stayed with that, he would have gotten the money. He would have told the loveh, you have to pay me. He admitted that this shtar was used up already, but I want because you owe me again. So, he has a migo, he could have stayed with this, so it's the same thing. Why did Rav Idi bar Avin think in the beginning that it's not the same case? What's the difference? So, again here we have a Rashbam. The Rashbam explains, and the Rashbam he's instead of Rashi, but he he's three times as long as Rashi and says so many things, and it makes It confuses, it makes Rashi is short and says It's hard to sometimes, you know, he's not very short, so you got to think about it, but he says exactly what he means. So, here he says like this: Why did he think it's different? דלא דמי כל כך לשטר מלוה דהתם. It's not the same like before. And in the case before by the money, the second case, we pask like Rav Yosef that there is no migo. Why not? So, listen to this: דהתם מודה היה בעל השטר ששטר אחר היה לו ונאבד. The guy who came with the shtar admitted that he had another shtar, but it got lost. ולקח זה להיות בידו לזכות. And he took this, at least he should have this to show. But says מזויף הוא ממש, but this one is false, because he he he he didn't use it. הלכך, therefore in the case before הפסיד, therefore he lost. He's explaining why over there in the previous case there is more reason not to accept his words than in this case. This case we might. But over here, אבל הכא, לא היה לערב שטר אחר מעולם. The ערב never said, \"I had another shtar.\" כי אם זה, all he had is this. So here, הלכך אף על גב דפרעינהו, here even though he paid, since he took it back, we'd say maybe like he didn't pay and maybe he has to pay. In other words, he's reasoning a difference between this case and that case. In the case before, at least he claims he has another shtar. In the case of the ערב, he doesn't claim he has another shtar. Now if you start thinking, isn't this איפכא מסתברא, is this farkert? When you at least claim you have another shtar, now we have to know if we believe you or not, but at least you claim you have another shtar, is that a reason to believe you or not to believe you? It's a reason to believe you! At least more reason to believe you that at least you claim you have another shtar. If you don't even claim that, it's less reason to believe you. But the Rashbam does does the opposite. He says the previous case, you know why Rav Yosef said in the previous case we don't believe him? Because he says he had another shtar. This shtar is מזויף. In this case, maybe Rav Yosef will admit that you believe him. Why? Because he didn't say he has another shtar. What What kind of logic is that? So we have to understand that, too. Okay, let's get to explain the way the Rashbam learns the Gemara here. To explain that, there are two diyukim I have in the Gemara, two diyukim. And it's interesting, I didn't see any mefaresh, I mean I didn't look through, that should ask these two diyukim. Very simple diyukim in the Gemara. One is One is a small diyuk, not such important, but the other one is more. When the guy admitted that I, this is false, but I had another shtar, then he added, then the Gemara brings that he said, \"The reason I kept this one so I should at least have something.\" Why does the Gemara bring these words? What was that important? What's important what he thought, why he kept it? The main thing we have to know is, he brought a good shtar, admitted that it's false, said, \"I had another shtar,\" and that is a migo. We discuss, is it a good migo, is it not a good migo? The fact that he said, \"The reason I kept it because I wanted something,\" big deal what he wanted, who cares what he wanted! If he wanted something, but this is nothing anyway. That's one diyuk. The main diyuk is when Rav Yosef argued against Rabbah. What did Rabbah say? Rabbah said, \"He has a migo here, so we believe him.\" Rav Yosef turns around and he says to him, אמר ליה רב יוסף, he says to him, \"אמאי קא סמכת? What are you relying on? You're relying on this שטר? This שטר is חספא בעלמא! This שטר is nothing.\" That's all Rav Yosef said. Who said that we rely on the שטר? Did Rabbah say we rely on the שטר? If Rabbah would have said, \"You know why we believe him? Because we rely on this שטר,\" Rav Yosef would come and say, \"This שטר is not worth it.\" Did

Rabbah say for one second that we rely on this שטר? Rabbah said that this שטר is מזויף. No one Everyone knows the שטר you can't trust, because he admitted it's מזויף, it's false. But Rabbah said that even though this שטר is false, but he has a migo. So what should Rav Yosef have answered him? \"It's not a migo!\" He says to him, \"You're relying on the שטר, you can't rely on the שטר.\" So two things here. What What Rav Yosef did say makes no sense, makes no sense. He said something that What he was supposed to say, he didn't. He didn't say one word here, \"It's not a migo.\" Not only didn't he explain why it's not a migo, he didn't even say. It should have said at least אמר ליה רב יוסף אינו מיגו, or he should have said לא אמרינן מה לי לשקר הכא, even without explaining why. So he doesn't explain why, he doesn't even say the words, \"It's not a migo.\" What So first so it's missing the main thing, plus what he does say is just stupid. I mean, it makes no sense. What did he say? \"You're relying on this שטר? This שטר is חספא בעלמא.\" Why? What do you have, you're relying on a piece of paper. But they're not relying on it! Did Rabbah say we're relying on it? Rabbah said we're relying on the שטר? Never! Rabbah said that that gives the migo, that gives the migo, not relying on the שטר. He's taking away the migo by saying But no, but what is he saying? \"You can't rely on the שטר.\" Rabbah did not say that. He should have said, \"This is not a migo.\" That's what he should have said, \"This is not a migo, there's no migo.\" Why, whatever. Why does he say, and he said, \"אמאי קא סמכת, what are you relying on, on the shtar? And this shtar is חספא בעלמא.\" Rava also says this shtar is חספא בעלמא! Anyway, what I want to say is I'll

bring a different inyan altogether, just to use this as an example for our sugya here. It's a different sugya, it's a inyan in Gittin, but from there we can get a logic that will apply to here. And that is, in a get, a different inyan altogether, we have a machloket between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar by a get, whether עדי מסירה כרתי or עדי חתימה כרתי. That means like this: must you have edim signed on the get? Rabbi Meir holds yes. Edim that sign on the get, those are the edim that accomplish the כריתות, the division that the get does. Rabbi Elazar says no, עדי מסירה כרתי. You must have edim standing there when you hand over the get to the wife, but you don't need edim to sign on the get. According to Rabbi Meir, you don't have to have edim when you give it over, unless the Rabbeinu Tam holds you do anyway for a different reason, but he holds the edim have to be on the get, and according to Rabbi Elazar it doesn't. And really the machloket between them is based on the pasuk. The pasuk says וכתב וכתב לה ספר כריתות, so the פסוק וכתב, ר' Meir says וכתב means וחתם, it means sign, and R'' Elazar says וכתב means to write, and there is no signatures needed. Okay. Then the

Gemara says in Gittin, at the beginning of Gittin, that if עדים who sign on a גט are פסול, or they sign שלא לשמה, not for the proper intentions, the גט is פסול, even according to R'' Elazar. That the Gemara calls מזויף מתוכו. R'' Elazar says you don't need עדות, but if they're gonna sign, it's פסול מזויף מתוכו. That's what the Gemara says. Comes Tosafot and asks, why? If you don't need עדים to sign at all, who cares if they're פסול or not? So Tosafot Anyway, the bottom line of Tosafot is it's a גזירה דרבנן. The רבנן were afraid that if you're gonna allow the עדים to sign not לשמה, then we might come to write the גט not לשמה, and according to R'' Elazar you must write the גט לשמה. The Rashba says, according to one peshat, that it's mid'Oraita no good. And he says, why? Because anything that's written in the גט, this is what he says, becomes included in the word וכתב, since it's written in the גט, and therefore it has to be written properly. Come the Acharonim and they ask, what is the peshat of the Rashba? Why? If you don't need them at all, so disregard them. So he's written, make believe he's not there, what's the difference? You don't need it. Maharam Shif on the Gemara, on דף ד׳ עמוד א׳ there, in the Gemara asks, he says, why would what's the sevara of the Rashba that if the eidim are there, they make it pasul if they're pasul? Why is it worse than if they wouldn't be there at all? So I wanna explain the pshat in that machloket between the Rashba and Tosafot. This is the nekudah, the point. There's a lot of details, but we gotta get to the point. They both agree

First let's understand, what is the machloket between R'' Meir and R'' Elazar? Before we get to the Rashba, let's understand machloket What is the basis of the argument between R'' Meir and R'' Elazar? R'' Meir says you have to have eidim sign, and you don't have to have them watching, and R'' Elazar says you have to have them watching, you don't have to have them sign. So the point is, they both agree that you have to have edut. In order to be divorced, you can't do it without witnesses. By a divorce there are two aspects: there is the get, and there is the גירושין. The get and the divorce. The get is a shtar. There are so many dinim how to write the shtar, what to do with the shtar. Then there are separate dinim how to divorce: how you gotta give it to her. For instance, if you wrote the name wrong, would that be a problem in the get, or a problem in the גירושין? In the get. Let's say you gave it to her and she didn't take it in the right hand. It's a problem in the גירושין, nothing to do with the shtar. So they're different dinim. In the Encyclopedia Talmudit, they have two separate ערכים. What's a ערך in English? Entry, each each subject. One is get, and it has tens of pages, and one גירושין, because they're two separate עניינים. So many דינים have to do here, so many One thing is clear, that in order to make the גט into a גט, into having the validity of a שטר, you have to have עדים. It's also sure that in order to make the גירושין into a גירושין, you have to have עדים when it's given to her. They're both major things. The argument between R' Meir and R' Elazar is, which of the two is the עיקר? R' Meir holds the עיקר is the עדים for making the גט into a גט. Automatically, those עדים that do the עיקר and make the גט into a גט already do the טפל and they already accomplish the גירושין too, but the main thing you need them is for the גט. Therefore, if you only have them by the giving over, you will have them by the טפל, but not by the עיקר. So you have to have them by the עיקר. R' Elazar says the opposite: the main thing you need the עדות for is for the גירושין. Those two עדים already, since they're in this subject, they already accomplish and make the גט for a גט. But each one agrees that each subject in itself needs שטר, needs עדים. The only thing is, what accomplishes what? Okay, that's fine. Now, according to R' Elazar, that he says like this, he also admits you need עדים to make the גט and the עדים for the גירושין, he just says that the עדים for the גירושין can already, as a secondary thing, accomplish the get. Let me ask a question. Let's say according to R' Elazar, when you do happen to have עדים on the get, which עדים make the get into a get? Is it the עדי מסירה or the עדי חתימה? On one hand, you could say, well, in every get where you don't need the עדים, who accomplish, who makes the get into a get? עדי מסירה, the עדים from the גירושין, they do it. So why should this be different? On the other hand, they do it only as a secondary thing. Why? Because you don't have the עדי חתימה. But if you happen to have the עדי חתימה, why would you say that they why can't the עדי חתימה accomplish? So we would imagine, so let's go with this שיטה, that if you, according to R' Elazar, when you have two עדים signed, even though you could manage without them because the עדי מסירה will accomplish it, but when they are signed, then they make the get into a get. That let's assume according to everybody. The problem will be if these two are פסול. Now here you could look at it two ways. You could say like this: on one hand, if they're פסול, then they don't count them. So who will make the get into a get? The עדי The עדי מסירה. On the other hand you can say, since לפועל they are on the get, so they are the ones that make the get into a get, and they're פסול, so they make the גט פסול, meaning no get. And that's the machloket between the Rashba and Tosafot. That's the No, before we get to our, the Rashba and Tosafot over there. Tosafot says that they don't the fact that the עדים signed, פסול עדים don't make the גט פסול. The Rabbanan made a gezeirah, but mid'oraisa not pasul. Why? Because

Tosafos holds that even though when the eidim sign, they make the גט into a גט, but if they're pasul, you disregard them, so the גט remains kasher. Rashba holds no. The fact that they signed, too bad, they're the ones that make the גט into a גט. And since they're pasul, the גט is pasul, because the ones that are making the גט into a גט are pesulim, they make the גט פסול. That's the machlokes. No, no. It's not only with the dinim. This is nothing. This is pashut if the din of the גט is based on them. It's a part in the גט itself. Has to be a part in the גט itself. So you don't have. Better off not having. Better off not having, but at least it explains this. I just brought it up. In other words, in other words, is is when the eidim are pesulim and they signed the גט, according to Rabbi Elazar, are they העדר, which means nothing, or are they something and therefore enough to spoil it? And that's the machlokes. Now, what's that all got to do with our case here? Similar to the two inyanim there, we have something similar in our case, not exactly, but similar. Normally, we're going to be cutting it to the fine, a very fine if we cut, when a person has a ta'anah and he comes and proves his ta'anah, normally what happens is two things are accomplished. They usually come together. Number one, we know that he's saying the truth. If he proves his ta'anah, it proves he's saying the truth. Second of all, we know that whatever he ta'ens took place. Let's say he says, \"You borrowed money from me,\" and he proves it. So number one, I proved that I'm saying the truth, and I proved that you borrowed money from me. In other words, the same So for instance, a shtar. If I claim you borrowed money and I bring a shtar, what do we know from the shtar? The shtar says you borrowed money. So the shtar deals with the ma'aseh that happened and also tells us tells the Beis Din that this guy's saying the truth. Now usually they go together. But not always does it work that that way, that that the proof works for both. Let's use a migo. What does a migo do? When I have a migo that they believe me, does the migo prove that the ma'aseh happened? No. The migo just proves that I'm saying the truth. It's a re'ayah on my honesty, that's all it is. Like I could have claimed something else, so I didn't, so a re'ayah I'm saying the truth. Now, whatever I said, since it's true, we know it happened, but it's not a direct thing to what happened. A shtar is not like that. A shtar or edim, when you bring witnesses, the witnesses claim, you say he borrowed? Yes, we saw him borrow. So they're talking about the ma'aseh, so they're directly going on the ma'aseh. And we know he's saying the truth. But by migo, it's not like that. Migo has nothing to do with the ma'aseh. A migo is a psychological thing. It's just a proof that this guy's honest in this area, and therefore what he says Right. And therefore the bottom line is since he's we assume we we take out that he's saying the truth, so let's see what he said, and whatever he said is accepted. So the fact that the ma'aseh happened is only a result of me saying the truth. And usually it goes together. What would be let's say if a guy has a shtar and a migo? So the fact that he's No, no, that's both, both proving him. The migo proves he's saying the truth, the shtar proves both, so we don't need his migo, because the migo is batel. After all, there is a shtar, and the shtar proved a better proof, so we don't need the migo. In a case where the shtar in itself cannot prove his honesty, but the shtar could prove that the ma'aseh is true, where do we have such a case? It doesn't prove his honesty, if we're dividing this into half, it doesn't prove his honesty, but it has a proof on the field, on the ma'aseh. That's our case. Our case, he brought a shtar that's forged, but we don't know it's forged. In other words, from the shtar itself you can't tell. The shtar could be verified. The shtar in itself is a good proof on the field. It says clearly that this guy bought the field. It doesn't prove he's saying the truth in our case, because he admitted that the shtar is false. But he has a migo. So he has a migo and a shtar. Now the migo proves that he's saying the truth. Now, had he not had a shtar at all, what would have been? Like every migo. A migo proves that you're saying the truth, automatically that is the proof for the ma'aseh. That's a regular migo, even though the migo has nothing to do with the ma'aseh. Migo doesn't say that You bought it or you didn't, but it's automatic. In a case where you have a migo and then you have a שטר, so just like we said before by the case of the of the גט, that even though R'' Elazar holds that when you have עדי מסירה, it takes care of two things. Takes care of the גירושין, it also takes care of the גט. But that's if you don't have any עדות. Which here would be if you have a migo, only a migo, that would take care of it. A migo means you're saying the truth. So even though it has nothing to do with the field, but that automatically also proves that the field is yours, that you bought the field. But what did we say according to R'' Elazar? If you do happen to have עדים on the on the גט, then the עדי מסירה don't take care of the גט. In this case, the migo does not take care of the שטר. Of the of the of the saying that the field is yours. Normally, a migo which proves that you're saying the truth, also takes care of the second thing. In this case, you don't need the migo for it, you have the שטר. The problem is, the שטר is פסול. Now, if the שטר is פסול, do we say, automatically disregard the שטר? Forget about the שטר. Now if we would disregard the שטר, what would be the דין? Then the field would be his. On the other hand, since the שטר on its own right is a good שטר, and this is the case here, it's a good שטר, so we don't disregard it, but we say it has enough power to spoil it. Since this is the proof for the field, and it's a false proof, so for the field you have a false proof. Just like over there, for the גט itself you have the two עדים on it, and if the two עדים are פסול, according to the Rashba what happens? They don't, we don't say, well, then for the, use the עדי מסירה for this. No, since they are the עדים for the גט, they stay the עדים for the גט. And if they're פסול, too bad, the גט's פסול. The same thing you could say here, that the שטר that you brought remains the שטר for the field, to prove that the field is yours, not to prove your your נאמנות. In this case, the migo proves your נאמנות, not the שטר. Why not the שטר? Because you said that the שטר is false. But as far as the field is concerned, this is the שטר for the field. So it's bad, so you don't have proof for the field. So you have a migo, and the migo is a fine migo, but it cannot be used to prove that the field is yours because you have a שטר to use and the שטר is pasul. And that's why Rav Yosef says That's exactly what I want to say. How could it be a fine migo? No, a migo could be used that he's saying the truth, and still the field is not, it's not used to, just because normally the migo accomplishes both and they go together. You can't, you can't separate the two, but in this case, this is the a very exceptional case, we had to find a case, because usually if you have a migo, it proves both things. Why should it not prove that this maaseh happened even though it's not direct? But בדרך טפל, since you're saying the truth and what you said was this, so we give it. But that's only if there is no other proof for the field. But when there is another proof, then that migo is not the proof on the maaseh. The שטר is. Now we have to judge the שטר. The שטר is no good. So the same machloket that we have over there between Rabbah, between the Rashba and and Tosafot, I'm trying to say is the machloket here between Rabbah and Rav Yosef. The machloket is not whether it's a migo or not. See, the kashya in the beginning was, why didn't you say why it's not, it's a migo! It's a proper migo. The problem is here, this migo cannot be used because you have the שטר. So Rabbah says, I could use the migo, because since the שטר is pasul, disregard it, just like over there, since the two עדים are pasul, they don't make the get for a get, the עדי מסירה make it, fine. Here also he says, since they're pasul a פסול שטר, forget about the שטר. You have the migo, so this migo will work for the field also and therefore you can give him the field. What? No, that's the Rashba שיטה, but the Tosafot, not. I'm saying the Rashba and Tosafot, this is a machloket here. Mah she-ein ken comes Rav Yosef, and Rav Yosef says to him, no, I still feel the שטר has a validity. The שטר has a מציאות. It's not pashut the שטר is nothing. Just like the Rashba over there says, in which way does it have a validity? Enough to spoil it, that you can't rely. And that's the whole thing here. So what did Rav Yosef answer him, according to this peshat, what should he have answered him? Not why it's no migo. He answered him the שטר is no good. The שטר is a שטר and it's no good. That's what he told him. You want to rely on the שטר, the שטר is חספא בעלמא. So the kushya was, what's he telling Rabbah? Rabbah also knows חספא. He's trying to say, I'm saying that this שטר is still a שטר. You're telling me that this שטר is no שטר. So I'm telling you, you want to rely on the שטר here, which we could, and the שטר is חספא בעלמא and you can't rely on, and that's why you can't believe him. And that's why when he came with the שטר, what did he say? I came because I wanted to hold the שטר at least for something. Because the whole discussion here is, is this שטר something or not? What is the bottom line of the machloket of Rabbah and Rav Yosef? Rabbah says the שטר is nothing. Because it's pasul, it's nothing. Rav Yosef says no, why is it nothing? It's something, and it's because it's because it's in itself it's good, and you were made it, it's מזוייף, because it's something, that's why it's nothing. Because it's something, that's why it's spoiled. That's why the Gemara gives its, brings his לשון. He brought, I want to bring the שטר to have something at least. Maybe he thought it would be completely worth something, but the bottom line we want to express the point of something. And that's what Rav Yosef said, \"You're relying on the שטר!\" So the whole idea, because your שטר is something, that's why it spoils, that's why you don't believe him. It's mamash reverse psychology. You would think if the שטר is something, oh it's better! Here, because it's something, it's worse. Just like by the עדים over there. If you say that the עדים that are pasul are signed on the גט are nothing, then the גט would be kasher. Because they are something, that's why the גט is pasul. They're something and they're pasul. So this explains the לשון. Now let's go to the to the third case, we'll see what the Rami bar Chama's sevara was, why the third case is different than the cases before. Rami bar Chama said that They say it's they say it's nothing. They say it's not something. The moment you say it's מזוייף, it loses its validity. So we look at it as nothing. Just like the Tosafos Shita by the גט, that when do the two עדים of the גט make the גט the גט into kasher? The moment they're pasul, we disregard them.

Same thing here. Over there he says that I would think like this: in the previous case, you know why Rav Yosef said that the גט is pasul the שטר that we don't trust him, there is no migo, we don't trust him? Because the guy claimed, \"I had another שטר.\" In the case of the ערב, the guy never claimed, \"I had another שטר.\" So I asked before, what kind of logic is that? Isn't that in reverse? In the case where he says, \"I had another שטר,\" should be more reason to believe him. At least he claims he has another שטר, a good שטר. Here he didn't even claim that. I'm saying like this: what the the Rami bar Chama thought, maybe, why when Rav Yosef said that he does not believe, so we keep on saying the reason is because of the שטר. Because the שטר is something. So he thought, you know when the שטר is something? When at least he claims he has another שטר, and this is in the place of the other שטר, that gives more validity to this שטר. At least he says this is the place of another. Now, since this gives more validity to the שטר, that's why it's no good. But in a case where he has no other שטר, so maybe Rav Yosef admits that there is no validity to this שטר. And the moment there is no validity to this שטר, then he should be believed with the migo. And that's what Rami bar Chama says, \"Maybe over there where he said, 'I had another שטר,'\" That's the The answer is not. That makes no difference. The answer that they told him was that it makes no difference if another שטר or not. This case is exactly like before. Why? Because the fact that the שטר in itself looks כשר is good enough to have validity. But we at least understand what he thought. He thought lechatchila, no, that it has validity only when we Rav Yosef keeps on saying the שטר has validity because there's another שטר at least he says backing it. So there's some validity to it, and it's פסול, that's why. So he said, but in the case of the ערב there is no such thing. Just to add one more vort in five minutes, that could make add a little bit flavor if this is if this is the right pshat, I'm saying if, cuz I don't know, but if this is the right pshat, that this is the machloket, a little bit of flavor in what is behind the machloket of Rav and Rav Yosef whether we consider this שטר as some validity and therefore makes it פסול, spoils it, or has no validity whatsoever and it's not spoiled. A

little bit to give more flavor is there is a machloket between the Ketzot and the Mahari ben Lev. It's a famous Ketzot. He brings a famous question: we know that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים. When a person himself admits, it's like a hundred עדים. Comes the Ketzot and asks a mighty big kashya: How could you trust him as an עד? Isn't he a קרוב? A relative can't be an עד. אדם קרוב אצל עצמו. He's the biggest relative to himself. And the דין is you can't believe a person on himself. So he admitted, and a relative is not believed not only if it's for your benefit because we're afraid he's lying, even against you. In this case, the guy is saying against himself, but if he's a קרוב, you can't believe him. He asks this kashya. So why do you believe him? So the Ketzot brings a Mahari ben Lev who said because of that a new pshat. He says that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים is not ne'emanut. It's not that we believe him. It's a התחייבות חדשה. It's he's mechayev himself. He obligates himself. A person has a right to obligate himself. So when he comes and says, \"You know,\" he admits, \"I borrowed from you a hundred dollars.\" So the din is הודאת בעל דין, you have to pay. Not because we believe him that he borrowed, he obligated himself to give a hundred dollars, so he has to give. And the Ketzos comes and says, \"No. It is ne'emanut, we do believe him. הא a kashya, how could you believe him, he's a karov? So he says it's a גזירת הכתוב. The Torah, we find in the Torah there's a din of of admitting. You find by מודה במקצת there's a special din if you admitted to half, you're different. So obviously there is a din of admitting, so the Torah made a גזירת הכתוב and you do believe him.\" So basically there's a machloket here. The The Ketzos holds that when the person admits, it's like edim, and we know the ma'aseh happened, like he says here, כמאה עדים. The Mahari ben Lev says, \"No, we don't believe him. But he's obligated to pay anyway because he obligated himself.\" When I said this to somebody, he asked me, \"So if it's not we don't believe him, how come the Gemara used the לשון כמאה עדים? It's like a hundred edim.\" I

told him, \"I'll tell you the opposite. That expression shows that he's not an ed. Why? Because why does it say like like a hundred edim? Whoever heard there is a thing as a hundred edim? We know תרי כמאה, two and a hundred is the same. If you have two edim saying one thing and a thousand against them, they cancel each other out. There's no such thing as more than two. What does it say, like a hundred? Opposite, to tell us it's not edim. It's an exaggeration, and he's really believed, and we really accept what he says like who knows what, but not as a דין עדות.\" But the Ketzos holds that it's a דין עדות. Ai, normally you can't believe him? Correct, in this case the Torah said. Comes out like this: if a person comes and says, \"I borrowed money\", according to the Ketzos, we know he borrowed money. According to the other מ\"ד you don't know, we don't know if he borrowed money. Maybe he didn't borrow. He has to pay anyway, but we don't know if he borrowed. If a guy brings a שטר that's כשר, and edim look at it, and בית דין looks, fine, כשר. The only reason you know it's פסול is because the guy is מודה, because he admits it's pasul. Do we know it's pasul? Well, according to the Ketzos, yes, if you believe him, you know. According to the other מ\"ד, we don't know if it's pasul or not. It's still a kasher. We can't use it, we can't use it because, just like when a guy says \"I owe, you have to pay\", we can't use it because he obligated himself not to accept it, but we still don't know if it's pasul. So it comes out like this: that in a case where we know a shtar is pasul only because הודאת בעל דין, only because he admitted it, to look whether the shtar still has validity or not will depend on this machloket. According to the Ketzos, it has no validity at all, because we know this, just like two edim would come and say this shtar is pasul, we know it's pasul. But according to the other מ\"ד, do we, do we know it's not valid? We can't use it בפועל, but it still has validity, because we don't know if it's pasul, maybe it's kasher. And that's the case here. Rabbah says the shtar has no validity, and since it has no validity, disregard it. What do we have, what are we left with? A migo, so we believe him. Why does Rabbah hold that we disregard the get? Because he holds like the Ketzos, that it's נאמנות. Since it's נאמנות, we have proof that this shtar is pasul, so it has no, it's finished, batel. Then Rav Yosef comes and says, \"No! How do you know it's pasul? Because he said? That doesn't prove anything. So therefore we can't use it, but to say it has no validity? Not.\" So he says, \"Ah, so it has validity. If it has validity, it's enough that for the קרקע itself it's used, and since it's pasul, it has enough validity to spoil it.\" And since it spoiled it, that's why the, that's why you can't give him the, that's why you can't give him the כפל, but not because he has no migo. So

basically this is what he said. And the words of the Gemara fit much better than in the other פשטים, where they give reasons why it's not a migo, when he doesn't say it. But according to this, there's no reason why it's migo. The reason why the shtar is a shtar, and and not, you rely on it and it's חספא בעלמא, and because of that, you can't give him the כפל.