אמר ליה 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 זבינתה, I bought it from you. And והא שטרא, here I have a שטר. This is different than the previous cases where he didn't have a שטר, but what he did have was חזקה of three years. You live in the field for three years, even though you don't have a שטר, 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 חזקה, but he had a שטר. What's better than a שטר? The whole ענין of a חזקה is that if you don't have a שטר, then you have three years חזקה, it takes the place of the שטר, but this guy had a שטר. Doesn't matter how many years, and טקא it wasn't there for three years, but he had a שטר. אמר ליה, so the other fellow says to him, שטרא זייפא הוא, it's a forged שטר! גחין ולחיש ליה לרבה, so he bent down, and he whispered into Rabbah's ear, אין, he's right. שטרא זייפא הוא, this is a forged שטר. But מיהו, but שטרא מעליא הוה לי ואירכס, I had a good שטר 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 שטר was forged, but he claimed that he has another שטר which was good and he lost it. אמר Rabbah, 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 שטר, which basically means Rabbah said, we believe him. Why do we believe him? He doesn't have a חזקה, and he doesn't have a שטר, because the שטר 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 שטר is a good shtar, who asked him to admit that the shtar is forged? And as the Rashba 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 of the shtar was that it was a שטר אמנה. It was written, but never used. So they could have verified his signatures. Now had he wanted, he could have said this 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.

Amar lei Rav Yosef, 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 chaspah, in English how would you say chaspah? It's earthenware, pottery. It's nothing, 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, 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, it's garbage. Then the Gemara tells a third story. A 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 שטר is not good, but a migo he has. Because he didn't have to admit, he could have said, no, here I have the שטר, 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 פסקן like Rav Yosef, and the end was that it is similar to the case before. So in that third case he paid him already, so why didn't the לוה take back the שטר? He trusted him, he trusted him. So 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 with the Gemara is that Rav Yosef didn't give a reason why not! Rav Yosef said you can't rely on this שטר, this שטר is a piece of pottery, that's all it is, that's it! But did Rabbah say that we believe him because of the שטר? Rabbah never said that we believe this שטר. 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, he called that והעיקר חסר מן הספר, the main reason is missing. But beside that, what is the reason? What is the reason, why doesn't Rav Yosef believe him with the 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 the 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 קסמכית? האי שטרא, are you relying on this שטר? 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 שטר is nothing, we, so the שטר is nothing. Okay, now he comes to explain. דלא דמי לשאר מה לי לשקר שבגמרא, this is not similar to all the other מה לי לשקר. מה לי לשקר 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 taanot, both ideas could have been true. איזה שהוא טוען, the one that he says, ואיזה שהוא היה יכול ולא טען, the one he could have said. What's a regular migo? Let me give you 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, I, shtar you owe me $100. 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 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 migo against witnesses. Why? שהרי כל כוחו וזכותו בקרקע זו על ידי האי שטרא, because the whole koach that he has in this field is based on this shtar. והיכי נימא מה לי לשקר בשטר זה, how could we say that we believe him in a migo and to get the field in a migo of saying that the field is his based on the shtar? אי בעי אמר שטר מעליא, because he could have said it's a good שטר, והלא מודה שהשטר פסול, didn't he admit that the shtar is pasul? והודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים, and when you admit yourself it's like a hundred edim. ואילו באו שני עדים שאמרו שהוא פסול לית ליה מה לי לשקר, had two edim come and say the shtar you have is pasul, not he admitted, two edim, then we wouldn't give him the field. If he admitted himself, it's like two edim said it, because whatever you admit is like edim, and we don't believe him. This is what the Rashbam said. 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 I bought this. The fact that he shows the שטר is a proof to his טענה. What's his טענה? Let's analyze this. His טענה is the field is mine, I bought it from you. That's his טענה. What's your proof? The proof is the שטר. When we find out the שטר is no good because he admits, 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 עדים? The עדים, which are in this case his admission is in the place of עדים, is not against his טענה. If עדים would come and say you never bought it, then you can never believe him that he bought it, you can have a million migos, because a migo that's backing his טענה is not stronger than עדים who are going against his טענה. But in this case, the migo the admission that which is the place of the עדים, not against the טענה, it's against his ראיה. He first brought a ראיה, the שטר, to prove that the שטר is, from the שטר. 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 פירוש Rashbam, okay, he quotes the whole Rashbam. דדעת רשב״ם דמחשב מינך זבינתה והא שטרא חד טענה. The Rashbam he says considers his טענה saying the field is mine, I bought it from you, and this is the שטר as one טענה. What we said before was it seemed like the טענה is I bought it, that's the טענה. Prove it. I have a proof, the שטר. 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 batel. Why? כאילו עדים ביטלוה, like edim are mevatel. Mimela this is not accepted. But then the this is how he explained the Rashbam, and the Rosh says ולא סבירא ליה האי טעמא, I don't hold of this reason, because it's not true, because מינך זבינתיה is one טענה, והשטר אינו קיום, לראיה בעלמא. The shtar is just a proof. And טענתיה יכול לקיים במאי דקאמר שטר מעליא היה לי, 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 peshat in the Gemara why Rav Yosef did not accept the migo. The Rashbam learned he didn't accept the migo because he admitted the shtar the way he learned 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 דיבור המתחיל והוא. But what we have to do here is understand the Rashbam. What does the Rashbam learn here? That in 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 already brought a shtar, and the shtar happens to be false, spoils the ta'anah that he ta'ans, 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's sevara. That's a different sevara. That's not what the Rashbam said. But the

question is, what is the pshat in the Rashbam? That's the sheilah we have to understand. Isn't there one piece? There is. That's not his טענה. You say you say the shtar is That's his ראיה. His טענה is, I bought it from you. He says, my field, he says, I bought it from you. Now he could have a ראיה through a shtar, he could have a ראיה through a חזקה, he could have a ראיה through a migo, all kinds of ways to back your טענה. Right. Well, a migo is a proof. He couldn't have a He couldn't have a proof because the the shtar could never be proven Not this shtar. The fact that he could have said this shtar is good and he didn't, so we believe him in his טענה. That's a migo. That's every migo like this. Take away that he couldn't say it was good because Sure he could. Because coming clean. He's coming with a shtar, and had he stay stayed 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 Rambam They would have to check to see They would have checked and they would have and they would have That's what I said before. Right. Right, right, right. Therefore, he couldn't No, no, but it says it's a case where it was good signatures. In cases where they were good so you could have a aderabah, if you couldn't be מקיים the shtar, it's no migo. The whole case here is where you could have been מקיים the shtar. So, you could have you could have stayed with that טענה and it's a good migo, and that's what Rabbah 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? And there are a lot of details here, other pshatim. Why can't we just say that within within three years, right? Yeah. So? Within three years, he doesn't have a shtar, that's it. You can say whatever you want, the bottom line is The Gidulei Shmuel The Gidulei Shmuel says that the reason we don't believe him because there is a חזקה against him. There is a חזקה, a person within three years doesn't lose a shtar. So to So, what we have here is we have a migo to believe him, a migo which proves he's saying the truth,