other words, in order to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, you don't really actually have to see the whole get being written and signed in front of him. הא? Rabbi Elazar. Did he see the names? That one line that he saw with... Oh, so Tosafos learns that that one line had to be שיטה ראשונה. The first line, וממילא, since the beginning was lishmah, the whole thing was lishmah. This is really this is just the starting of The Gemara is weiter. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי says אפילו קול קולמוסא וקול מגילתא. That not only if you only saw one line lishmah you could say that it was could say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, but even if you just heard קול קולמוסא וקול מגילתא, which Rashi says means you heard them preparing the pen, the feather, and the parchment, the piece of paper, you heard them doing it lishmah, you heard that when they were doing this, they were sharpening the pen, whatever, while they were doing, they say, \"We are now you see, we're sharpening the pen because we want to go write a get for Mr. So-and-so and Mrs. So-and-so.\" So, you assume that since they started, they prepared it for this person, probably they continued and they wrote it lishmah. So that's enough. If he heard that, he is already able to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. That's what the Gemara says. Rashi has another peshat, that it's קול קולמוסא means you heard The word קול, one פשט Rashi says קול is תיקון, you heard him מתקן the pen. Other peshat is קול is לשון קול, the noise. You heard the noise of the when they prepare. Whatever, but it means pashut the words, that even if you didn't see actually them writing the גט לשמה, but you heard that they were preparing the pen and the paper lishmah, you could, for this גט לשמה for this person, for this woman man and woman, you are able to say בפני נכתב. Comes Tosafos, and Tosafos says a few words, one line. Tosafos says on these words that even if you just heard the קול קולמוסא, זאגט תוספות, לא דמי לסומא דפסול להביא גט בפרק שני. This is not like a blind person who is not allowed to bring a get, as it says in the second perek. That's all Tosafos says.

What does it say in the second perek? It says in the second perek a blind person cannot bring a get. Now, the reason is very simple, because in order to bring the get, you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, that you saw it written, you saw it signed. But if he's blind, he couldn't have seen seeing everything, seen it signed. So therefore, he cannot bring the get because he cannot say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. So Tosafot basically is asking a kashya: who cares that he can't see? We just said in the Gemara you don't have to see! You just hear! If you hear how they're preparing the pen is not is good enough. So lichorah, a blind person should be able to bring a get and say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. So Tosafot just says לא דמי. It's not the same. Tosafot doesn't even say why. Tosafot just says you should know it's not the same as the case of a סומא. It doesn't say why. So, just to get to it, not even that's not the ikar that we're going to get to, but the Rosh says like this: It says in the Gemara that if you saw if you heard the קול קולמוסא וקול מגילתא is enough, והוא שראה הקלף אחר שתיקנוהו. But that's only if after they fixed it, they prepared it, you saw the קלף. You saw it. ואחר שנכתב מכירו בטביעת עין. And after it was finished written writing, you didn't see them writing it, but you recognize that this is the same piece of paper from before. That's when you're able to say בפני נכתב. הלכך, therefore, אין להכשיר סומא בהכי בקול קולמוסא וקול מגילתא. Now we know why he can't a blind person can't bring, because according to the Rosh, you actually have to see. What you don't have to see is the actual writing of it, but you have to see the piece of paper before, you have to see the piece of paper later, so a blind person cannot say. That's the Rosh's peshat. אבל

התוספות גרסו, the Rosh says that the Tosafot write, which is not our Tosafot, but a different תוספות, שאין להכשיר סומא בהכי בקול קולמוסא משום נראה כשקר. That you can't do it because you sound like you look מיחזי כשקרא, you look like a liar. אם יאמר, if he's going to say בפני נכתב, how If he's going to come and say, \"In front of me,\" basically, \"I saw it written and signed,\" it sounds like a joke. How could he say it? אלא מאי? Let him say a different lashon. Let him say shamati. ואם יאמר שמעתי קול קולמוסא, let him say, \"I heard,\" אינו מועיל. That won't help. דבעינן שיאמר בלשון שתיקנו חכמים, because it only works if you use the exact lashon that the חכמים said, and the lashon is בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. That lashon you cannot say because he's blind. Another lashon, you cannot say. This can't say even though he doesn't have to see. So Tosafot learns, he says, ומדבריהם למדנו, from Tosafot we see, שאינו צריך שיראה הקלף ויכירו, that you don't have to first see the klaf and then recognize it later, כי מסתמא כיון שאמרו לכתוב בשעה שתיקנו הקלף לשמו, That probably, if you heard them saying that they're going to write lishmah, probably they did that. מה לי בקלף זה מה לי בקלף אחר? Why would you think that they changed klaf, they wrote something else? So basically, Tosafot holds that you do not have to see. But then the question is, if you do not have to see, why can't a suma bring? So that's what he brought from Tosafot, from the other Tosafot, it's a mechzei keshikra. That's the reason, because it looks like a lie. It sounds like a lie, it doesn't sound right. The

Ran here says a different reason. The Ran says because if the guy could see, then the sofer is מסתפי מיניה. The sofer is afraid. Like this, if the guy can't see, we don't know if the sofer might, you might hear him doing something, but later on he might not write lishmah. And he's not afraid that you're going to come in and catch him that he's not doing it right. So therefore, by a suma you can't trust. But if the guy could see, so even though lema'aseh he didn't see, but it's like mirtat. As we find a lot of cases by a goy. הא? Like yotze venichnas, yeah. Like we find by a goy, you can be yotze venichnas, you can be. Why? The goy is mirtat. He's afraid he's going to lose his job, you know people will catch him. So the same thing here. Mah she'en ken, if a blind person, you can't catch him. Now, the Ramban gives a different reason. He says like this, that this falls under the category of כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת, כל שאינו ראוי לבילה, בילה מעכבת. כל הראוי לבילה, בילה מעכבת, which is a case of bilah means mixing. There is a din by the korbanot, minchah it says בלולה בשמן. Has to be mixed in the oil. Nevertheless, the Gemara says that if you did not mix bafo'al, let's say they didn't, forgot, or whatever, they didn't mix it, it's kasher, bediavad it's kasher, it's not me'akev. Then the Gemara says a din, that a korban, minchah is only kasher up to sixty עשרונים in one כלי. Because more than sixty עשרונים you can't mix. And if you put it in more than sixty עשרונים, the korban is pasul. And the Gemara asks, \"Why is it pasul? Didn't we just say that bedi'eved it's kasher, even if you didn't mix? So you can't mix, so you didn't mix it, but it's kasher?\" So the Gemara answers, אמר רב זירא, the famous רב זירא, כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת. If you're able to mix, then even if you didn't mix it's kasher. But if you're not, כל שאינו ראוי לבילה, if you can't mix it, then it's me'akev, and if it's not mixed, it's me'akev. And since you can't mix it, it's no good. That means it has to be ראוי, has to be fit. The same thing here, also. The fact that a person couldn't see and it's still kasher is because he's able to see, he's ראוי to see. But if he's blind, he's not ראוי to see, then it's pasul. Now what it means is very hard to understand. What kind of geder of ראוי do we have here? What Why should you need a ראוי to see? The whole idea of בפני נכתב is that you're able to testify it was written לשמה. And הנוגע לחתימה, in addition to that, you testify the kiyum of שטר חתימות. So what's the ראוי? Meila by korbanot there's a din of בלילה, so you say it's ראוי ל. There's a din of ראיה here? There's a din of seeing? There's a din of us knowing that it was לשמה. So if listening is a good enough, who cares if he's ראוי or not ראוי? So it's very possible that the Rashba means what the Ran says. He's just using a borrowed term that if he's not ראוי, it's no good. But not because there's a halacha of ראיה, and as long as he's able to see הא? No, yeah, it's meant it's definitely to exclude a סומא, but what's the peshat, why does it exclude a סומא? Lichora, the Maharam probably means the same thing. The Maharam, when he says on Tosafot, Tosafot says that this is not דומה to a סומא, a סומא is different. Tosafot doesn't say why. So the Maharam says, yeah, ויש לחלק, why תקא is this different than a סומא? דשאני פיקח דראוי לראות ממש. He's ממש ראוי to see. So it's like it's like the Rashba, since he's ראוי it's good enough. What's ראוי? Who needs ראוי? If he's not ראוי, who cares if he's not ראוי? Who cares if he doesn't see? Must be probably peshat that since he's able to see, the sofer is afraid. But that's not what he says. But could be he's using the term כל הראוי, but he doesn't really mean the ראוי. But al kol panim, here we have this din that if different between a סומא. All many rishonim ask this קשיא בנידון a סומא, why a סומא, a blind person, cannot bring a get when you don't even have to see, and they give different teirutzim, but we see this din that there is a chiluk between a סומא and שמע קול קולמוסא. This makes a problem in the Rambam. The Rambam in פרק ז הלכה י\"ב, הלכות גירושין always lishmah, he won't change If he's afraid, yeah, he's afraid to do anything wrong, because the guy might walk in. What is the condition that's just enough to write something lishmah? You just have to have in mind that you're doing it for the sake of the woman, and the sake of the sofer. The סופר. How do you know what he has in mind? Like, I don't know, you hope so, you make The din is that you say before before you start start writing, you say הריני כותב לשם this woman and and this man. Like you would for a mezuzah, yeah. For a Sefer Torah, when we wrote the Sefer Torah, did did the סופר tell you, tell you, he said, say, told me also, say הריני כותב לשם קדושת ספר תורה. Huh? Okay, that's something else. The blind guy hears him say that, so he can assume it's lishmah, they start putting him into the corner now. Right, no, but maybe later somebody else walked in, and the סופר started writing the get, and the guy says to the סופר, you know what, I need a get. Okay, I'll finish this off for you. You never know. That could happen. So, if he knows you could see, he's afraid to do that because, you know, you'll walk in and catch him writing it for somebody else. Write a brand new name. A brand new name. No, that they'll see later. You'll give it to somebody else. Oh, you mean he'll give it to somebody else. Okay. The

Rambam says like this, in פרק ז' of הלכות גירושין, הלכה י״ב: נכתב מקצת הגט בפניו ונחתם כולו בפניו, מקצת, yeah, okay. אפילו לא נכתבה אלא שיטה אחת בפניו, even if one line was written in front of him, is כשר. ואפילו שמע קול הקולמוס כותב, even if he just heard, he learns peshat not when they prepared the קולמוס, but he heard him writing, וחתמו העדים בפניו, and the עדים signed in front of him, הרי זה אומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. So the Rambam has a new chiddush here, a new שיטה, that when the Gemara says that it's enough when you hear, it's only enough for the כתב, not for the חתימה, not for the signatures. The signatures he has to see. He has to see them sign. That's the Rambam says clearly. And the reason the mefarshim say why the signature you have to sign bifshatot is because בפני נחתם goes also it takes the place of kiyum. So בפני נכתב is to make sure it was lishmah. בפני נחתם, that he saw, it's also for lishmah, but also for that this is in the place of kiyum, because we pasken't like Rabbah. We had the machloket in the Gemara between Rabbah and Rava. Rabbah says that the reason why you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is only because people don't know lishmah, to make sure it was lishmah. Rava says the reason is because אין עדים מצויין לקיימו, because when you bring the גט from מדינת הים, you might not find עדים to be מקיים the שטר, to verify the signatures, so he is, by saying בפני נחתם, verifying the signatures. Then the Gemara says רבה סבר כוותיה דרבא, that Rabbah באמת holds both. Rabbah says that you need בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם sign for the lishmah and sign for קיום. So therefore the Rambam learns and the Rambam paskent take like Rabbah. So the Rambam learns, that's what the מפרשים say, the Rambam learns that בפני נכתב, which is only to verify it's lishmah, for that it's enough just שמע קול, you just heard it. But to verify, but בפני נחתם, which is also for the sake of being מקיים the שטר, how could you be מקיים a שטר to say they signed if you didn't see? So that's why the Rambam learns it has to be בפניו. The only and this is how the Shulchan Aruch paskent. The Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch in in Even HaEzer paskent like the Rambam, and that's how many poskim paskenan that the חתימה has to be has to be בפניו. Because the עדים make the גט. Because the עדים they sign, their signature, but he's מקיים the קיום of the of the signatures. It would say once. Yeah, בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. Yeah, because of lishmah and the kiyum. So בפני נחתם includes the kiyum, too. The only problem is, if you learn like this, then how could you ask a kashya about סומא? And and the Mechaber, and he doesn't argue against all the Rishonim. All the Rishonim ask a kashya about סומא, that how could How come a blind person is not cannot bring a גט, because he cannot say When you hear It's enough if you hear. But if you learn like the Rambam that when you hear hearing is only good enough for the כתיבה, not for the חתימה, the חתימה you must see, so obviously a סומא cannot bring a גט, because he cannot see the חתימה. So what's the kashya? So some mefarshim answer... If they write in Braille? That's all of them are the same, there's no signatures there. Can't sign. Signatures is everyone has a different signature, and you recognize signatures. Braille is for everyone the same. So some answer... That's a good kashya, isn't it? Exactly. So let's look at what the teretz is. הקושיא הקושיא טובה וה... Teretz yafeh, something like that. הקושיא is... anyway. So, some mefarshim answer that according to this, the kashya of Tosafot, and the kashya of of the Rosh, and all the Rishonim who have the קשיא בדין סומא is only in one specific case. Whose? Is only in one case, in the case in in case באותו מקום, באותה מדינה. According באותה מדינה, when you bring אותה מדינה, so then there is no the reason for בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם if it's in the same country. You don't need בפני נחתם for kiyum, because the only reason we need for kiyum is in a case where אין עדים מצויין לקיימו where you will not find עדים, which is ממדינה למדינה. But באותה מדינה, not. So באותה מדינה, so according to Rava it doesn't work either. Because according to רבא, באותה מדינה you don't even have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. According to Rava, the whole reason of בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is only for kiyum. באותה מדינה you don't need, so then it doesn't fit because you don't have to hear, don't do anything. According to Rabba, who holds that there is a reason of lishma and a reason of kiyum, and באותה מדינה in the same country there's no need for kiyum because you'll always find עדים to be מקיים, so then it's only for lishma, so the בפני נחתם is also for lishma. Over there a סומא should work, because over there you don't have to see the חתימה. Over there a סומא should work. So the kashya of the Rishonim that the Rishonim ask is only in such a case where it's באותה מדינה according to Rabba. Okay, that's what they say. Emet, you could try think, go a step a little further and try to see what is the pshat the difference between כתיבה and חתימה, and try to answer. Let us start off and in the Shulchan Aruch, on this din, the Chochmas Shlomo, Rav Shlomo Kluger asks a sheilah. Yeah? Chochmas Shlomo Shulchan Aruch is Rav Shlomo Kluger. He was the Rav of Bradi. Brad. Yes, his last name is Kluger. That's why probably he called the Sefer Chochmas Shlomo. I imagine. So he asks a kashya. He says like this: that emet, the fact that you mechaleik between you make a difference between כתיבה and חתימה, and כתיבה you don't have to see, you could just hear, and חתימה you have to see, he says could only be said according to Rava, not according to Rabba. Why? Because according to Rava, the only reason you have to say is because of kiyum. So בפני נחתם, when you say I saw him sign it, it's for kiyum. Why do we mechalek to say בפני נכתב? But the Gemara says שלא אתו לאחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא. The Gemara on דף ג׳ says that Rava says that, because the Gemara asks a kashya on Rava. According to Rava, why do you need בפני נכתב בכלל? If it's for kiyum shtarot to verify the signatures, why does why does he have to say I saw it written? All he has to say I saw him sign it, and that's it. Rava does not hold of לשמה,

Rava holds only of kiyum. So the Gemara So Rava answers, the reason is because since it's kiyum and here one person is believed, so if people are going to see one shaliach come and say בפני נחתם, which means that he verifies the signatures, and that's all he's going to say, I saw him sign, people are going to think that קיום שטרות בעד אחד, that you could mekayem a regular shtar with one ed. So the Chachamim had to do something to make this seem different than a regular kiyum shtarot, not to confuse it with kiyum shtarot. So that's why the Chachamim said, in a case of a get where one guy is enough, let him also say בפני נכתב. When everyone is going to hear he's saying בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, they'll know it's not regular kiyum shtarot, and they won't confuse it. So lefo'al, the real reason you say is only for בפני נחתם. בפני נכתב is only to avoid the confusion. So here, he says, you could mechalek between בפני נכתב... בפני נחתם is more important, so you have to see it. בפני נכתב, which is not that important, it's only to not to confuse it, there you don't have to. But he says according to Rabbah that you say it for lishmah, both need to be lishmah. How could you say that the ketivah is less important than chatimah? If the Mishnah goes according to Rabbi Elazar, because the Gemara has a shaila who the Mishnah goes through, if it goes according to Rabbi Elazar, he holds that only the כתיבה has to be לשמה, not חתימה. If it goes according to Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara says he holds both, so both have to be לשמה. But they're both important, so why would it be that you need you should be mechalek between כתיבה and חתימה? And therefore he says, I'm telling you for sure that according to Rabbah you can't be mechalek, they're both equal. According to Rava you could be mechalek. So he says, it comes out that you could find a חילוק between Rava and Rabbah whether the חתימה has to be seen. According to Rabbah, or both don't have to be seen, or both do have to be seen, but you can't make a חילוק. According to Rava, you could make a חילוק: the חתימה has to be seen and the כתיבה not. So mimela he says, I had a kashya: why doesn't the Gemara say, when the Gemara wonders מאי בינייהו, when the Gemara asks what's the difference between Rabbah and Rava, the Gemara should have answered this! One of the differences is that according to Rabbah you have to see both or not, or not see either, and according to Rava you have to see one. So how come the Gemara doesn't say it? So he comes to a conclusion: therefore I say, I think he says, that this is a proof, since the Gemara doesn't say that this is the איכא בינייהו, that according to both, you have to see it according to both, you don't have to they're both equal. According to both, they're both equal. And since we know for sure that the כתיבה you don't have to see, there is no מקום for the חתימה to have to see. So he says, I'm telling you that it can't be, and the Gemara doesn't make this difference. So when the Gemara says אפילו שמע מקולמוס, which for the כתיבה for sure, so it has to be the חתימה the same. You can't make the חתימה different, because if the חתימה would be different it would only have been according to Rava, and the Gemara would have said מאי בינייהו. That's what he says. Now, be'emet let's start thinking: maybe the conclusion is the opposite! Since the Gemara should have made a difference between Rabbah and Rava, that according to Rava you have to see the חתימה and according to Rabbah not, and according to and according to Rava and not the כתיבה, according to Rabbah you have to see both, and the Gemara doesn't say it, maybe that's a ראיה that according to both there is a difference between כתיבה and חתימה. The only thing we have to understand is why. Lich'orah, why should there be a difference between כתיבה and חתימה according to Rabbah? See, according to Rava he said I understand. According to Rabbah, he says I don't understand why, mimela you must say they're both the same. Let's just think: can we find a reason to be מחלק between the כתיבה and the חתימה, that the כתיבה is not that important even according to Rabbah, and therefore שמע מקול- and the חתימה is more important that you have to? So if and if

we'll find that, then we'll answer his kushya. His kushya was why the Gemara doesn't say מאי בינייהו, איכא בינייהו, because there is no difference. But not no difference like he says that in both cases you don't have to see. Farkert! Both agree that the חתימה has to be seen and the כתיבה not. But why? What would be the logic that there's a difference between כתיבה and חתימה? So you could say, that's what I'm going to get to, to say a few ways of understanding the difference between כתיבה and חתימה, why we would פסקן according to everybody that the כתיבה is enough if you hear, and the חתימה you have to see. So let's understand what is the difference between ketivah and chatimah. And lichorah, it's a pshute zach: the ketivah is written, what you write, that shtar, what the words that it says. Chatimah is not just a shtara, chatimah is hoda'ah. The edim are testifying. The edim are verifying. Now the whole concept of testi- der gantze get iz, yeah, shteyt zich, the get is talui in them. Gut, aber what are they doing? They are The get is a get. It's strictly a get. Now what is made on the get is the chatimah. The whole concept of being made is a hundred percent. The whole concept of being made is a hundred percent. I'll backtrack a second. When the גמ- I'll backtrack.

When the Gemara says that it's enough if you hear, and then the guy could come and say בפני נכתב, פֶט, a kushya! But after all, he didn't see it. So I would assume that hearing, preparing the pen, is not a hundred percent verification that it's takeh lishmah. It's 50%, 70%, I'm just using a number, 70%. Ela mai? The chachamim said that we are mekil in this case, just like they were mekil, the Gemara said before, mishum iguna akilu that one person is enough, they were mekil that 70% verification is good enough for us in this case. After all, the Gemara said the whole she'eilah is a very shvache she'eilah, the Gemara says רוב בני אדם so most people know lishmah, and even in the place they don't know lishmah, and it says סתם ספרא דדיינא is בקי מידי, and even according to Rava it's בדרך כלל it's a שוואכע חשש. But still, it's a chashash. So in the case, chachamim said כאן קולא, it's enough. But that they could only say when it we're talking about what's written, to testify what's written. But when we're trying to testify on the chatimah, here to say that I only give a 50% testimony on the חתימה, that makes no sense, because the whole concept of of testimony is a hundred percent. There's no such thing as 75% testimony. למשל, a person going to bring עדים, \"I want to bring עדים you owe me money.\" I'll bring עדים, and if the judge will ask, the דיין will ask the עדים, \"You know for sure?\" He said, \"Well, I'm 70% sure that he owes him the money.\" What will the דיין say? He's going to throw him out! It's nothing! You can't come 70%. There's

no such thing as עדות 70%. עדות has to be 100 100%! Now, as far as Beit Din is concerned, when you come to testify בפני נחתם, you're testifying on the testimony of the עדים. The עדים's verification testimony will be as as valuable as how much you will testify, because the Beit Din will only know the truth of the עדים based on my saying. So if my saying is only 50%, then the עדים's testimony are only worth 50%. How could it be עדים 50%? מה שאין כן, the עצם זאך on the כתב, which is not a גדר of עדות, there the חכמים said, \"We believe you. We are מיקל here.\" But they cannot be מיקל such a way on on the חתימה. And this has nothing to do with Rabbah Rabbah v'Rava. So it comes out like this. If we take the חתימה as to prove it was לשמה, and then how do you know that it is 100% if it's No, the חכמים said that this guy we believe even if it's 50%, to us it's enough and we accept it as 100%. But that's only לגבי something that's not by the כתיבה. But no, by the כתיבה, no, the חתימה, they can't believe him. That's why he has to see it. That's what I'm saying. That on this, what did they sign? That we have we are מקיים it that they signed. It has to be לשמה also. Also. Yeah. But for לשמה the חכמים Whatever happens to be לשמה, the חכמים said, \"We trust if it's 70%.\" But when you're verifying them as עדים, which is the עדות, the the הגדה of the שטר, how could you verify 50%? So verifying 50% on the 100% remains 100- 50%, so it's nothing. But לפועל it comes out according to this that when you say בפני נכתב ונחתם, לכתחילה it's two ענינים. בפני נכתב means not in front of me it was written. I know it was written properly, I heard. And בפני נחתם means davka it has to be that I saw it, because if he doesn't say that 100%, then he's a lechatchila lechatchila he can't do it. Which by the way, this explains something else. The Gemara says earlier, according to the sevara that it's lishmah, that בפני נכתב that it's lishmah, why don't we say the word lishmah? You should say בפני נכתב לשמה, בפני נחתם לשמה! So the Gemara says, because it's three words, and we're afraid that he might forget and might not say all three words. Two words people won't forget. Four words, three words might forget, and if he skips one word it'll be a problem. So Rashi asks, but lefoal he's saying four words! What is בפני נכתב ונחתם? בפני נכתב, בפני נחתם. So Rashi answers that these are two separate inyanim. Each one is a separate inyan for itself. Which is probably the reason why the Chachamim did not make one בפני. Nachon, the Chachamim should have said Why did they say בפני נכתב בפני נחתם? They should have said בפני נכתב ונחתם. Ela mai? Though lishmah is four words. But if it would be בפני נכתב ונחתם it would be three words, because it would be one inyan. So now

when we make it into two inyanim, a person won't forget. But I want to say, according to what I'm saying, they had to say two בפני's, because they have two different meanings. בפני נכתב is a 50% verification that I heard, I know it was lishmah, whatever, and בפני נחתם means I I saw it written. It's a different This is 50, this is 100%. But לפי זה, it comes out like this. That באמת in this din, the whole din of בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is a דין דרבנן. The דרבנן made it. Ela mai, we're saying that where do we Did the Chachamim feel to be meikel? In a case which is only the כתב. In a case of the חתימה, which is הגדה, the Chachamim didn't want to be meikel. לפי זה, you could say like this. That there is a hava amina that when did the חכמים not meikel by the חתימה? When you're able to see. What happens if he's a סומא? A סומא is not able to see. Maybe here the חכמים were meikel that even the חתימה could also be done by שמיעה? That's the kashya that the Rishonim ask. When the Rishonim ask, why is this different than a סומא, what they mean to say, why, since over here And we asked a kashya, according to the Rambam, how could you even have this problem? A סומא by the the כתיבה and the by בפני, hearing's not enough, the חתימה has to be seen. A סומא can't see! The kashya is, let a סומא be believed! Since the whole reason we don't believe we have to see by the חתימה is a תיקון דרבנן because of the inyan what the חתימה is, there's a possibility that in a case where the person cannot help it, then he davka should be able to not have to see the חתימה. That's the שאלה. Why a סומא can't bring it? Because he can't see. And you're telling me why? Pashut, because he can't see the חתימה. חתימה you have to see. Why davka does he have to see the חתימה? Because the whole reason we have to see the חתימה, because the רבנן wanted to make it stronger, because of חתימה. But could רבנן maybe made it stronger? And the answer is, no, they didn't. And that could be a reason why also Tosafos doesn't even give a reason. It's a peledige Tosafos.

Tosafos says, this is not like סומא. Why? Pashut not like Tosafos. The Gemara says that if you hear, it's enough. So Tosafos is not like סומא. Why not? So the Rosh gives a ביאור, this gives a ביאור, Tosafos doesn't give a ביאור. Because what I want to say is Tosafos's kashya is a different kashya. It's not it's not Tosafos's kashya is, why takeh by סומא not, but not why takeh, that maybe by סומא the חכמים would be mekil and he doesn't see. So there Tosafos says, no, the חכמים would not mekil. Don't have to give a reason. It's only a hava amina that the חכמים were mekil. So says לא דמיא לסומא. By סומא the חכמים wouldn't mekil. Now along the same lines, we can go a little bit different and explain what is the difference between כתיבה and חתימה, why by כתיבה we're mekil and by חתימה not. Along the same line, but just a different vort. The vort would be like this: Since חתימה is הגדה, חתימה is when you verify, you testifying on something, stam an עדים that need verification on the עדים themselves, is a שוואכע עד, right? עדים is טייטש עד, he's verifying, he's holding in is to verify. Now you have to verify the חתימות. So what's the פשט לכאורה? That when you have to be mekayem the שטר, it's as this: when you are mekayem the שטר, you are a המשך to the edim, you make the edim into edim. If you make the edim into edim, you are part of the edim. The whole מציאות of edim is 100%, you are the one that makes them 100%, so it's like you are me'id, you are the ed, because the ed without you wouldn't be an ed. Not that this is a 50%, there's no such thing as 50%, like I said before. Before I said stam a different way, here I'm saying, so mimela when you say בפני נחתם, basically is you are an ed, you are signing. So here, if you are

signing, you have to say, I saw him sign, you have to be 100%. But when it comes to the כתב, you are just talking about the כתב. In other words, what I want to make the chiluk is, when you say בפני נכתב, you are talking about the כתב. When you