noticed from the kapitel that this is going to be basically a hemshech to last week. That's why I wrote number two, this is a continuation of last week. And there were certain things that we still didn't finish, so today we're going to try to finish it. This all starts בנוגע that we have the Gemara here on דף ה׳ עמוד א׳ and the Tosafot, and the Maharsha. And the bottom line after everything is said and done, the Maharsha says that if an אילם, a person who cannot talk, he's not a חרש, he's normal, a חרש is abnormal, that's pashut a retarded person, an אילם is somebody who's a normal person, but he's just mute, he can't talk. So the Maharsha says that if he comes and brings a get, he could write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם and it will work for lishmah, but he cannot write down that it should work for קיום. According to Rabbah, there are two reasons why we have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, as we know in the Gemara, Rabbah says the reason is because אין בקיאין לשמה, so בפני נכתב makes sure that it was lishmah, it's testimony that it was lishmah. Also רבה אית ליה דרבא, רבה holds like Rava that it's also for קיום, so there are two things you have to accomplish. And the way the Maharsha explains based on Tosafot, so he says that if a person can't talk, he could write down that it was written lishmah and was signed lishmah, and that would be valid, it would be acceptable if he writes down בנוגע לשמה. But בנוגע קיום, if he will write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם and want it to work for קיום, it won't work. And the

reason the Maharsha gives is because by עדות there is a דין of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, that an עד could only say עדות by mouth, not by writing, like the pasuk says על פי שנים עדים or שני עדים יקום דבר, so we דרשנ׳ן מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, and therefore, if this person is going to write down that the get is מקוים, it's not going to work, but when it comes to lishmah, it will work. And as I explained last time, be'emet in this din that for kiyum he cannot write down, a person cannot write down for kiyum, is a מחלוקת הראשונים. It's a מחלוקת between the Ran and the Rambam according to the Kesef Mishneh, that the Ran says clearly that a person could write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם and it will work for kiyum, and obviously we don't have a problem with מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם when it comes to someone writing down, this עד אחד is going to write, this עד, this shaliach is going to write down, mah she'ein kein for the Rambam in פרק, הלכות גירושין, let's just read the words again because it's going to be a little בנוגע later, הלכות גירושין, פרק ז׳, הלכה י״ח, he says נתנו לה ולא הספיק לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם עד שנשתתק, if he gave it to her, but by the time it came to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם he became mute, he couldn't talk, הרי זה יתקיים בחותמיו ואחר כך יתננו לה, you have to mekuyam it, and writing won't work, and the Maggid Mishneh says very clearly מדברי רבינו שכתב עד שנשתתק נראה בהדיא דאילם כותב בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is pasul. Okay, if an אילם writes it, it's פסול, ואף על פי שבעדות אשה it works, here it's pasul. So the

Kesef Mishneh definitely learns that the Rambam says that the אילם cannot write down. So we have a מחלוקת הראשונים, the Ran says clearly on דף ט׳ that an אילם could write down and that it will work for kiyum, and the Rambam according to the Kesef Mishneh says not. And last week the whole purpose was to go into the peratim, which I will repeat soon in a moment, some of the נקודות עיקריות בקיצור בנוגע to further, but what we did not explain last week is, according to the Maharsha, there is a difference between writing down lishmah, that it was lishmah, and writing down that the שטר is mekuyam, and I didn't explain what is the sevara of the Maharsha. Basically, that's what we have to understand: lichora, if the Maharsha goes leShitat haRambam that this guy cannot write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם in order to work for kiyum because we do apply the klal of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, why for lishmah it's also edut, don't we have to have two people or this person coming to be me'id that the get was written lishmah? Why is it that for lishmah the Maharsha says he could write it down and it'll work, מה שאין כן for kiyum it won't work? That we did not explain. It's going to be explained based on, I could continue what I said last week, but that's one she'eilah we still have here. So the she'eilah that, in every shiur has to start with a she'eilah, just like a ma'amar has to start with a pasuk and you have a she'eilah, because otherwise we're going to say להבין הענין, it just, it doesn't work that way. Like sometimes there are ma'amarim. So if you got, so the she'eilah of the shiur is

today, according to the Maharsha that he makes a difference between that by lishmah, for lishmah this shaliach could write down בפני נכתב and it will work for lishmah, and there is no problem of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, while בנוגע קיום, there is a problem of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם and he cannot write down, what is the chiluk? That's one she'eilah. Then there's another she'eilah that we did not mention last week, but there's another she'eilah on the Shitat haRambam. And that's the she'eilah of the Lechem Mishneh. The Lechem Mishneh here on the Rambam says like this, I'll read it inside: משמע מדברי רבינו דאילם שכתב בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם פסול. That a אילם writes בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, it's פסול. וטעמא ביאר הרב מרי קארו ז\"ל. Rabbi Yosef Karo explained it already. Who's Rabbi Yosef Karo, where did he explain it? The Kesef Mishneh. The Kesef Mishneh writes it and explains it. So that's whatever, the Lechem Mishneh says fine. וקשה, but he has a קשיא, דאם כן if a אילם is פסול to bring a גט because he cannot say בפני נכתב and there's no way he could write, so ממילא an אילם cannot bring the גט, אם כן אמאי לא תני במתניתין סוף פרק המביא תניין דף כ\"ג why later on in the Mishnah when the Mishnah says which people are פסול, cannot bring the גט, why doesn't say אילם? Why doesn't it say אילם can't bring either? כיון דמתניתין גם כן בחוץ לארץ קמיירי, it's talking about bringing from חוץ לארץ, yeah, לימא אילם גם כן, a אילם cannot bring it from חוץ לארץ, אינו מביא, why? משום דאינו יכול למימר בפני נכתב, בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. בשלמא אי ניחא ליה, אי אית ליה תקנתא בכתב ידו, had the דין been not like the Rambam, that a אילם could write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, ניחא, then we understand why it doesn't mention in the Mishnah that the אילם cannot bring the גט. Why? דהא יכול להביא ויכתוב בכתב ידו בפני נכתב. He could bring the גט and write it down. אבל אי אית ליה תקנתא, אי לית ליה תקנתא, but according to the Rambam, there is no תקנה. There's nothing that he could do. Because if he brings the גט, he cannot say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. ממילא, why doesn't it mention it there? Then he says וכי תימא, you might say תנא ושייר, he תקי didn't mention everything, he left out one. So he says מאי שייר דהאי שייר? First of all, you don't leave out one, you only you leave out always at least two if you leave out. ועוד, דחוץ, משום דאית תמן חוץ, ועוד דבגמרא דייק אמאי תנא נכרי ולא תנא עבד, the Gemara asks a shaila, it says a goy, why doesn't say an עבד can't bring? And the Gemara didn't answer, \"Well, he skipped one.\" So just like over there the Gemara is worried why it doesn't say the din, why does it say goy, not the din of an עבד, a siman the Gemara doesn't follow the fact that you skipped. So obviously he didn't skip this either. So the shaila he's asking is, so the Lechem Mishneh is asking this shaila, according to the Rambam that an אילם cannot write בפני נכתב, say he can't, he can't speak, write he can't either, so he can't bring the גט from חוץ לארץ where you have to say בפני נכתב, so why isn't it counted amongst those people who cannot bring a גט from חוץ לארץ? So we have now two sheilot, a shaila what's the pshat in the Maharsha and the kashya of the Lechem Mishneh on the Rambam. To explain that, let's go back to what we started last what we started, what we spoke about last week. I explained last week what's the machloket, the reason, the sevara of the machloket between the Ran and the Rambam, that according to the Ran you could write down the קיום, and according to the Rambam you cannot write. So I said it depends in the geder we're talking here about one עד, and the shaila basically is: are all the dinim of עדות apply, do all they apply to עד אחד also? We know this

דין of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם is written in the Torah by two עדים. We learn it out from the words על פי שנים עדים יקום דבר. Does that also mean that in those cases where one עד is enough, the דין also applies? Because here in one this case we're talking about one עד. One guy saying this. And I explained that the שאלה will be what is the גדר of two עדים, not to go through the whole thing again, are the, is the שיעור of two עדים a שיעור עצמי or the שיעור מצטרף? Is two עדים a separate unit of two עדים, and one is not half of it, or saying two עדים is not a taking twice one, it's a new unit, that's called a שיעור עצמי, or is a שיעור מצטרף, that one, two is made up of one plus one, so one is half. So whatever, if you learn it's a שיעור מצטרף, whatever דין applies by two applies to one. Ela mai? In lesser cases. Two works for everything, you could make a guy pay money, you could have a guy killed, you have a guy get מלקות, you get all kinds of things with two, with one you can't do that. There's a lesser level of עדות, but it's the same גדר of עדות. If the גדר of עדות is מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, it applies here too. If you say that it's not like that, it's a שיעור עצמי, then it's two separate גדרים, that two עדים is two עדים, that's one דין, there you have a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, on one עד there is no דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. And mimela it comes out like this, that according to the Ran, that you could write down בכתב the קיום, this guy, this עד אחד could write down, and we're not worried for מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם because he says, עד אחד is a different category, it's not the same category as two עדות. Mimela the דין doesn't apply. משא\"כ the Rambam says that one עד is part of two, dos heist two is a combination of two separate people, but it's מצטרף of two, each one is part of עדות, and therefore whatever dinim we find by two apply to one. So this one also there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, and therefore you can't have קיום made בכתב because it's part of he's part of an עדות. And I said לגבי other dinim we find the same way, לגבי whether עד אחד פוטר מן השבועה, all the different things, all a lot of things which are connected to this she'eilah, is the din of עד אחד the same way. Then I continued and I said this is also, and this was the end of the shiur, actually I didn't even go into the details cause didn't want to go, it was late, but I continued and said that this could the machloket of the Ran and the Rambam could be a little bit different, and that is of what the Alter Rebbe brings in Hilchos Shechita. The

Alter Rebbe in Hilchos Shechita in סימן א', סעיף י\"א, קונטרס אחרון, סעיף קטן ט\"ו, the Alter Rebbe brings a machloket between the Maharik, the Shulchan Aruch and the Maharik and the Shulchan Aruch against the Maharshal, the Bach, and actually the Ritva holds like the second way. And what is the machloket? The machloket is what's the din in Shulchan Aruch, I'm just repeating it again, the din in Shulchan Aruch there is if there is a שוחט who שחט, and somebody comes and an עד אחד comes and he says that you should know, I'm, he's מעיד that the שחיטה was not done properly, and it's treifah. So the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch says we don't care about the said, the עד who's challenging it. Why? Because since the shochet is believed, on what basis is he believed? Because עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, the Torah believed him. So if the Torah believed him, he's like two. The Torah believed one, he's like two. One second. The other guy who comes to challenge it is only one. The Torah never gave him the right, he has no special din, so it's one against two. One against two doesn't work. Ah? No, איסורין needs one. One second, wait, let me finish it. This is what I was speaking about. One second, to see if it needs בעד, say one or two, that's the machloket, but I'm just quoting the din in Shulchan Aruch. The Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch says this din that if the shochet says, \"I shecht properly\", and he's נאמן, comes a guy and says, \"You didn't.\" Had the shochet, is the shochet one, then one against one. What happens, one against one? The shochet's testimony doesn't work because there's a challenge to it, so it's עדות מוכחשת, like two against two. But he says no, since the Torah believed the shochet as עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, הרי כאן שנים, he's like two. The other guy who is challenging it is no din of that he's נאמן, like two, he's an עד אחד. So עד אחד במקום שנים doesn't count, and mimela it's nothing. Comes the Alter Rebbe and he says this din of the Mechaber, this din in the Shulchan Aruch is only the shita of based on the shita of the Maharik and the Shulchan Aruch holds like that. That what? That wherever the Torah believes one, the Torah said one is enough, he is like two. And there are cases where the Torah believed one, besides this case, besides the עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, where else? Who wants to give me an example? Where do we believe one? No. No, that's עד אחד נאמן באיסורין. By other thing, not by issurin. Uh? Okay, אשה שמת בעלה, סוטה, but this is derabbanan, where's de'oraita? Shevuah! If an ed echad says that you owe money and you say you don't, he can't make you pay, but a ed echad is enough to make you swear, and the Torah believes him lishvuah. We learn it out from a pasuk: לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת, one, the Torah says: One ed is not enough to make לגבי an aveirah if someone did an aveirah. So the Gemara says the Torah teaches us, אבל קם הוא לשבועה. So עד אחד נאמן לשבועה. So the Shulchan Aruch and Maharik learn that כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים. It's a לשון הגמרא באמת: כל מקום שהאמינה תורה עד אחד הרי כאן שנים. If the Torah believes one, he's like two. And therefore, if the other guy who the Torah didn't give him special din, so he's one, so it's one against two. But he says, the Maharshal and the Bach, and the same thing is the Ritva, they argue. And you know what they say? I repeat what I said last week. They say: When is this klal that if one the Torah believes one he's like two? In a case where בעצם you had to have two, and the Torah took off and was mekil and said one is enough. But in a case where the Torah says lechatchilah this is a din where one is enough, he doesn't have a din like two. And therefore, עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, the Torah never said you need two. Lechatchilah the Torah said this is a case where one edut is enough. So he's one. He's takeh ne'eman, but he's one. Comes another guy, he says that he's lying, he's also one, so it's one against one. One against one, we can't say we accept the shochet's testimony because there's somebody against him. So mimela the Alter Rebbe explains that according to the Maharshal and the Bach, and even is the Ritva who's a, Maharshal and the Bach are acharonim, but even the Ritva who is a rishon holds the same way, that in this case you will not believe the שוחט. So the דין in Shulchan Aruch is not so pashut, it's only according to them. So the

bottom line here, we have a machloket here whether anytime the Torah says two is he like one, at that one is enough is he like two? The Mechaber and the Maharik learn every time it's like that, whether the תורה בעצם needed two or lechatchilah the Torah said one, mah she'ein ken the Maharshal and the Bach say no, if the Torah said that be'etzem you need two, and in this case we say one, then he's like two, but if the Torah never said, then it's like one. What's that noga to us? So you could say be'emet over here, going back to the machloket of the Ran and the Rambam, whether one עדות is believed if the דין of this one עדות is like two. If he is like two be'etzem, this is the nekudah, if this עדות is like two, then all the דינים of two apply to him. Just like by two עדים there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, by one there's also מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, cuz this עדות is the same is an עדות of two. If it's a if the דין is that this if it's a case where this עדות is not like two, which according to the Maharshal and the Bach and the Ritva there is such a thing, in that case, he's not a regular עדות. Basically when we say if he's like two or not, is this a regular דין עדות? If he is like two, he's a regular דין עדות, and if he's a regular דין עדות, all the dinim of עדות apply to this one guy, cuz this one guy is really two! So the dinim of two עדים apply. So מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם will apply to this one עד. If you say that this one עד is really one, oh, one is a different category! So you could say that it's a different category and the dinim don't apply. What's that נוגע to us here? The she'eilah is here, when the חכמים said that one עד is enough, the shaliach is a יחיד, is one, and this one עד is enough to testify in this case for the קיום, is he is is it a case where he's be'etzem he's like two or he's not? If we'll say he's like two, then he couldn't testify בכתב, because by two עדים there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם and he's like two. If you're going to say he's not like two, he's a din of one, then you could say that מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם doesn't apply. And this is the machloket, and I'll explain what is what is the backing of this, but according to what I'm saying now, the machloket between the Rambam and the Ran is that the Ran learns, dos heyst, they both could learn like the Ritva, like the Maharshal and the Bach, that not always is one like two. סיי the Rambam סיי the Ran learn that be'emet, not every time the Torah or the חכמים believed one, he has a din of two, only if be'etzem you have to have two. The she'eilah is in our case. This din that the חכמים said that one עדות is enough to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם for the kiyum, even though normally need two, is it that he's like two or not? So the Rambam will learn, yes, he is like two. He's like two, so mimela the דינים apply! So the Rambam, the Maharsha who follows the Rambam, says by kiyum, you cannot write down. This one eid who's saying who's supposed to be saying בפני נכתב to be מקיים the shtar, cannot write! There's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. Ay that only applies to two edim? He is like two. Ma she'ein kein, the Ran will learn, no, he's not like two, he's like one. Now, what's this based on? What's the sevara? Is he like two or is he not like two? Lechora, at first glance, what should you say, what do you think you should say? He is like two? That was he's... When do we say he's like two? If be'etzem you need two, ela mai we're mekil. Is this a case where be'etzem you need two and lema'aseh we're mekil or not? Lechora, yeah. If you look back and you remember everything that you learned, so you remember that on ב' עמוד ב', the Gemara actually asked a kashya, \"How do you believe one? לבעי תרי!\" And the Gemara answered... So the Gemara felt that you need really two. And the maskana of the גמרא, משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן. Because of iguna they were mekil. So at first glance, what would you say? This is a case where be'etzem you need two, אלא מאי דרבנן were מקיל משום עיגונא. So lechora, who would seem to be right? The Rambam! That you need two, and whenever you need two, the one is like two, since the חכמים were mekil they took him like two, and by two there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, so you cannot write down the kiyum, so this one guy should also not be able to write down the kiyum. Lechora he's right. So what I'm going to try to say, which I didn't say last week, I started it, I just, that it depends how you learn peshat in the Gemara. In the words of the Gemara, let's go back to the Gemara, now you have to help think back. The

Gemara went with a seder. Let's think of it. First thing the Gemara asked, \"לבעי תרי. You need two.\" The Gemara thought to say no, what was the Gemara's answer first? עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, and the Gemara said, \"No, no. This is איתחזק איסורא, this is not עד אחד נאמן באיסורין.\" Plus the Gemara said also, \"זה דבר שבערוה, אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים, you need two.\" So the Gemara's kashya was, you need two. What did the Gemara answer? We're talking about the קיום part, so the Gemara answered... Before עיגונא. That's why, that's, I skipped that stage before, cuz if I bring that stage in, I would have given up half of the shiur. So I tricked you, I just skipped a stage. What did the Gemara answer? The Gemara asked, \"You need two!\" What did the Gemara answer? That's by בקי, I'm talking about קיום now. Let's go to קיום. That be'emet you don't need at all. מדאורייתא, עדים החתומים על השטר נעשה כמי שנחקרה עדותן בבית דין. So בכלל you don't need any עדים בכלל. אלא מאי, רבנן הוא דאצריך, the רבנן made it. If the רבנן made it, משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן. So this is the stage of the Gemara: the hava amina of the Gemara was you need two. Then the Gemara said, \"You know what? You don't need anything! The רבנן were machmir.\" And normally when the רבנן were machmir, how much do you need? A regular קיום, which is דרבנן, the Gemara said clearly the Rabbanan made a din of kiyum. But how many people do you need for kiyum? Two! Regular kiyum, you need two. But by עיגונא, they were meikil, so you need one. Now,

what does come out, what comes out from here? This one is like two, this be'etzem you need two, and the chachamim were meikil that this one is just, in this case is good, or not? So you can learn here two ways, and that's going to be the machloket between the Rambam and the Tur. Listen to the peshat in the Gemara. When the Gemara said like this, \"באמת מדאורייתא you don't need anything. רבנן הוא דאצריך. The Rabbanan said you need two, but משום עיגונא they said one.\" Do these two things go together as one unit or they're two steps? You could learn like this. Listen! You could learn רבנן הוא דאצריך. Mid'oraita you don't need anything, fine. The Rabbanan were meikil... Were machmir, I mean, the Rabbanan said you need. How much do you need? Two, fine. So lema'aseh you need one or, you need, you need עדות or not? Yes. So you need two. So you need two. Then there's another stage: \"Oh, but when it comes to this get where there's a problem of עיגונא, you know what the Rabbanan said? We'll give you, we'll let you off. We'll allow one.\" This is one way to learn. Again, if you

learn like this, do you be'etzem need two? Yeah. It's two stages. The Rabbanan said you need two. מדאורייתא טאקע you don't, good, but we're not talking mid'oraita. The רבנן אצריך. Then there's another stage: רבנן הוא דאצריך, so be'etzem you need two. So for קיום שטרות, the bottom line is קיום שטרות needs two עדות. By עיגונא, by a get, the chachamim were meikil, and they said one. That means that be'etzem, this falls under the category like the Alter Rebbe brings from the, from the Maharshal and Bach, that be'etzem you need two, and this one is b'makom two. I can learn peshat in the Gemara differently. Mide'oraita you don't need at all. When the rabbanan made a takanah, came the rabbanan, made a takanah, you know what there was takanah was, there was one takanah that in some cases you need two, and some cases you need one. It goes together. So the peshat we stop, רבנן הוא דאצרך need two, that's the fact, so everything needs two. Then in the certain case they took off and they said, \"You know what? You don't really need two, we'll allow you one.\" You could learn the other way, that the rabbanan lechatchilah said, \"Since mide'oraita you don't need, the rabbanan came, said, 'We make you need.' What do you need? Sometimes you need two, and sometimes you don't need two.\" If you learn like this, is this one here b'makom two? No, lechatchilah takeh they said, lechatchilah they said that benoge'a the get, you don't need two, one is good, lechatchilah you need one. So you could learn that the machloket between the Rambam and the Ran is how you learn peshat in the גמרא רבנן הוא דאצרך and this whole thing. Do you learn רבנן הוא דאצרך and משום עיגונא אקילו are two stages? I'll tell you if you want to be practical, maybe it even happened in two times, two separate times. First the rabbanan made a takanah that every kiyum needs two edim, fine, that was that went on for 10 years, I'm just throwing out a number. 10 years later they they said, \"You know what? We see that by iguna there's a problem, we'll take off one.\" That's one way. Another way to learn: no, there wasn't time in between. There was lechatchilah one din. Mide'oraita you need nothing, no edim. Came the rabbanan and they made a din that some cases we want two, some cases we need we want one, and there was no space in between. But I don't mean davka there was time, even there was no time. I don't say that this happened in two separate times, I'm giving an example just to bring it out. Could be in one time, but they made it as two things. To say be'etzem, you could learn they made two. The one is a kula that they took off one from the two. Or they never be'etzem made two, so they lechatchilah said that you need two in a regular shtar and by a get you need is one is enough. So

let's go back here. So the Ran who says that they could write, so again, how are we learning now? The side the Ran, side the Ramban, side the the I mean the the Rambam, Maharsha, they all learned like they all learned not like the Maharik and the Shulchan Aruch, they learned like the Maharshal and the Bach, that there is a difference, not always is one like two. That they've all learned, that if lechatchilah you must have two אלא מאי they were mekil, then that this one has a din of two. If lechatchilah you only need one to begin with, it's like one. The machloket is: what din is it here? This din of kiyum that you need two, and by a by get, iguna, they were mekil, need one, which way did it go? Is this a קולא לגבי the two, be'etzem you need two, and אלא מאי one chachamim were mekil one, then this one is like two. And if it's like two, all the dinim of two edim will apply. The dinim of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם by two edim will apply here too. So there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, that's the Rambam, you cannot write down the kiyum. מה שאין כן the Ran will learn, not like that. He says that the rabbanan never said that you need two עדים בעצם. They said like this: מדאורייתא we need no עדים בכלל. Came the rabbanan and said, \"Certain cases we want two edim, certain cases we don't need two edim, because of iguna.\" It's all one one long המשך. So now we

understand the machloket between the Rambam and the Ran. Based on this, we could go further and explain peshat in the Maharsha, why this only applies to קיום and not to the din of of לשמה. And I'll just say the nekudah first, and then I'm gonna explain. The Maharsha learns that since we just said it all depends how you learn pshat in the Gemara רבנן הוא דאצרך, there are two \"רבנן הוא דאצרך\" in the Gemara, right? First the Gemara goes through the whole thing with לשמה, according to Rabbah, and the Gemara has the same שאלה: you need two! And the Gemara says, \"No, עד אחד נאמן באיסורין.\" Then the Gemara says, \"No, it's אחזוקי איסורא and דבר שבערות.\" Then the Gemara comes that באמת everyone knows לשמה, סתם ספרי דדייני know, רבנן הוא דאצרך. The רבנן said that you need, that were חושש, משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן. Then the Gemara goes to the same thing by קיום, according to Rava. That why do you allow this one guy to stand and מקיים the שטר, don't you need two? Gemara goes through the same process. Finally, the Gemara says that באמת מדאורייתא you don't need anything, similar to over there. Over there מדאורייתא we're not worried about לשמה, it's fine, no most people know, we're not worried. Here also, most people you don't need עדים for קיום מדאורייתא. Came the רבנן, רבנן הוא דאצרך, and משום עיגונא they were מקיל here one. So we have these two Gemarot. What the Maharsha learns that the pshat in the Gemara of רבנן הוא דאצרך is different by לשמה and different than here. By the case of קיום, we're going to learn that it's two stages. It's two stages. Be'etzem the Rabbanan said always every קיום needs two. Then the Rabbanan, there's another stage, you know what, by a גט, משום עיגונא הקילו. מה שאין כן by the case of lishmah, he will learn that this is all one. That the Rabbanan, באמת מדאורייתא you don't need anything. Why? Because everyone knows, most people know lishmah. The Rabbanan were worried, but lechatchilah when they were worried, what did they say? One is enough. It's not a pshat they said you need two and because of עיגונא, you know what, we'll take one away. Lechatchilah when they had a chashash, they lechatchilah said, you know what, mi-de'oraita you don't need. We're חושש, you know what we're חושש? We want at least one to come. We want one to come. They never said there has to be two. And it makes a lot of sense to make the difference, because over there, this din that be'etzem that mi-derabbanan made קיום two is not only by גט, right, it's by every שטר. So by every שטר, you need two. גט is among all the שטרות. So you can't say it's, harder to say or you, it's possible to say there are two stages. The Rabbanan said every קיום needs two, finished. Then when it comes to the specific case of a גט, they said, you know what, in this case we'll take off one, so this one is like two. But over there, by lishmah, it's only by גט. So there it makes a lot of sense to say that when the, mi-de'oraita you don't need anything. Came the Rabbanan and they said we are חושש, and therefore, what do you want? We wanted one עד. We're חושש, and it's a שוואכע חשש, and there is an עגונה, so we'll make one. So lechatchilah they said one. That's how the Maharshal will learn pshat in the Gemara. So

according to this pshat, the result is very simple. By קיום, this one עד is במקום two, because בעצם קיום needs two, miderabbanan, take, but the רבנן said that קיום needs two. So if we have one, they were מקיל that one is במקום two. Mah she'ein kein by לשמה, לכתחילה they said one. If lechatchila they said one, this one is not like two. What's the result lemaaseh? That by קיום, there's a din by this one guy מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, because he's really like two. So he has the same din as two עדים. Two עדים there's a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, one also. And by לשמה, he's not like two, he's lechatchila one, and one doesn't have the din of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, and that's why he could write. So this explains the Maharshal. Again, the she'eilah was on the Maharshal, why does, what does the Maharshal get, or what's the sevara that if you write down the עדות of לשמה, it'll be fine, to write down the עדות of קיום, won't be fine? What's the difference? But now that we came out by saying that he goes like the Rambam, and the whole thing is based on how you learn pshat in the Gemara: רבנן דאצרך, if it's two or one. So we see clearly he makes a chiluk between these two גמרות. And the chiluk makes sense. Because by לשמה it's lechatchila a din of גט only, and the רבנן made a חשש by גט, so you could learn very simple. They said there is a חשש and we need a עדות, so we said, okay, we need one עד. Never said we need two. Over there, where it's a din in all the שטרות, so if they said all the shtarot need two, so one shtar, so, so if the only, so the fact that here is one, is like a separate din. So this one is bimkom two. So this explains pshat in the Maharshal. So now we understand pshat in machloket Ran and the Rambam, and pshat in the Maharshal. Ah? Didn't we learn this earlier in the base gemara? Yes, it's exactly what we're talking about, that Gemara. You got it right. We're talking about the Gemara on דף ב עמוד ב. Yes, that's what we learned there. This is דף ב עמוד ב and דף ג עמוד א. That's the whole Gemara that we're discussing now. That's, that's the Gemara. Yeah. So the kiyum because we need two, therefore So then when they say that one is enough, it means they said in this case, the one will be like two. If one is like two, he has all the dinim of two. But by lishmah, they lechatchilah said we need one. And that's what's over there. And if the whole base is based whether the one is like two, like the Maharshal and the Bach, and it makes sense, so the Maharshal makes a lot of sense. This will explain another nekudah.

There is a Ketzot which asks a kashya. Till now we were talking of a case that, you know, two edim have a דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם and There is a שיטת הריב\"ש, which is brought down in Shulchan Aruch סימן מ\"ו סעיף ז. Where do you imagine, which chelek of Shulchan Aruch? There's a Rivash בנוגע this din of edut. In which, in which chelek of Shulchan Aruch talks about edut? Choshen Mishpat, okay. So in Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat סימן מ\"ו סעיף ז, he brings a Rivash. And I'm not going to go into the sevara of the Rivash, but just nogea the kashya of the Ketzot. The Ribash says that by קיום שטרות בכלל, there's no din of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. Interesting din. By קיום שטרות, if two עדים come and want to be מקיים a שטר, there's no דין מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, they could write it down. Okay. Gut. Whatever his reason is, let's say it's connected to inyan of שטר, the whole שטר is is written, and there's no problem מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, so the קיום could also be, whatever it is. But the Ribash learns like that. Comes the Ketzos in that סימן, סעיף קטן, in the end of סעיף קטן י\"ט, he asks a kashya. If we learn like that, how is it possible for the Rambam to say, according to the Ribash if you learn, how is it possible for the Rambam to say that this אלם cannot write down בפני נכתב, cannot write down the קיום, cannot write down בפני נכתב and it will be a קיום? If

two עדים who are מקיים the שטר could write it down, why can't he write it down? Very strong kashya. And he asks actually a setirah in the Ribash himself. The Ribash paskent like the Rambam. The Ribash paskent like the Rambam that by by the גט, if he's an אלם, he cannot write down the קיום. He cannot write down בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, which is במקום קיום. So he says, why not? If there be a real קיום, בפני נכתב is במקום קיום, according to Rabbah, why בפני נכתב, even though it's one person, but it's the place of קיום. Two עדים who are מקיים a שטר are able to write down that we're מקיים the שטר, we recognize the חתימה, why can't this guy write? So it's a סתירה in Rivash. And does it seem like that that that in other words, can the Rambam hold like the Rivash? Seems like not, because the the Rivash himself holds like the Rambam, and the other שיטה, the other thing he holds, he says that two עדים could. What is the reason for this? He says that the Ketzos says maybe by a גט, because it's chumra of אשת איש, we're machmir. That's what the Rambam learns, that be'etzem by קיום, you could write down, but by a גט, אשת איש, you can't write down. It's a fladige pshat. He himself says it's not a real pshat. I'll tell you why besides that. In the Gemara, we see that because of אשת איש, we're machmir or we're meikil? The Gemara seems farkert, that we're trying to be מקיל, משום עיגונא אקילו. And now we're saying maybe because of this we're machmir, all of a sudden we're trying to be machmir? Is that a pshat? So the bottom line is, could be there's a different pshat in what he meant, but the bottom line is that there's a shayla, there's a stira. If regular קיום שטרות you could write, for whatever reason, I'm not going to explain that, whatever the reason is, but why should one guy not be able to? So I want to say like this. We said before this whole thing is based on the Gemara where the Gemara says רבנן הוא דאצריך. The whole thing that we need קיום שטרות is דרבנן, and דרבנן דרבנן said, and I said according to the Rambam he learns that there are two stages: רבנן הוא דאצריך, וממילא you need two, then משום עיגונא אקילו that one is enough, it's a second, but be'etzem you need two. If it would be just like that, if for some reason by קיום שטרות you could write down, you should be able to write down this one guy, too. In this Gemara, in that Gemara of דרבנן הוא דאצריך, there's another vort here. When the Gemara started and asked, ליבעי תרי? And the Gemara answered l'chatchilah, why don't you need two? עד אחד נאמן באיסורין. Then the Gemara said, no, it's חזקת איסורא. Then the Gemara added another vort. What's the other vort? It said, דבר שבערוה, אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים. And the Gemara asked that. And then the Gemara answered, you know why one is enough? Because the whole קיום שטרות is דרבנן, and משום עיגונא אקילו. Let's think about this Gemara. The Gemara said this is a דבר שבערוה. A דבר שבערוה needs two without a question. And then the Gemara said, it's only קיום שטרות of the get. We knew it's only קיום שטרות before, right? Because Rabbah is saying the reason for בפני נכתב is קיום שטרות. Nevertheless, we felt that this קיום שטרות needs two. Why does it need two? Because דבר שבערוה! And the Gemara says, no, regular קיום, כל קיום שטרות you don't need, מדאורייתא we're not worried. רבנן הוא דאצריך. The רבנן said. Now let's think. When we come back that מדאורייתא you don't need, but the רבנן said you need, is it back to a דבר שבערוה or not? I'm waiting a second. Sink in. First the Gemara says it's a דבר שבערוה. Okay, דבר שבערוה needs two. No question. Then the Gemara said, yeah, but קיום שטרות בכלל doesn't need. Fine, okay? קיום שטרות doesn't need, so there's no problem. Then the Gemara said no, but the רבנן, the דרבנן said you do need. The moment we say, yeah, but the רבנן decided we do need, does it come back and now, okay, so it's back to a דבר שבערוה? Iz doch glaych, ya? There you're fine, it's a good sevara. Yeah, it's back to a דבר שבערוה. Or you can say no, it's cashed, דבר שבערוה out of the question. No more דבר שבערוה, the רבנן Then the רבנן said there is another din of קיום שטרות that you have to have two people, so you have to have קיום שטרות. Or you could say not. Now, if you learn that it is like he said, that the moment you say רבנן הוא דאצריך, so now מדרבנן it's back to a דבר שבערוה, so now this is different than regular קיום שטרות. By regular קיום שטרות, when the רבנן said you need two, it's not a דבר שבערוה. The Gemara never meant that קיום שטרות is a דבר שבערוה. By a גט, when the רבנן הוא דאצריך, the רבנן said you need, it's back to a דבר שבערוה. And that's different than regular שטרות. So it comes out, if you learn like that, so you could say like this: Regular קיום שטרות, the Rivash holds you don't you could write it down. Why? Whatever the kula is. It's not a regular דין עדות, let's say. Whatever he holds, because it's only קיום מדרבנן, מדאורייתא you don't need, it's not a regular דין עדות. So a regular a regular דין עדות is מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, you takeh need עדים, but here you don't need. But by a גט, because it's a din of דבר שבערוה and it turned back into דבר שבערוה, so now be'etzem you need two עדים. And even though the רבנן משום עיגונא אקילו, what are we saying till now? That the Rambam holds משום עיגונא אקילו is a second stage, which means be'etzem you need two, and the רבנן said one is enough, but that one is like two. One like two like what? Is it one like two of a regular שטר or like two of a דבר שבערוה? If we're going to learn that it turns into a דבר שבערוה, then this is much stronger. So it comes out like this: That בנוגע קיום שטרות, you could write it down, it's not that such an important thing. But by the case of בפני נכתב of the גט, you cannot write down the קיום, not two and not one. So it'll come out according to the Rivash says that two could write down by קיום, not by a גט, because a גט has a דבר שבערוה, has another דין, because according to the Gemara סוף כל סוף if we learn See, if you learn רבנן דאצריך doesn't turn back into דבר שבערוה, then it's like regular קיום שטרות. But if we're

going to learn in order to answer the kashya of the Ketzos, where says we're going to say that he learns that this is a that the pshat in the Gemara is רבנן דאצריך becomes a דבר שבערוה, so there's a big difference between קיום שטרות of regular שטר and a גט. By a גט it's besides the fact that the רבנן wanted two עדים, it's two עדים of a דבר שבערוה, so it's a real עדות. A real עדות of two! ומשום עיגונא אקילו we're learning now means another stage, that that one is like two. So you cannot write down. If one is like two, you cannot write down. So there's no סתירה between the Rivash. By regular קיום שטרות, whatever the Rivash holds, and the Rambam could hold that way, too. The Rivash could hold like the Rambam, and the Rambam could hold like the Rivash. Regular קיום שטרות, because it's not really mid'oraisa you don't need, it's a shvache, it's a שוואכע דין, you could write down. But by a get it's not like that. Because by a get it turns into a דבר שבערוה if you learn the pshat in the Gemara that when it says רבנן הוא דאצריך, becomes a דבר שבערוה. Because the Gemara said it's a דבר שבערוה! Because otherwise I'm saying why am I stressing this? You could say, how does קיום שטרות get to do with דבר שבערוה? All it is you're mekayem the signatures. But that's not, the Gemara held like that! When the Gemara started the kashya, the Gemara knew it's for קיום, cuz Rabbah, Rava is saying the reason is קיום. Fregt the Gemara: ליבעי תרי. And the Gemara taytsh't: why do you need two? Eventually, the Gemara: כדבר שבערוה. So two, קיום שטרות of the get is a דבר שבערוה! So even though the Gemara said mid'oraisa you don't need, but when רבנן הוא דאצריך, it's back to a דבר שבערוה. A דבר שבערוה you need two. So that will answer the kashya of the And maybe that's what the Ketzos meant. When the Ketzos says that the reason here it won't work because of חומרא דאשת איש, he doesn't mean because of חומרא דאשת איש, also being machmir versus meikel. Because it's a geder of אשת איש, ממילא it's a דבר שבערוה, אין דבר שבפחות משנים, so it's really two. And it's two, a hundred percent two! A hundred percent two, the one which is במקום two, also cannot write down. This could explain another thing also. The

Chasam Sofer in She'elot uTeshuvot Even HaEzer חלק א׳ סימן מ״ט at the end, he explains the Ribash in a different way. He explains the Ribash a very interesting way. The Ribash's kashya again, remember, is what? I mean the the Ketzos's kashya on the Ribash is what? The Ribash says that קיום of two עדים you could write down. So how could you How could you say like the Rambam that this one guy cannot write down the קיום? If two עדים could write, why what's the difference? So the Chasam Sofer has an interesting sevara. He says the reason is because you can't have two kolot at the same time. You can't have two kolot. What are the two kolot? Number one, there's going to be one guy. The chachamim allowed one guy, it's a kula. Number two, it's going to be another kula, he's going to write it down, which is a kula that you should be able to write. Two kolot we don't say together at the same time. One guy should be able to write down? So two guys, if they write down, it's fine. But one guy, the kula of one, that, he says. I will just give you an example, al derech we find by other things also that we don't say two kolot, two By sukkah we find a דין, we don't say two הלכה למשה מסיניs. Some people don't know this דין, but it's נוגע. There's a דין of lavud, right? You

can have a wall, but if there is less than three טפחים in between there's empty space, it's like it's closed. It's הלכה למשה מסיני that it's lavud. Then there's a דין of דופן עקומה. דופן עקומה means that if you have less than four אמות on top of the sukkah, which is a ceiling, and a wall, you can't sit under it, but you count this wall as one of the walls of the sukkah. But it's not by the sukkah. So the הלכה למשה מסיני says it's as if it's a crooked wall. From the floor of that wall till the end of the ceiling here is like one crooked wall. And mimela it's called a wall. Many poskim hold that in that wall of דופן עקומה, you cannot say lavud. If that that wall has a lot of space in between, so the whole reason of this wall would be through הלכה למשה מסיני of lavud, we don't say two הלכה למשה מסיניs at the same time. That there's דופן עקומה with lavud. I'm just saying this as an example. Two kulot we're not mekil. And that's why that's why they answer the kashya on the Rivash: two eidim taka could write down, one kula. To have one ed, which is a kula in itself, to write down, two kulot we don't say. Lichorah, it sounds like a good sevara. The she'elah is,

according to this sevara, what would be the sevara of the Ran that you could write down? Lichorah, there are two kulot here. Unless you say he doesn't hold like the Rivash. Okay, but let's say if we want to say that we try to make less machloket. We don't want to say, \"Okay, so he's probably arguing on the Rivash.\" We don't want to say that. I'm saying you could say it that he doesn't argue on the Rivash either. They hold it's not called two kulot. Why? The fact that by עגונה הקילו is not a kula. Lechatchilah they said one. When is it called a kula? Be'etzem you have to have two, and then they said one is enough. But if we're learning like we said before that it's possible to say that it's all one thing But what did we say according to the Ran? Why is it mutar? Why can they write down? Because we said, because it's not the pshat there's a stage of two. Rabbanan said you have to have two, now you have two, then משום עגונה there's another stage. It's not like that. The Ran learns that it's all one. When the Rabbanan said that you have to mekayem a shtar with two eidim, they never said two eidim. They lechatchilah said, certain cases two, certain cases one, so it's not a kula. Farkert, this is this is the machloket. According to him, it could be very simple. He said that the Ran says it's not a kula, because lechatchila they said you need one, you never said you need two. Mah she'ein kein the Rambam learns that they said two, and then they were meikil and they said one, and that one is like two. And that's why he says you can't, since it's like two, you cannot write down. But according to the Ran, it's not like that. Let's get back now, try to figure with the Lechem Mishneh. What was the kashya? And based on all this, we could answer the kashya of the Lechem Mishneh.

What was the kashya of the Lechem Mishneh again? Ver vil fardinen? Why is אלם not counted in the list of those things, of those people who cannot bring a get? According to the Rambam that you cannot write down, so אלם could never bring a get from חוץ לארץ. He cannot say it. You have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, he cannot say it. He also cannot write it. So memeila, if you could hold like the Ran that you could write it, so that's he could bring it, he could write it. But according to the the Rambam, he can't write it, how come it doesn't say it? So here you could learn like this. This is another kvetsh here. When you have two עדים when you have two עדים being מקיים the שטר, yeah, in the case of a get, we said by the get, it go- goes in the category of דבר שבערוה. So this one became like two. Like the דבר שבערוה that you need two. If you l'poal have two, is it necessary to consider this a דבר שבערוה different than a regular שטר? By a regular קיום שטרות, it's not a דבר שבערוה, and it works. Two עדים come and they're מקיים the שטר, it works. Can we look at two עדים who are מקיים the שטר, two עדים who come and מקיים the get, is this worse than a regular שטר? By regular שטר it works. Forget about the extra part of this being a גט. If by regular שטר it works, so it should work here too, על קיום שטרות. A גט has two פרטים in it, let's put it this way: a גט is a שטר, so like any שטר has חתימה, it's a שטר; a גט is a גט. Can we look and say that when two עדים are מקיים the שטר, forget about it being a גט, it's a שטר, all we need is to verify the חתימות. For קיום שטרות the חתימות are good. Will this be good enough, this קיום? So you could say, why not? You could say, not like you could say, בפועל it's a גט, and by a גט, a גט is a special דין of דבר שבערוה, and needs two. Now, if you're going to say, so in other words, I want to say like this: it's possible to learn that this case of not being able to write down, that the Rambam says you can't write, maybe it's only by one, not by two. If you have two עדים to be מקיים, maybe the Rambam will hold, and if we tried to say before he holds like the Rivash, even by a גט, if two people will be מקיים it and they write down, it would work. It's only one guy doesn't work. Why? Because when two people are מקיים the גט, why is it worse than a regular שטר? A regular שטר, two people מקיים and it works, and they could write it down if you learn like the Rivash. So if two people write down the קיום of the גט, maybe the Rambam will agree that it works, and we tried to say that before that that it works. One guy will not work. Why will one guy not work? Because one guy is a חידוש, and it's not regular קיום שטרות. If it's not regular קיום שטרות, it's a what? It's a special din in a get. Here you can't say, well, if it works in regular שטרות, it doesn't work in regular שטרות. So this whole concept of it being דבר שבערוה and that it has a din like two with a special din is only by one, not by two. So what will be, let's say like this: if an

אלם will bring a get together with somebody else and they will both write down בפני נכתב ונחתם, will it work or not? You can say it will work, even according to the Rambam who says that an אלם cannot write, that's only if the אלם is alone. So if the אלם is alone, it's a special din in get, because a special din in get, really get is a דבר שבערוה, אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים, אלא מאי, this guy is like two. He's like two, he has a din of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם as a special din, not like a regular קיום שטרות. But when you have two guys, why can't you look at this as a regular קיום שטרות? So even an אלם would be able to write. What am I trying to get to? If this is true, then I could see why they don't count אלם in that list. We only count in the list who can't bring, no matter if he's one or two. But an אלם would be a special din that only if he's by himself, then he can't bring the get, because there's no etzah, he can't say and he can't write. But if he will be with somebody else, when there are two, maybe he could write, while the other cases, he can't be a שליח no matter what, whether he's alone or with somebody else: a גוי, an עבד, all these other cases that we find over there. And could be that's the reason why he doesn't mention, according to the Rambam. If you bring together, wait, one, the other, the אלם and the other guy write, they are considered תרי עדים? We said that by תרי עדים you have מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. Yeah, but if you go according to the Ribash, who holds that by קיום שטרות, by regular קיום שטרות you don't have a din of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. Even with the Ribash? Yeah, and we're trying to say before that the Rambam and the Ribash do fit. The Lechem Mishneh is saying, so the, so I'm trying to answer the Lechem Mishneh's kashya. He doesn't answer it. That the Rambam will hold like the Rivash, we said. And what does he hold then? That two עדים בכלל by a שטר don't, is, is no מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם. Ela mai, we said before a get is different. So I'm saying maybe not! Maybe even by a get if two עדים will come, there's no problem of מפיהם ולא מפי כתבם, because disregard that it's a get, look at it as a שטר, and the kiyum is there. The only time you have to look at it as a get as a special din of a get, when you believe one, because only by a get one is believed. So then you look at it as a special din, different אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים. Mimeila it comes out, a חידוש דין, I don't know if it's true, that if the אלם comes himself according to the Rambam, he cannot write. If the אלם will come with somebody else, he could write. So that's why it's not listed in the list, because the list is only cases where a guy can't bring no matter what. But if this guy could bring it together, in certain cases he could, ela mai by himself he can't, that we don't, that that that's not put into the list. But it all goes according to one hemshech. So it comes out like this, we understand the Maharsha, the difference between kiyum it doesn't work and by lishmah it works, we understand the answer that the Rambam is no stira to the Rivash, and the Rivash could learn like the Rambam could learn like the Rivash, that by regular קיום שטרות it's okay, but here not, because it's a דבר שבערוה. And then you could add that even according to the Rambam, when you have two people by a get, it's not a דבר שבערוה. It's only when you have one it's a דבר שבערוה, and that's why he doesn't mention you. Which is a which is a chiddush by the