Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if there are two Yosef ben Shimons in town, they are permitted to produce a Sh'tar against a third person, and we establish the Machlokes between the Tana of our Mishnah and the Tana of the Beraisa, who says that they are not, with regard to 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'. Our Tana holds 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah', whereas the Tana of the Beraisa holds 'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'.

(b) To avoid the Beraisa's prohibition - it is possible for either of them to authorize the other to claim the debt as his Sheli'ach by means of a Sh'tar Harsha'ah (in which case he will be able to claim 'mi'Mah Nafshach').

(c) They cannot be arguing over whether we suspect that the owner lost his Sh'tar or not - because, as we just learned, even Abaye concedes that in such a case (where one person lost it and someone with the same name found it), we do not contend with such a possibility.

(a) Alternatively, they argue over the same Machlokes as Abaye and Rava, who both hold 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah', and the basis of their Machlokes will then be - whether the person holding the Sh'tar needs to prove that the Sh'tar was handed to him (the Beraisa), or not (our Mishnah).

(b) Rava holds 'Eino Tzarich Le'havi Re'ayah', Abaye holds 'Tzarich ... ', because we are otherwise afraid - either that it was given to him as a Pikadon, or that he grabbed it from his brothers.

(a) Abaye proves his opinion from a Beraisa, which obligates one of the brothers who produces a Sh'tar-Chov - written either by his father, or by a third person, and claims that his brothers handed it to him, to prove his claim.

(b) Rava refutes Abaye's proof on the grounds that brothers are different - inasmuch as they tend to grab from each other.

(c) In the second Lashon, Rava proves his opinion from the very same Beraisa - because it is precisely brothers, who tend to grab from each other, who will who will safeguard their Sh'taros, to ensure that this does not happen. Consequently, if a brother is obligated to bring proof, how much more so other people.

(d) According to this Lashon, Abaye refutes Rava's proof, because, he argues - the Tana found it necessary to present the case of brothers, to teach us that even a brother (whose siblings would have taken special care with regard to their Sh'taros, as we just explained) requires proof that the Sh'tar was handed to him.

5)

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a case where a third person finds a receipt among his documents, stating that Yosef ben Shimon's debt is paid. To reconcile it with the Mishnah, which prohibits a third person from producing a Sh'tar-Chov on either Yosef ben Shimon, Rav Hoshaya establishes the Beraisa - when their grandfathers were inserted in the Sh'tar.

(b) However, we cannot inspect the third name on the receipt - because it speaks when the receipt contained only the conventional two names.

(c) Abaye amends the Beraisa to read 'Nimtza le'Loveh Bein Sh'tarosav ... ', and the Beraisa is now teaching us - that neither Yosef ben Shimon can claim from the debtor (unless one of them writes a Sh'tar Harsha'a for the other, as we learned earlier).

(d) We learned in our Mishnah that if their identification marks are the same, they write Kohen or Levi. If they are both Kohanim or Levi'im - then they add generations further back than their grandfathers.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that in a case where a Shechiv-Mera declares one of his Sh'tarei-Chov to have already been paid - all of them are considered paid (and he cannot claim from any of his debtors).

(b) In the event that they then discover two Sh'tarei-Chov (of different amounts) among his documents, against one debtor - he may claim the smaller of the two from him.

(a) Rava rules that if someone says ...

1. ...' Sh'tar Lach be'Yadi Paru'a' - then the larger Sh'tar is considered paid, but not the smaller one.
2. ... 'Chov Lach be'Yadi Paru'a' - then all his debts are paid.

(b) The equivalent distinction might apply where Reuven says to Shimon 'Sadi Mechurah Lach' - in which case his large field is sold; and 'Sadeh she'Yesh Li Mechurah Lach' - all his fields are sold.

(c) We think that 'Sadeh she'Yesh Li' will incorporate many fields - because it is a collective noun, like we find often in T'nach (for example "S'deh Edom", "Beheimah Rabah").

(d) When Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether, based on Rava's first statement, this was in fact, the case, he replied - that there we will apply the principle 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah' (since the claimant always has the underhand. Indeed, that is also the reason in the Reisha [that we say 'Chov Lach be'Yadi, Kol Sh'tarosav Peru'in', because we are unsure whether 'Kol Chov' and 'Sadeh she'Yesh Li' are exclusively singular, or whether they can also mean plural).

8)

(a) In a case where Reuven lends Shimon via an Areiv, the Tana draws a distinction between whether he lends him S'tam - where he is not allowed to approach the Areiv before Beis-Din have obligated the debtor to pay and he is unable to do so or whether he adds al-M'nas she'Epara mi'Mi she'Ertzeh' - where he may go straight to the Areiv (though we will clarify this statement further in the Sugya).

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids Reuven to go straight to the Areiv even in the latter case - if Shimon owns land.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if a man wants to divorce his wife, and there is an Areiv on her Kesuvah - he is obligated to swear (a Neder al Da'as Rabim, which cannot be annulled), prohibiting him from having any Hana'ah from his wife's property.

(d) The reason for this is - because we are afraid that he is in collusion with his wife, to divorce her, and then, after she has claimed her Kesuvah from the Areiv, he will take her back, and share the Kesuvah with her.

(a) When we ask on the Din in our Mishnah ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv' Mai Ta'ama? - we mean to ask why one does not claim from the Areiv at all.

(b) And when Rabah and Rav Yosef answer with 'Gavra Ashleimis Li, Gavra Ashlimi Lach' - they are quoting the Areiv, who says that he was given the debtor as a deposit, so that, should he die or run away, he would have to pay, now (that he did not) he is handing him back, to pay his debt himself.

(c) Bearing in mind that the Persians would claim from the Areiv at all costs, when Rav Nachman asked 'Hai Diyna de'Parsa'i', what he meant was - that just as the Persian custom is illogical, so too, is our current understanding of the Mishnah (because what is then the point of Arvus?).

(d) So Rav Nachman re-interprets ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv' to mean ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv Techilah', as we explained in our Mishnah.

(e) We know that Rav Nachman's interpretation is correct - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(a) Rav Huna attempts to learn from Yehudah's words "Anochi E'ervenu, mi'Yadi Tevakshenu" - the fact that Areiv is Meshubad, even without a Kinyan.

(b) Rav Chisda refutes Rav Huna's proof however, on the basis of the Pasuk "Tenah Oso al-Yadi, va'Ani Ashivenu" - from which we see that Yehudah was not just an Areiv, but an Areiv Kablan (who specifically undertakes to pay, come what may). Perhaps an Areiv Kablan is different?

(c) So Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from the Pasuk "L'kach Bigdo ki Arav Zar ... ". Another Pasuk in Mishlei advises someone who ...

1. ... undertook to be an Areiv - to open his hand and pay.
2. ... insulted someone - to bring his friends and beg the insulted person for Mechilah.

(a) When Ameimar connects the question whether an Areiv is Meshubad or not to a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi - he is referring to the Machlokes whether 'Asmachta Kanya' (Rebbi Yossi) or not (Rebbi Yehudah), which we discussed earlier in the Perek.

(b) Rav Ashi queries Ameimar - based in the fact that on the one hand, we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ('Asmachta Lo Kanya'), and on the other, that an Areiv is Meshubad.

(c) Rav Ashi therefore concludes that even Rebbi Yehudah (who holds Asmachta Lo Kanya) will agree that an Areiv is Meshubad - because, due to the satisfaction that he feels when the creditor places his trust in him, and lends the debtor on account of his promise to act as a guarantor, he is Meshabed himself with a full heart, even without a Kinyan.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, forbids a creditor to claim from the Areiv as long as the debtor has property, from which we can infer that the Tana Kama permits it.

(b) Rabah bar bar Amar Rebbi Yochanan however, rules - that a creditor may not claim from the Areiv if the debtor has property.

(c) To prevent our Mishnah from clashing with the Tana Kama - we amend the Mishnah, adding 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'she'Ein Nechasim le'Loveh ... ' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the original text). And he goes on to establish the Machlokes between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tana Kama - in the case of an Areiv Kablan.

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Kol Makom she'Shanah Raban Shimon ben Gamliel be'Mishnaseinu, Halachah Kamoso ... ' concludes - Chutz me'Areiv (our case), Tzidon (in Gitin) ve'Re'ayah Acharonah' (in Sanhedrin).