Previous daf

1)

(a) Rabah bar Nasan asked Rebbi Yochanan regarding 'Hotzi Alav K'sav Yado ...' in our Mishnah 'Huchzak K'sav Yado be'Beis-Din Mahu?' The case is - where some time after handing his i.o.u. to the creditor, he arrives in Beis-Din to verify his signature.

(b) The creditor might be permitted to claim Meshubadim more than the case in our Mishnah - because once his signature has been verified by Beis-Din, it is like a Milveh bi'Sh'tar.

(c) Nevertheless, Rebbi Yochanan replied in the negative - because verifying a Sh'tar in front of Beis-Din can only substantiate its status, but not advance it (from a Milveh al Peh to a Milveh bi'Sh'tar).

(a) The Beraisa cites three cases of a Pasul Get: 1. One which the husband wrote himself, but which is not signed by witnesses; 2. where there are witnesses, but no date, and 3. - where there is a date but only one witness.

(b) In the event that the woman uses one of these Gitin to get married - the child that is subsequently born is Kasher.

(c) In a case where witnesses did not sign in the Sh'tar, but they did witness its handing over to the woman - Rebbi Elazar holds that it is Kasher Lechatchilah.

(d) When he adds 've'Govin mi'Nechasim Meshubadim', he means - that in a case of Sh'tar-Chov, the creditor may even claim from Meshubadim, with such a Sh'tar.

(a) Rami bar Chama ask from this Beraisa on Rebbi Yochanan - that, if producing a Sh'tar-Chov without witnesses enables the creditor to claim from Meshubadim, how much more so if the debtor verifies his signature in front of Beis-Din (so why did Rebbi Yochanan rule otherwise)?

(b) When we answers 'Sha'ani Hasam de've'Sha'as Kesivah Hu de'Shibed Nafsho', we mean - that Rebbi Elazar's case is different, inasmuch as when he wrote the Sh'tar, he did so having in mind to hand it over in the presence of witnesses (in which case it is as if they had actually signed in the Sh'tar), unlike the case of Rebbi Yochanan, where this was never intended, and where the Sh'tar, which did not resemble a regular Sh'tar, was merely an admission that he owed him money.

(a) In connection with our Mishnah, Rav stated that if an Areiv signed before the signatures on a Sh'tar, the creditor may claim from Meshubadim, but not if they signed after the signatures. On other occasions - he said that even if he signed before the witnesses, the creditor would only be able to claim from B'nei-Chorin.

(b) To reconcile the two statements - we establish Rav's second ruling when he wrote 'P'loni Areiv' (instead of 'u'Peloni Areiv'), which separates the Areiv from the contents of the Sh'tar, causing us to suspect that he signed after the loan took place.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav. According to him - in all of the above cases (even if he wrote 'u'Peloni Areiv'), the creditor may only claim from B'nei-Chorin.

(a) In a case where the witnesses signed after 'She'ilas Shalom in a Get', the Beraisa rules - that the Sh'tar is Pasul (because we suspect that the witnesses signed on the greeting, and not on the Get).

(b) Rebbi Avahu in the name of Rebbi Yochanan confines the Beraisa to where they signed on 'She'ilu' - which is Pasul, because it implies that the greeting is a separate entity, and it is on that which they signed, but had they signed on 'u'She'ilu' - which joins the greeting with the rest of the Sh'tar, there would be nothing to be afraid of and the Sh'tar would be Kasher.

(a) Rava's problem with Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement is - that there he did not differentiate between 'P'loni Areiv and 'u'Peloni Areiv', whereas here he does distinguish between 'She'ilu' and 'u'Sh'eilu'.

(b) Consequently, we restrict Rebbi Yochanan's earlier statement to 'Peloni Areiv' (but 'u'Peloni Areiv' can claim from Meshubadim).

(c) In that case, Rebbi Yochanan does indeed hold like Rava - and we amend the statement to 've'Chein Amar Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah praised ben Nannes (who says that 'Areiv ha'Yotzei Achar Chitum Sh'taros, Eino Govah ... mi'Nechasim B'nei Chorin'. Nevertheless, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan - rules like Rebbi Yishmael.

(b) We ask whether Rebbi Yishmael also argues with ben Nannes in the case of his Mashal (of Reuven who agrees to pay Levi's debt if Shimon stops strangling him). Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan said - that indeed he does.

(c) The Halachah, Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan concludes, is like Rebbi Yishmael in that case too.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav requires a Kinyan in the case of Chanuk, from which we can extrapolate - that other cases of Areiv do not.

(b) Rav Nachman however, disagrees. According to him, a regular Areiv does require a Kinyan - except for an Areiv appointed by Beis-Din, who does not ...

(c) ... because he is so flattered by the fact that Beis-Din trust him, he is Meshabed himself with a full heart, even without a Kinyan

9) The final ruling with regard to an Areiv ...

1. ... at the time when the loan takes place is - 'Ein Tzarich Kinyan'.
2. ... after the loan has taken place is - 'Tzarich Kinyan', even if he signs his name in the Sh'tar.
3. ... an Areiv appointed by Beis-Din (even after the loan has taken place) - 'Ein Tzarich Kinyan'.

On to Sanhedrin