Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, Sh'tar Mekushar is tied up with local Minhag.
What do we ask on the Tana Kama?

(b) Abaye answers the Kashya.
What does Abaye say about a case where the Minhag is to write a Pashut, and the man asked the Sofer to write him a Pashut, but he wrote him a Mekushar, or where the Minhag is to write a Mekushar, and the man asked the Sofer to write him a Mekushar, but he wrote him a Pashut?

(c) What would be the Din if, without any instructions, the Sofer wrote a Pashut in a place where the Minhag was to write a Mekushar or vice-versa (see Tosfos DH be'Asra')?

(a) Then in which case do the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argue?

(b) What is then their Machlokes? What does ...

1. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel hold?
2. ... the Tana Kama hold?

(c) What does ...

1. ... Rebbi Shimon say in theMishnah in Kidushin, if a man betrothed a woman for a silver Dinar, and the Dinar that he subsequently gave her turned out to be gold?
2. ... Rebbi Elazar say in the Mishnah in Gitin, if a woman instructed her Sheli'ach to receive her Get in a certain place, and he received it elsewhere?

(d) Why does Abaye quote these two Tana'im in our Sugya?

(a) We can understand why our Mishnah needs to teach us 'Mekushar she'Kasuv Bo Shenayim, Pasul' in our Mishnah. But why does it need to teach us 'Pashut she'Kasuv Bo Eid Echad, Pasul'? Is that not obvious?

(b) What did Ameimar say about a case where one witness testified in writing, and the second witness, orally?

(c) Can the creditor claim from the Lekuchos in such a case, or is Ameimar's Din confined to claiming from the debtor directly?

(a) How does Ameimar reconcile his current ruling with Abaye's interpretation of our Mishnah?

(b) How does Ameimar then explain the Tana's insertion of the Din of a Get Pashut that is signed by only one witness in our Mishnah?

(c) From where do we know that one witness is disqualified from testifying in money-matters?

(d) What are the ramifications of this statement?

5)

(a) Why did the Chachamim need to *send* Rebbi Yirmiyah a She'eilah? Why could they not simply ask him in the Beis-Hamedrash?

(b) When they sent him the She'eilah whether one witness in writing and one oral witness will combine, he answered them that this She'eilah was not relevant according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah.
Why not? What did they say about two witnesses who testify in writing or who testify orally?

(c) Then according to whom is the She'eilah relevant? What is the She'eilah?

(a) How did Rebbi Yirmiyah's resolve the She'eilah?

(b) What is remarkable about the way in which he did so?

(c) Rav Ashi told Ameimar that he learned the She'eilah differently. According to him, it was a question of one witness who testified in one Beis-Din, and a second witness, in another Beis-Din.
What was then the She'eilah?

(d) Why did Rav Ashi find it necessary to make such a statement? What would Rebbi Yirmiyah then hold in the case of one witness in writing and the other who testified orally?

(a) In similar style to his previous answer, Rebbi Yirmiyah cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan in Makos to resolve the She'eilah.
What does Rebbi Nasan say there about hearing the testimonies of witnesses on two different days?

(b) Why is Rav Ashi's version of the She'eilah again not relevant, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan?

(c) It is however relevant, according to Rebbi Nasan.
What is then the She'eilah?

(a) According to Mar bar Chiya, the She'eilah concerns a case where two witnesses testified first in one Beis-Din and then in another.
Why is this She'eilah not relevant according to Rebbi Nasan?

(b) Then what *is* the She'eilah?

(a) Ravina has yet a fourth explanation of the She'eilah. According to him, we are discussing a case of three Dayanim who sat to verify a Sh'tar and one of them died.
What is the She'eilah, according to him?

(b) And what did Rebbi Yirmiyah reply?

(c) How did they react to his answer?

(a) How many Sela'im comprise ...

1. ... a hundred Zuz (or Dinrim)?
2. ... a Manah?

(b) What will be the Din if Reuven produces a Sh'tar in which he wrote a hundred Zuz which are ...

1. ... twenty Sela'im?
2. ... thirty Sela'im?

(c) What is the common reason for both of these rulings?

(d) How will we explain the apparent discrepancy in the Sh'tar? If he meant ...

1. ... twenty Sela'im, why did he then stipulate a hundred Zuz?
2. ... a hundred Zuz, then why did he stipulate thirty Sela'im?

(a) How much will he be entitled to claim if the Sh'tar reads 'Kesef Zuzin de'Inun ... ', 'Sil'in de'Inun ... ' or Darchonos de'Inun ... ' (and the amount has been erased)?

(b) It is customary to repeat the major details of a Sh'tar at the end.
What will be the Din if at the beginning of the Sh'tar, he wrote ...

1. ... Manah, and at the end, Masayim?
2. ... Masayim, and at the end, Manah?

(c) What is the reason for this? How do we reconcile this with what we learned earlier that we do not follow the instructions that appear on the last line?

(d) Then what is the point of the first half of the Sh'tar?

(a) How much does the Beraisa entitle the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar to claim if he produces a Sh'tar in which is written ...

1. ... 'Kesef'?
2. ... 'Kesef Dinrim or Dinrim Kesef'?
3. ... 'Kesef be'Dinrin'?

(b) In the first of these cases, how do know that Kesef does not mean ...

1. ... a lump of silver?
2. ... silver P'rutos?

(c) We learned in another Beraisa that if the Sh'tar contains 'Dahav', the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar may claim a Dinar Zahav.
How do we know that he did not mean ...

1. ... a gold nugget? How much is a Dinar Zahav?
2. ... Golden P'rutos?

(d) How much may he claim if the Sh'tar contains 'Dahav be'Dinrim'?

Next daf