Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) VALIDATION OF DOCUMENTS

(a) (Gemara): According to Rebbi, witnesses testify on their own signatures; according to Chachamim, they testify on the content of the document.
(b) Objection: This is obvious!
(c) Answer: No, one might have thought that Rebbi is unsure if the witnesses testify on their own signatures or on the content of the document.

1. This would affect the law if one witness died; 2 witnesses would be required to testify on his signature.
2. It would not suffice for the live witness and another person to testify on the signatures.

i. If so, the live witness would (perhaps) be giving 3/4 of the testimony (since when he confirms his own signature, (perhaps) he is testifying unassistedly to the content of the document, and is also helping to confirm the other signature.

3. Rebbi would be stringent in this case, and also stringent in the case of the Mishnah (when each confirms only his own signature).
4. Therefore, it was needed to say that Rebbi holds that they certainly testify on their signatures.

(d) (Rav Yehudah): If one of the witnesses dies, 2 others are needed to confirm his signature.

1. This is a case where Rebbi is more lenient than Chachamim.

(e) Question: What can we do if there is only one other who recognize his signature (in addition to the live witness)?
(f) Answer (Abaye): The live witness should write his name on a piece of pottery and give it to Beis Din.

1. He is no longer needed to confirm his own signature, so he may help confirm the other signature.

(g) He should specifically sign on pottery, but not on a parchment, lest a corrupt person find it, and write as he pleases above the signature.

1. (Mishnah): If Reuven signed a document saying that he owes Shimon, Shimon collects from unmortgaged property.

(h) (Rav Yehudah): The law is as Chachamim.
(i) Question: Why was it necessary to say this, the law is assumed to be as the majority!
(j) Answer: The law is assumed to be as Rebbi when he argues on 1 Tana - we might have thought, even when he argues against a majority!
(k) Question (Rav Chinena Bar Chiya): Did Shmuel really say that the law is as Chachamim?

1. There was a document validated in Shmuel's Beis Din which said that the both witnesses confirmed both signatures!

(l) Answer (Rav Yehudah): That document was of orphans.

1. Shmuel was extra careful to validate it in such a way that even if a Beis Din will err to think that *here*, the law is Rebbi against a majority, they will still accept the validation.

(a) (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): A witness may join a judge (if Shimon claims that a validated document was forged, it suffices for 1 witness to confirm his signature, and one of the validating judges to confirm his signature.
(b) Rami Bar Chama: What a wonderful teaching!
(c) Rava: No! They do not join, since they testify on different matters!
(d) Rami Bar Yechezkeil: Do not heed these rules that my brother (Rav Yehudah) quotes in the name of Shmuel.

(e) (Ravnoy citing Shmuel): A witness may join a judge.
(f) Ameimar: What a wonderful teaching!
(g) Rav Ashi: Because your grandfather (Rami Bar Chama) praised it, you also praise it? Rava refuted it!

(a) (Rav Safra quoting R. Aba): 3 judges sat to validate a document; 2 of them recognize the signatures. Before the 2 sign, they testify about the signatures in front of the 3rd judge, then all 3 sign the validation;
(b) If the 2 judges signed before testifying, they may not testify so that the 3rd judge will sign.
(c) Question: We infer, the *text* of the validation may be written before the testimony - is this really so?

1. (Rav Papi): A validation which was written before testimony on the signatures is invalid, since it appears false!
2. Here also, it appears false (to write that all 3 judges knew the signatures before the 3rd heard testimony)!

(d) Correction: Rather, the 2 judges testify before the validation is written; if it has already been written, they may not testify so that the 3rd judge will sign.
(e) We learn 3 laws from this teaching.

1. A witness may act as a judge after testifying.
2. If the judges recognize the signatures, there is no need to testify in front of them.
3. If the judges do not recognize the signatures, testimony must be given in front of all of them.

(f) Objection (Rav Ashi): I agree, we learn (1) that a witness may become a judge.

1. However, we cannot learn (2) that if the judges recognize the signatures, there is no need to testify in front of them - in the case of R. Aba, there is testimony in front of the 3rd judge!
2. Also, we cannot learn (3) that if the judges do not recognize the signatures, testimony must be given in front of all of them - R. Aba's case is different, if we do not testify in front of the 3rd judge, no testimony is given at all!

(g) Question (Rav Safra to R. Aba - Mishnah): 3 members of the Beis Din which sanctifies months saw the new moon. Two of them stand, and seat 2 other members of the Beis Din by the 3rd and testify in front of them;
(h) An individual may not declare the new month;, rather, all 3 declare it.

1. If a witness can become a judge, let the 3 that saw simply declare the new month without any testimony!

(i) Answer (Rav): Sanctification of the new month is a Torah law, so a witness may not become a judge; validation of documents is Rabbinic, there, he may.
(j) (R. Aba): 3 judges sat to validate a document; there was an objection that one of them is invalid. If they have not yet signed, the other 2 may testify that the 3rd is valid, then all may sign; if they have already signed, no.
(k) Question: What was the accusation?