ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 165
(a) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, Sh'tar Mekushar is
tied up with local Minhag. Does this mean, we ask - that the Tana Kama does
not follow Minhag ha'Medinah?
(b) Abaye answers the Kashya. He says that, in 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, and he wrote him a Pashut - the
Sh'tar is Pasul, because he wanted the Sofer to comply strictly with his
instructions, to conform with Minhag ha'Medinah.
(c) If, without any instructions, the Sofer wrote a Pashut in a place where
the Mnhag was to write a Mekushar or vice-versa - it seems from our Sugya
that the Sh'tar would be Kasher, despite the Minhag ha'Medinah (see Tosfos
(a) The Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argue in a case - where the
Minhag is to write either, and the man instructed the Sofer to write him a
Pashut, but he wrote him a Mekushar.
1. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that, since either way conforms with
Minhag ha'Medinah, the Sh'tar is Kasher, because 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo', he
was merely offering him the opportunity to write a Sh'tar Pashut if he found
a Mekushar to complicated (though he would have preferred a Sh'tar
2. According to the Tana Kama, he intended him to strictly comply with his
instructions, in spite of the fact that either way would conform with Minhag
ha'Medinah. Note, that according to the above explanation, if he were to ask
the Sofer to write him a Mekushar, and he wrote a Pashut, Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel may well concede that the Sh'tar is Pasul (though this is not the
opinion of the Rosh in Si'man 5).
1. Rebbi Shimon says in the Mishnah in Kidushin, where a man betrothed a
woman for a silver Dinar, and the Dinar that he subsequently gave her turned
out to be gold - that, since he 'tricked' her to her benefit, she is
Mekudeshes (seeing as, when she asked her Sheli'ach to accept a silver Dinar
[as we establish the case there], it was a matter of 'Mar'eh Makom Hi Lo, as
if to say even a silver Dinar will do, but certainly a golden one.
(d) Abaye quotes these two Tana'im in our Sugya - because, like Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel, they hold 'Mar'eh Makom hu Lo'.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar says in the Mishnah in Gitin where a woman instructed
her Sheli'ach to receive her Get in a certain place, and he received it
elsewhere - that she is divorced, because 'Mar'eh Makom hi Lo'.
(a) We can understand why our Mishnah needs to teach us 'Mekushar she'Kasuv
Bo Shenayim, Pasul' in our Mishnah. It needs to teach us 'Pashut she'Kasuv
Bo Eid Echad, Pasul' (which appears to be obvious) - in a case where there
is also one oral witness, to teach us that the two witnesses do not combine.
(b) Ameimar said - that if one witness testified in writing, and the second
witness, orally, the testimony is valid.
(c) From the Lashon 'Achshar' (S'tam), it would appear that the creditor may
even claim from the Lekuchos in such a case (and not just from the debtor
directly), because the witness in the Sh'tar, aided by the oral witness,
produce a Kol (though this ruling is not unanymous).
(a) Ameimar makes no attempt at reconciling his current ruling with Abaye's
interpretation of our Mishnah - because he disagrees with him.
(b) He therefore explains the Tana's insertion of the Din of a Get Pashut
that is signed by only one witness in our Mishnah (not for its own Chidush,
but) - to teach us that two witnesses by a Mekushar are Pasul with the same
severity as one witness by a Sh'tar Pashut (which is a P'sul d'Oraysa).
(c) We know that one witness is disqualified from testifying in
money-matters - from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish".
(d) The ramifications of this statement are - that in the case of a Get, the
woman is not divorced, and in the case of a loan, the creditor cannot claim
from Meshubadim (and even if he seized the property as payment for the loan,
we take it away from him [Rosh]).
(a) The Chachamim had to send Rebbi Yirmiyah a She'eilah (rather than ask
him in the Beis-Hamedrash) - because on another occasion, they expelled him
from the Beis-Hamedrash (for having asked a number of irrevelant She'eilos),
as we learned in 'Lo Yachpor'.
(b) When they sent him the She'eilah whether one witness in writing and one
oral witness will combine, he replied that this She'eilah was not relevant
according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - who ruled that
irrespective of whether the witnesses testify in writing or orally, they do
not combine, unless they saw the act simultaneously (how much more so if one
of the witnesses testified in writing and one orally).
(c) The She'eilah is relevant - according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, who
validates two witnesses in writing or two oral witnesses, even if they
witnessed the act one after the other. And the She'eilah is - whether that
concession will extend to a case where one witness signed and the other one
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah resolved the She'eilah - in the affirmative, that the two
witnesses do indeed combine.
(b) What is remarkable about the way in which he replied - is his humility.
Although he himself was unworthy of resolving the She'eilah, he said humbly,
he was however, inclined to think (describing himself as the disciple of
those who posed the She'eilah) that they combine.
(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 the other witness, in another Beis-Din - and the She'eilah
was - whether the two Batei-Din could combine, to combine the two
(d) But one witness in writing and one, orally - would not combine,
according to Rebbi Yirmiyah. Rav Ashi found it necessary to say that -
because otherwise, we would be left with a Kashya on Abaye, in whose opinion
they do not combine either, as we learned above.
(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. Rebbi Nasan says there - that one may hear the testimonies of
witnesses on two different days?
(b) Rav Ashi's version is not relevant, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi
Nasan - who do not even accept the testimony of two written witnesses or two
oral witnesses on two different days, let alone one written witness and one
(c) It is however relevant, according to Rebbi Nasan - who validates the
testimony of two written or oral witnesses on two separate days. And the
She'eilah is - whether this extends to the testimonies of one written
witness and one oral one.
(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. This
She'eilah is not relevant according to Rebbi Nasan - according to whom even
two witnesses at different times combine, how much more so two Dayamin from
two different Batei-Din.
(b) The She'eilah therefore is - according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Nasan,
who invalidate two witnesses at two different times, but who might validate
two Dayanim to combine.
(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. The She'eilah, according to him, is - whether we need to
insert in the Sh'tar the fact that the case began with three Dayanim and
that one of them had died in the course of the case.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah replied - that they are indeed obligated to do so.
(c) They reacted to his answer - by inviting him back into the
(a) Twenty-five Sela'im comprise ...
1. ... a hundred Zuz (or Dinrim), and ...
(b) If Reuven produces a Sh'tar in which he wrote a hundred Zuz which are
2. ... a Manah.
1. ... twenty Sela'im - he will be entitled to claim a hundred Zuz.
(c) The common reason for both of these rulings is - the principle 'Yad
Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah' (which is equivalent to 'ha'Motzi
me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah').
2. ... thirty Sela'im which are a hundred Zuz - he may only claim a hundred
Zuz (twenty-five Sela'im).
(d) To resolve the apparent discrepancy, we explain his words as follows.
When he stipulated ...
1. ... a hundred Zuz which are twenty Sela'im, he meant a hundred
poor-quality Zuz which are only worth twenty Sela'im (instead of the normal
2. ... a hundred Zuz which are thirty Sela'im - he meant a hundred Zuz which
are equivalent to thirty poor-quality Sela'im, instead of the normal
(a) If the Sh'tar reads 'Kesef Zuzin de'Inun ... ', 'Sil'in de'Inun ... ' or
Darchonos de'Inun ... ' (and the amount has been erased), he will be
entitled to claim - at least two silver Dinrim, two Sela'im and two
(b) It is customary to repeat the major details of a Sh'tar at the end of
the Sh'tar. If, at the beginning of the Sh'tar, he wrote ...
1. ... Manah, and at the end, Masayim - he may claim Masayim.
(c) ... because we consider the end of the Sh'tar to be the essence of the
Sh'tar (though this does not include the last line, as we learned earlier).
2. ... Masayim, and at the end, Manah - he may claim a Manah ...
(d) The reason that they insert the first half of the Sh'tar is - so that
should the Sofer have omitted something from the second half, then we copy
it from the first half.
(a) If the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar he produces a Sh'tar in which is written ...
1. ... 'Kesef', the Beraisa entitles him to claim - not less than a silver
(b) In the first of these cases, we know that Kesef does not mean ...
2. ... 'Kesef Dinrim or Dinrim Kesef' - not less than two silver Dinrim.
3. ... 'Kesef be'Dinrin' - not less than two golden-Dinrim worth of silver.
1. ... a lump of silver - because it speaks, says Rebbi Elazar, when he
added the word 'Matbe'a' (in coins).
(c) We learned in another Beraisa that if the Sh'tar contains 'Dahav', the
Ba'al ha'Sh'tar may claim not less than a Dinar Zahav (which is equivalent
to twenty-five silver Dinrim). We know that he did not mean ...
2. ... silver P'rutos - because, Rav Papa explains, the Tana is speaking in
a place where silver P'rutos are uncommon.
1. ... a gold nugget, says Rebbi Elazar - because here too, the Tana speaks
when he inserted the word 'Matbe'a' in the Sh'tar.
(d) If the Sh'tar contains 'Dahav be'Dinrim', he may claim - not less than
two silver-Dinrim worth of gold.
2. ... P'rutos of gold, Rav Papa explains here too - because there is no
such thing as P'rutos of gold.