OPINIONS: Rav and Rav Huna both told their scribes, "When you are instructed to write a Shtar in Shili (where the witnesses will sign the document), write in the Shtar that it was written in Shili, despite the fact that the document is attesting to an event which happened in Hili. Likewise, when you are in Hili, write that the document was written in Hili, not in Shili." TOSFOS (DH Kisvu) explains that the cities of Hili and Shili are used as examples in order to teach that Rav and Rav Huna's directive applies even to two cities that are close to each other, such as Shili and Hili.

What is the reasoning behind this directive of Rav and Rav Huna?

(a) The RIF and ROSH have a text of the Gemara which explicitly states that the reason for this directive is so that the Shtar should not appear to be false.

(b) The MORDECHAI (#646) quotes the RAVYAH who understands that the place where the Shtar is written is critical, so that people who are familiar with the signatures of the witnesses can be traced more easily to verify the signatures on the Shtar. (This is especially relevant in a time when people sign with symbols or do not sign with their full name; see Insights to Bava Basra 161a and 161b.)

(c) The Mordechai quotes RASHI who seems to give a more basic reason for not writing the place of the event in the Shtar. If an event took place in Shili and the Shtar was written in Hili, if the scribe writes in the Shtar that it was written in Shili, one of the parties might bring witnesses who claim that the witnesses on the Shtar could not have signed on the Shtar at that time, since on the day of the signing they were in Hili, not in Shili. This would render the witnesses who signed the Shtar Edim Zomemim. (Y. MONTROSE)



OPINIONS: The Gemara describes an interesting Shtar that was brought to the Beis Din of Rav Huna. The Shtar read, "I am Ploni, the son of Ploni, who has borrowed one hundred [Zuz] from you." Someone came to Beis Din and demanded that Ploni pay him the money which he had lent to Ploni. Rav Huna noticed that the Shtar did not state the name of the lender. Rav Huna said, "From you, and even from the Reish Galusa, and even from Shevor Malka." What did Rav Huna mean to say?

(a) The RASHBAM (DH Amar Rav Huna) explains that Rav Huna was worried that this Shtar fell from the possession of the lender, which could have been anyone -- even the Reish Galusa or Shevor Malka (see Background to the Daf), and this person picked it up and now claims the loan.

The RITVA has difficulty with the Rashbam's explanation. The Gemara compares this case to the case in a Beraisa, which discusses a Get which does not have a date. Aba Shaul says that if the Get reads, "I have divorced you today," the Get is valid. This has nothing to do with the fact that the Get might have been lost.

TOSFOS (DH Minach) also has difficulty with the Rashbam's explanation. According to the Rashbam, why did Rav Huna say that we must be concerned that the Shtar fell from the Reish Galusa or Shevor Malka, any more than from an ordinary person?

(b) The RITVA therefore explains that Rav Huna was not worried that the Shtar was lost. Rather, Rav Huna meant that since the Shtar contains no proof that the claimant is in fact the lender, the Shtar is invalid. This is why the Gemara quotes Aba Shaul as proof that one does not need absolute and specific detail in matters such as dates and names. As long as the details are inferred in the Shtar, the Shtar is considered valid.

(c) TOSFOS disagrees with the Rashbam and Ritva, and he explains that Rav Huna was simply unsure about how to rule. When he said, "From you, even from the Reish Galusa, and even from Shevor Malka," he meant it as a question: Is it possible that even if the Reish Galusa or Shevor Malka -- who are unaccustomed to lending money to ordinary citizens -- would claim this debt, that Beis Din would allow him to take the money because it says in the Shtar "from you"? The MAHARSHA explains that Tosfos learns that Rav Huna's doubt was whether or not we should suspect that the Shtar fell from someone.

The Rashbam (DH Amar) discusses an explanation similar to that of Tosfos, but he dismisses it. The Rashbam understands that one could suggest that Rav Huna meant that the Shtar should be valid, even if the Reish Galusa -- who does not usually claim debts -- would claim to be the lender. This cannot be correct, though, because when the Gemara later concludes that this indeed is the case, the Gemara says that "from you" implies "whoever possesses the Shtar." The Rashbam says that according to this explanation, this is the terminology that Rav Huna should have used instead of mentioning that the Shtar could even be from the Reish Galusa. However, as Tosfos points out, this question poses no difficulty to his explanation that Rav Huna was in doubt about how to rule. Rav Huna asked out loud whether we would allow even the Reish Galusa, who does not usually lend money privately, to collect with such a Shtar. (Y. MONTROSE)