1)REPLACING A LOST DOCUMENT
(a)(Beraisa): If Shimon claims that he lost his loan document, even though witnesses say that they wrote, signed and gave to him the document, we do not write another document for him;
1.This refers to a loan document. We do write another document of sale, but without Acharayus (liability to compensate the buyer if the land is legally taken from him).
2.R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, also regarding a document of sale, we do not write another (perhaps he returned the document, which negates the sale).
3.Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Yehudah received a gift and returned the document, the gift reverts to the giver;
4.Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.
(b)Question: The Beraisa said that we write another document of sale without Acharayus. What is the reason?
(c)Answer (Rav Safra): We do not write two documents for one field;
1.We are concerned lest the field be collected by a creditor (Levi) of the seller (Reuven), and the buyer (Shimon) will take land from someone who bought from Reuven after Shimon (and give to him one document);
2.A long time later, Shimon will scheme with Levi and tell him to claim his loan again, and Shimon will take land from someone else who bought from Reuven (and give to him the other document).
3.Question: When Shimon takes land the first time, we tear up Levi's document, so he cannot take land a second time!
i.Suggestion: Perhaps we do not tear up Levi's document.
ii.Rejection: Rav Nachman taught that a Tirfa (a document authorizing a creditor to investigate which land was the borrower's, even if it was sold) is invalid unless it says 'the lender's document was torn up';
iii.An Adrachta (the second document, which authorizes him to take the land from a buyer) is invalid unless it says 'the Tirfa was torn up'.
iv.A Shuma (a document in which Beis Din writes the value of the land he takes) is invalid unless it says 'the Adrachta was torn up'.
4.Answer: Indeed, we are not concerned lest Shimon's land be taken by a creditor, rather, lest Levi bring witnesses that the land used to belong to Levi's fathers, and Reuven stole it (and Shimon will collect twice, like explained above).
(d)Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why must Shimon wait before taking the second land? He could take the fields one after the other!
(e)Answer: If he did so, each buyer would hear that he also took from another, and they would discover his scheme.
(f)Question: Why does the Beraisa say that we write another document of sale, but without Acharayus? (If Shimon really lost it, why should he lose?) We can write with Acharayus, and give Reuven (the seller) a document saying that Shimon can collect Acharayus only with a document with the date of the replacement document (but not with the original document)!
(g)Answer (Rabanan): This teaches that we do not force someone to accept a Shover (receipt, or any document that negates a different document) to enable someone (who lost his document) to receive what they deserve. (We are concerned lest the Shover be lost or eaten by mice.)
(h)Rejection (Rav Papa or Rav Ashi): Really, normally we force someone to accept a Shover;
1.Here we do not, lest a creditor take Shimon's land, and Shimon will collect (with the original document) from later buyers, who do not have the Shover.
(i)Question: The later buyers will go to Reuven (to be compensated), he will show to them the Shover, and they will take back their land!
(j)Answer #1: In the meantime, Shimon may consume the Peros, and it may be difficult to recover them.
(k)Answer #2: Perhaps the buyers did not have Acharayus, and they will not go to Reuven.
(l)Question: If so, for the same reason we should not write a Shover for one who lost a loan document!
(m)Answer: When a creditor comes to collect from buyers, since he is owed money, they suspect that the borrower paid, so they will not give up their land before asking the borrower;
1.Here, Shimon's land was taken. He wants back land, so buyers do not think that he would accept money from Reuven in its stead. (They know that Reuven sold all his land.)
2)ACHARAYUS ON A SALE
(a)(Beraisa): We write another document of sale, without Acharayus.
(b)Question: What do we write?
(c)Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): 'One may not collect with this document from sold or Bnei Chorin. It is only to prove that Shimon bought it.'
(d)Inference (Rafram): This teaches that Acharayus Ta'us Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayus, there is Acharayus, we assume that the Sofer neglected to write it).
1.If not for this text, he would have Acharayus, even though it was not mentioned!
(e)Rejection (and Answer #2 - Rav Ashi): Really, Acharayus Lav Ta'us Sofer (if a document does not mention Acharayus, there is no Acharayus). The document does not mention Acharayus at all.
(f)Leah gave money to Levi to buy land for her. He bought for her without Acharayus.
1.Rav Nachman: She sent you to help her, and not to harm her! You must buy the land without Acharayus, and sell it to her with Acharayus (i.e. if it is taken, you must compensate her).
3)DOES MESIRAH ACQUIRE OSIYOS?
(a)(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Yehudah received a gift from Moshe and returned the document, the gift reverts to the giver;
(b)Chachamim say, he keeps the gift.
(c)Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(d)Answer #1 (Rav Asi): It is as if Moshe said 'this gift is yours as long as you have the document.'
(e)Question (Rabah): If so, also if the document were lost or stolen, the gift would go back!
(f)Answer #2 (Rabah): They argue about whether or not Osiyos (the contents of a document) are acquired through Mesirah;
1.R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that Osiyos are acquired through Mesirah (therefore, returning the document is like returning the gift);
2.Chachamim say that Osiyos are not acquired through Mesirah (until he also writes another document).