1)

(a)We just discussed Rebbi Yochanan's ruling that one may only repeat the contents of a Sh'tar on the last line. What reason does Rav Amram give for this Takanah?

(b)In which case will this Halachah not apply?

(c)When Rav Nachman asked Rav Amram the source of his statement, he cited a Beraisa. What distinction does the Tana draw between witnesses who leave two blank lines between the text and their signatures, and those who leave only one?

(d)What is the reason for this distinction? What does Rav Amram prove from here?

1)

(a)We just discussed Rebbi Yochanan's ruling that one may only use the last line of a Sh'tar to repeat the contents of the Sh'tar. The reason Rav Amram gives for this Takanah is - because the witnesses cannot sign immediately following the writing on the Sh'tar, in which case the space in between, would only serve as an opportunity for the claimant to add a clause of his own.

(b)The latter Halachah will not apply however, in a Sh'tar which contains 'Sh'rir ve'Kayam', which in any event, negates any chances of the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar adding anything to the text, as we learned earlier.

(c)When Rav Nachman asked Rav Amram the source of his statement, he cited a Beraisa, which draws a distinction between witnesses who leave two blank lines between the text and their signatures - which is Pasul, and those who leave only one - which is Kasher.

(d)The reason for this distinction is - because two blank lines allow for one new previously unmentioned clause in the first of the two lines, whereas from the last line we do not learn anything new, the source for Rav Amram's ruling.

2)

(a)What will be the Din if witnesses testify that nothing has been added to a Sh'tar with two blank lines?

(b)On what condition will it nevertheless be Kasher?

2)

(a)Even if witnesses testify that nothing has been added to the Sh'tar with two blank lines dividing between the signatures and the text - it is nevertheless Pasul, because it was not written according to the Halachah.

(b)It will nevertheless be Kasher - if he contained the words 'Sh'rir ve'Kayam'.

162b----------------------------------------162b

3)

(a)We ask whether a Sh'tar with a space of one and a half lines is Kasher or Pasul. What can we infer from the Beraisa cited earlier 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul'?

(b)Then why can we not resolve the She'eilah from there?

(c)We finally resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa which begins in the same way as the previous one 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul'? How does it end?

3)

(a)We ask whether a Sh'tar with a space of one and a half lines is Kasher or Pasul. We can infer from the Beraisa cited earlier 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - that one and a half lines is Kasher.

(b)Nevertheless, we cannot resolve the She'eilah from there - because of the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Shitah Achas, Kasher', from which we can infer the opposite, leaving us without any proof at all.

(c)We finally resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa which begins in the same way as the previous one 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - but which ends 'Pachos mi'Ka'an, Kasher'.

4)

(a)What does the above Beraisa say about a case where one of four or five witnesses who signed on a Sh'tar turns out to be a relative or otherwise disqualified from giving testimony?

(b)This supports a statement made by Chizkiyah. What did Chizkiyah say about a Sh'tar that one filled with signatures of relatives?

(c)According to Rabeinu Chananel, Chizkiyah is speaking about a Get Kere'ach. What is a Get Keire'ach? What is Chizkiyah then saying?

(d)If it is, then Chizkiyah follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. What does ben Nannes (Rebbi Akiva's disputant) say about the Eidim of a Get Kere'ach?

4)

(a)The above Beraisa states that if one of four or five witnesses who signed on a Sh'tar turns out to be a relative or otherwise disqualified from giving testimony - the testimony of the remainder of the witnesses nevertheless stands.

(b)This supports a statement made by Chizkiyah who said that if one filled a Sh'tar with signatures of relatives - the Sh'tar is nevertheless Kasher.

(c)According to Rabeinu Chananel, Chizkiyah is speaking about a Get Keire'ach - which as we learned in our Mishnah, is a Sh'tar with more knots than witnesses. What Chizkiyah is then saying is - that since the additional signatures are only in order to satisfy this particular requirement (and the Sh'tar has three Kasher witnesses without the relatives), even they are able to sign.

(d)If it is, then Chizkiyah follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva who, in a Mishnah in Gitin, requires witnesses who are Kasher to testify elsewhere. According to ben Nannes there - even witnesses who are Pasul le'Eidus in all cases, are valid to sign on a Get Kere'ach.

5)

(a)How do we query Rabeinu Chananel, based on the fact that the Reisha of the Beraisa that supports Chizkiyah reads 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul'?

(b)If the Beraisa was not speaking about those two lines, where would one have expected to find it quoted?

(c)What other proof do we have that Chizkiyah must be speaking about those two lines, and not a Get Keire'ach?

(d)What do we prove from the fact that a Succah is Pasul if it has three Tefachim space in the roof, whereas it requires four Tefachim of Pasul S'chach to invalidate it?

5)

(a)We query Rabeinu Chananel in that, based on the fact that the Reisha of the Beraisa that supports Chizkiyah reads 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitim min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - we would assume that the Seifa too, speaks in the same case (and not in the case of a Get Keire'ach).

(b)If the Beraisa was not speaking about those two lines - one would have expected to find it quoted in Makos, and not here.

(c)And besides, Chizkiyah must be speaking about those two lines, and not a Get Keire'ach - because otherwise a. he could have cited the Mishnah in Gitin as proof for his statement, and b. why would he need to teach us what we already know from that Mishnah?

(d)We prove from the fact that a Succah is Pasul if it has three Tefachim space in the roof, whereas it requires four Tefachim of Pasul S'chach to invalidate it - that Chizkiyah's ruling is not illogical, because there too, if they left two lines empty, the Sh'tar would be Pasul, yet if they filled it with Pasul witnesses, it is Kasher.

6)

(a)How do we establish the case of 'Mil'eihu bi'Kerovim Kasher'? Under which circumstances would the Sh'tar be Pasul?

(b)This is due to a statement of Rav Nachman in Makos. What does Rav Nachman add to the Halachah that a Sh'tar which contains one witness who is a Karov or Pasul is Pasul?

6)

(a)We establish the case of 'Mil'eihu bi'Kerovim Kasher' - only if they signed first. If they signed in the middle or at the end, the Sh'tar is Pasul.

(b)This is due to a statement of Rav Nachman in Makos - who extends the Halachah that a Sh'tar which contains one witness who is a Karov or Pasul is Pasul, even to monetary matters.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF