1)

(a)We learned earlier that Rav validates a Sh'tar which is written and signed on an erased area. We ask on this however, 've'Im Tomar, Mochek ve'Chozer u'Mochek?' What do we mean by that?

(b)How do we answer this Kashya?

(c)What does Abaye say to explain why we are not then afraid that he will first pour ink on the area of the signatures and erase it, before pouring ink on the entire Sh'tar and erasing it, so that when he erases the section that he did not erase the first time and writes whatever he wishes, it will all have been erased twice?

1)

(a)We learned earlier that Rav validates a Sh'tar which is written and signed on an erased aea. We ask on this however, 've'Im Tomar, Mochek ve'Chozer u'Mochek?', by which we mean - why we are not afraid that the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar will erase the contents of the Sh'tar and rewrite whatever suits him, leaving the signatures intact.

(b)We answer - that it is easy to distinguish the difference between an area that has been erased once and one that has been erased twice.

(c)Abaye explains that we are not then afraid that he will first pour ink on the area of the signatures and erase it, before pouring ink on the entire Sh'tar and erasing both sections, so that when he erases the section that he did not erase the first time and writes whatever he wishes, it will all have been erased twice - because the witnesses will refuse to sign on an area that was erased not in their presence (to enable them to compare the area on the area on which they are signing with the rest of the Sh'tar.

2)

(a)According to Rav, what are we afraid of in a case where a Sh'tar appears on clean parchment, and the witnesses have signed on an area that has been erased?

(b)Then how will Rav explain the Beraisa which validates a Sh'tar that is written in this way? Under which condition will it be Kasher?

(c)Why can this not be speaking where they wrote it ...

1. ... after the two signatures?

2. ... before the two signatures?

(d)So how does the Tana speak? Where did the witnesses write this statement?

2)

(a)According to Rav, in a case where a Sh'tar appears on clean parchment, and the witnesses have signed on an area that has been erased, we are afraid - that the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar may erase the Sh'tar and replace it with whatever he wishes.

(b)Consequently, Rav will restrict the Beraisa which validates a Sh'tar that is written in this way - to where the witnesses initially made a point of adding to their signatures that although they signed on an erased area, the contents of the Sh'tar were written on clean parchment.

(c)This cannot be speaking where they wrote it ...

1. ... after the two signatures - because then the claimant would still be able to cut out it out.

2. ... before the two signatures - because then he could erase it.

(d)The Tana must therefore be speaking - where they wrote the statement in between the two signatures.

3)

(a)What does the Seifa of the Beraisa say about a Sh'tar that is written on an erased area, and the witnesses, on a clean Sh'tar?

(b)Why can we not validate the Sh'tar, by the witnesses inserting this information into the Sh'tar, like we did in the previous case? What are we still worried about?

(c)But did we not learn earlier that the difference between a Sh'tar that has been erased once and one that has been erased twice is easily discernible?

(d)So why do we not bring another piece of parchment, write on it and erase it, and then compare it with the Sh'tar in question?

3)

(a)The Seifa of the Beraisa states that a Sh'tar that is written on an erased area, and the witnesses, on a clean Sh'tar - is Pasul.

(b)We cannot validate the Sh'tar, by the witnesses inserting this information into the Sh'tar, like we did in the previous case - because this will not prevent the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar from erasing the contents of the Sh'tar (a second time), leaving the signatures plus the information intact.

(c)We did indeed learn earlier that the difference between a Sh'tar that has been erased once and one that was erased twice is easily discernible - but this argument will not apply in this case, since the place where the witnesses signed has not yet been erased at all.

(d)Nor can we bring another piece of parchment, write on it and erase it, and then compare it with the Sh'tar in question - because an erasure on one piece of parchment does not ecessarily resemble an erasure on another piece.

4)

(a)We then ask why we cannot erase the witnesses' signatures and compare that erased area to the other erased area. What would the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar then do about his witnesses' signatures?

(b)How does Rav Hoshaya answer the basic Kashya?

(c)We ask why we do then not wait for a day and then compare them. What does Rebbi Yirmiyah say about that?

(d)Others erase the previous Kashya from their texts (see Tosfos DH 've'li'Shehaya'). What is Rebbi Yirmiyah then coming to answer?

4)

(a)We then ask why we cannot erase the witnesses' signatures and compare that erased area to the other erased area. To retain his witnesses' signature - the claimant would then get them to sign on another piece of parchment, which he would deposit in Beis-Din.

(b)Rav Hoshaya answers the basic Kashya - by drawing a distinction between an erasure of one day and one of two days.

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah explains that we cannot then wait for a day and then compare them - because we are worried about Beis-Din not being aware of this Halachah and making a mistake.

(d)Others erase the previous Kashya from their texts (see Tosfos DH 've'li'Shehaya'). According to them - Rebbi Yirmiyah comes to answer the earlier Kashya (why we cannot erase the witnesses' signatures and compare that erased area to the other erased area), in place of Rav Hoshaya.

164b----------------------------------------164b

5)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in our Mishnah validates a Mekushar whose witnesses signed inside the Sh'tar, on the grounds that it can be transformed into a Pashut. What did Rebbi mean when he asked 've'Ha Eino Domeh Zemano shel Zeh li'Zemano shel Zeh'?

(b)What problem was Rebbi referring to when he asked this Kashya?

(c)What must Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel have held to refute it?

5)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in our Mishnah validates a Mekushar whose witnesses signed inside the Sh'tar on the grounds that it can be transformed into a Pashut. When Rebbi asked 've'Ha Eino Domeh Zemano shel Zeh li'Zemano shel Zeh', he meant - that whereas a Sh'tar Pashut must be dated according to the current year of the king, a Sh'tar Mekushar is - post-dated by a year (as we shall see shortly).

(b)The problem Rebbi was referring to when he asked this Kashya was - the possible scenario that when the debtor pays (on the understanding that the Sh'tar is Mekushar and dated in the second year of the king), on the pretext of having lost his Sh'tar, the creditor will write him a receipt instead, dated the first year of the king's reign. Later, based on the fact that a Pashut has the current date as we explained, the creditor will turn the Sh'tar into a Pashut, and claim again, as if it was a new debt that really did take place in the second year of the king's reign.

(c)To refute this Kashya, Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel must have held - 'Ein Kosvin Shover', with the result that as long as the creditor does not return the Sh'tar, the debtor does not need to pay.

6)

(a)All this assumes that Rebbi was conversant with a Sh'tar Mekushar. What did Rebbi comment when a Sh'tar Mekushar was once brought to him?

(b)What did Zonin answer him?

(c)Why did Chazal institute this?

(d)How do we then reconcile the previous episode with this one, from which it appears that Rebbi was not conversant with a Sh'tar Mekushar?

6)

(a)All this assumes that Rebbi was conversant with a Sh'tar Mekushar. However, when a Sh'tar Mekushar was once brought to Rebbi, he commented - that it was a Sh'tar Me'uchar.

(b)Zonin answered him - that it was customary to write a Sh'tar Mekushar post-dated by one year (i.e. by adding one year to the number of years that the king had reigned).

(c)Chazal instituted this - partly in honor of the King, to attribute longevity to the king's reign. And they did this by a Sh'tar Mekushar to make it more complicated to write. That in turn, they did in order to safeguard the Kohanim, as we explained earlier.

(d)We reconcile the previous episode with this one, from which it appears that Rebbi was not conversant with a Sh'tar Mekushar - by placing it (time-wise) after he had heard what Zonin had to say, and accepted his words.

7)

(a)What did Rebbi Chanina instruct them to do, when a Sh'tar appeared in Beis-Din dated 'bi'Shenas P'loni Orchan'? What does 'Orcha' mean?

(b)On what grounds do we query Rebbi Chanina's ruling? What else might 'Orchan' mean, and from when would the creditor be permitted to claim?

(c)We uphold Rebbi Chanina's ruling however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Hoshaya. What did Rav Hoshaya say about ...

1. ... 'Orchan'?

2. ... 'Digun'?

(d)And how do we know that the king was not dethroned and re-crowned, and that the Sh'tar was not written in the year of his second coronation?

7)

(a)When a Sh'tar appeared in Beis-Din dated 'bi'Shenas P'loni Orchan', Rebbi Chanina instructed them to ascertain when the king ascended the throne, on the assumption that the Sh'tar was written in the first year of his reign (since 'Orcha' means reign).

(b)We query Rebbi Chanina's ruling based on the suggestion - that 'Orchan' might also mean 'length', so perhaps what he meant was that the debt took place after he had been a long time on the throne, in which case, for lack of clarity, the creditor would only be able to claim from that time on.

(c)We uphold Rebbi Chanina's ruling however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Hoshaya, who says that ...

1. ... 'Orchan' - always pertains to the first year of the king's reign, and ...

2. ... 'Digun' - to the second.

(d)We know that the king was not dethroned and re crowned, and that the Sh'tar not was written in the first year of his second crowning - because they would refer to that year as 'Orchan Digun', and not just Orchan.

8)

(a)The Beraisa quotes Sumchus, who presents the different Leshonos of Nezirus. If 'Hareini Nazir Hina' implies one set of Nezirus, and 'Digun' implies two, what is the meaning of 'T'rigun', 'Tatrigun' and Pantigun' respectively?

(b)Another Beraisa discusses various shaped houses with regard to Tum'as Tzara'as. What does the Tana mean when it refers to ...

1. ... a two-sided house?

2. ... a Pentagon?

(c)How is it possible to have a one-sided house?

(d)Where in the Torah, do we find a source for 'Hiyna' meaning 'one'?

8)

(a)The Beraisa quotes Sumchus, who presents the different Leshonos of Nezirus. If 'Hareini Nazir Hina' implies one set of Nezirus, and 'Digun' implies two - 'T'rigun', 'Tatrigun' and Pantigun' imply the three, four and five sets, respectively.

(b)Another Beraisa discusses various shaped houses with regard to Tum'as Tzara'as. When the Tana refers to ...

1. ... a two-sided house, he means a house which comprises two sides and the rest is a semi-circle.

2. ... Pentagon, he means - one of five sides.

(c)It is possible to have a one-sided house - if it is round.

(d)We find a source for 'Hiyna' meaning 'one' in Seifer Iyov, where the Pasuk writes 'Hein Yir'as Hashem', meaning that the fear of G-d is (priority number) one.

9)

(a)What do a circular house, a house of two sides, three sides or five sides have in common?

(b)From where does the Beraisa learn this?

(c)How about the third Pasuk "ve'Hinei ha'Nega be'Kiros ha'Bayis"?

9)

(a)A circular house, a house of two sides, three sides or five sides have in common - that they are all not subject to Tum'as Tzara'as.

(b)The Beraisa learns this - from the two times that the Torah writes in Metzora "be'Kiros ha'Bayis" in the plural, when it could have just as well have written "be'Kir ha'Bayis".

(c)The third Pasuk "ve'Hinei ha'Nega be'Kiros ha'Bayis" - is needed for itself.

10)

(a)We already cited the case where Rebbi thought that the Sh'tar Mekushar that came before him was undated. What prompted Rebbi to give his son Rebbi Shimon a dirty look (after the latter pointed out that the date was to be found absorbed between the knots)?

(b)So what if he had written it?

(c)What did Rebbi Shimon say that caused Rebbi to order him to desist from speaking Lashon ha'Ra?

(d)What should he then have said in order to absolve himself from blama?

10)

(a)We already cited the case where Rebbi thought that the Sh'tar Mekushar that came before him was undated. Rebbi gave his son Rebbi Shimon a dirty look (after the latter pointed out that the date was to be found absorbed between the knots) - because he believed that he had written it.

(b)And if he had - Rebbi was cross with him, either because, due to the complications of a Get Mekushar, he preferred the Sofrim to stick to regular Gitin, or because the date was so badly placed.

(c)When Rebbi Shimon saw his father's dirty look - he claimed that he had not written the Sh'tar, but that Yehudah ha'Chayat had, causing Rebbi to order him to desist from speaking Lashon ha'Ra.

(d)What he should have said - was that he not written it, and no more.

11)

(a)And what had Rebbi said on another occasion that elicited the same comment from Rebbi Shimon?

(b)How did Rebbi react to that statement?

(c)He based this on a Beraisa cited by Rav Dimi the brother of Rav Safra. What did the Tana say there concerning speaking good about a fellow-Jew?

11)

(a)And on another occasion - Rebbi had praised the script of the Seifer Tehilim that his son Rebbi Shimon was learning from, eliciting the same comment from him (that Yehudah ha'Chayat was the one to have written the Seifer, and not he).

(b)Rebbi reacted to that statement too - like he did to the previous one, by ordering him to desist from speaking Lashon ha'Ra.

(c)He based this on a Beraisa cited by Rav Dimi the brother of Rav Safra - where the Tana forbade speaking good about someone, since someone present is bound to counter with something detrimental about the person (see also Agados Maharsha).

12)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about lewd thoughts, Iyun Tefilah and Lashon ha'Ra? What do they have in common?

(b)What is 'Iyun Tefilah'?

(c)How can the Tana say that everyone transgresses Lashon ha'Ra each day? What does he really mean?

(d)What does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav say about Gezel, Arayos and Avak Lashon ha'Ra?

12)

(a)The Beraisa - lists lewd thoughts, Iyun Tefilah and Lashon ha'Ra as a group of sins that one cannot avoid transgressing every day.

(b)'Iyun Tefilah' is - when someone thinks that the Tefilah that he just Davened with such Kavanah is bound to be answered.

(c)When the Tana says that everyone transgresses Lashon ha'Ra each day - he is referring to 'Avak Lashon ha'Ra, which is ambiguous in its negativity (for example, if Reuven advises Shimon to go to Levi's house for a light, because there he will always find a fire burning [which has various connotations]).

(d)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says - that whereas the majority of people transgress Gezel and a minority, Arayos, everyone is guilty of speaking Avak Lashon ha'Ra.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF