(Mishnah - Chachamim): To take money from the giver, one must bring proof.

Question: What proof must the recipients bring?

Answer #1 (Rav Huna): They must bring witnesses (that Reuven was healthy when he gave the gift).

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna): They must validate the document.

Rav Huna says that they must bring witnesses. R. Meir and Chachamim argue like R. Yakov and R. Noson (153b):

R. Meir holds like R. Noson (we assume that Reuven was then like he is now, i.e. healthy);

Chachamim hold like R. Yakov,

Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna say that they must validate the document. R. Meir and Chachamim argue about whether a lender must validate a document if the borrower admits that he authorized it (but claims that he paid it):

R. Meir says that he need not validate it;

Chachamim say that he must validate it. (If not, the borrower is believed to say that he paid, Migo he could claim that it was forged.)

Question: They argued about this elsewhere!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): (Shimon claims that he paid a loan but did not take back the document. The witnesses admit that they signed, but they say that they were invalid witnesses at the time), they are not believed to disqualify the document. (Since Shimon admits that the document is valid, there is no need to validate it.)

Chachamim say, they can disqualify it (until the lender validates it. Since the witnesses say that it was signed improperly, their testimony is not validation).

Answer: They needed to argue in both cases;

Had they argued only there, one might have thought that Chachamim say that witnesses can disqualify a document, but the borrower cannot;

Had they argued only here, one might have thought that R. Meir would agree that witnesses can disqualify a document.

Rava agrees with Rav Huna, that they must bring witnesses.

Question (Abaye): What is the reason?

Suggestion: Gift documents of healthy people usually say 'he was walking in the market... (i.e. healthy)', and this one does not.

Rejection: Matanos Shechiv Mera usually say 'he was bedridden...', and this one does not!

Answer: Since we are unsure, we leave the money where it is, unless they bring proof.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as Rav Huna and Rav Chisda do.

(R. Yochanan): They must bring witnesses.

(Reish Lakish): They must validate the document.

Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): A case occurred in which Reuven sold his father's property (after he inherited it), then Reuven died. Members of the family said that the sale was invalid because he was a minor at the time (even though he was old enough to sell land, no one ever saw that he brought two hairs of adulthood). They (the buyers) asked if they may check the body (to prove that he was an adult).

R. Akiva: Firstly, you may not check the body, for it is a disgrace. secondly, signs often change after death (R. Tam - perhaps he had white hairs (which are not a sign of adulthood) and now they look black; Ri - perhaps follicles developed after death. These are signs of adulthood).

Summation of question: We understand this if the buyers must bring witnesses. They could not find witnesses, so they wanted to check the body;

However, if they must validate the document, why did they want to check the body?

Answer (Reish Lakish): You think that the family was Muchzak in the property, and the buyers wanted to check the body to get the property. This is wrong;

Rather, the buyers were Muchzak in the property. The family wanted to check the body (to prove he was a minor) to take back the property.

Support: When R. Akiva told them that they may not check the body, they were silent.

Granted, the family would agree to this. (He is their relative, and they did not pay anything; Rosh - they agreed to go beyond the letter of the law and forfeit their claim);

The buyers would not agree. They may try to get what they paid for, even if it disgraces him!

Rejection: R. Akiva told them 'you may not check the body. Even if you will say that since you paid money, you may disgrace him, still, it does not help to check, for signs often change after death.

Question (Reish Lakish): Bar Kapara taught that if Shimon was Muchzak in a field and was using it, and Levi claimed 'it is mine' and showed a document that Shimon sold or gave it to him:

If Shimon denies having written the document, Levi must validate it to get the property;

If he says that it was a Pasim document (a fake sale, to make Shimon look rich) or Amanah (Levi trusted him with the document before receiving the money) or that Shimon did not pay yet (so Levi can retract), if there are witnesses, we follow what they say;

If there are no witnesses, we honor the document.

Does Bar Kapara rule like R. Meir (since Levi admits that he authorized the document, there is no need to validate it), and not like Chachamim?!

Answer (R. Yochanan): No, all agree that if one admits that he authorized a document, the bearer need not validate it.

Question (Reish Lakish): They argue about this!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): The witnesses are not believed to disqualify the document;

Chachamim says, they are believed.

Answer (R. Yochanan): Chachamim believe witnesses to disqualify it, but not the seller or borrower.

Reish Lakish: I heard in your name that the family had a proper protest (even though they admitted that the deceased authorized the document, just they say that he was a minor)!

R. Yochanan: R. Elazar said that in my name. I never said it.

R. Zeira: R. Yochanan can deny what his Talmid said, but will he deny what he said to his Rebbi, R. Yanai?!

(R. Yanai citing Rebbi): If one authorized a document, the bearer need not (Ramban - needs to) validate it.

R. Yochanan: We (Ramban - already) learned in our Mishnah, that Chachamim say 'to take money from another, one must bring proof', i.e. he must validate the document!

R. Zeira: We can explain R. Yochanan according to Rav Yosef (who switches the opinions).

(Rav Yosef): Chachamim say this (that the giver must prove that he was sick), but R. Meir says 'to take money from another, one must bring proof.'

Question: Why did R. Yochanan say 'all agree that...he need not validate it'? (Only Chachamim say so!)

Answer: Because an individual (R. Meir) argues with Chachamim, the law is considered unanimous.

Question: This is contrary to our Mishnah!

Answer: We must switch the opinions in our Mishnah.

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): The witnesses are not believed to disqualify the document;

Chachamim says, they are believed.

Answer: We must switch the opinions in the Beraisa.

Question: R. Yochanan said (154a) 'they must bring witnesses'!

Answer: We must switch the opinions (R. Yochanan said that they must validate the document, and Reish Lakish said that they must bring witnesses).

Suggestion: If so, we must switch also the question (2:a, and say that Reish Lakish challenged R. Yochanan)!