Rabah bar Rav Shiloh gave instructions to Sofrim who used to write Sh'tarei Akneyasa. This refers eithe to Sh'tarei Matanah which do not contain Acharayus, or - to Sh'tarei Mechirah, whose Shibud takes effect immediately together with the Kinyan (as we shall see shortly).

He instructed them - to date their Sh'taros from the time of the Kinyan if they knew it. Otherwise (rather than try and guess that date [Rabeinu Gershom]), they should write the date of the day on which the the Sh'tar was being written.

It is preferable to write the date on which the Kinyan took place - to negate any sale that the owner may have effected after that date.

Rabah bar Rav Shiloh cannot have been talking about Sh'tarei-Chov - because to write an earlier date than the current one would turn it into a Sh'tar Mukdam. Consequently, in such a case, he would have instructed the Sofrim to write the current date.

It is not also a Sh'tar Mukdam in the case of a Sh'tar Mechirah - because there, the Eidei Mechirah create a Kol even if there is no Sh'tar (thereby protecting the purchasers from buying a Meshubad field without any chance of knowing that it is Meshubad).

A Sh'tar that is written in the day and signed at night is Pasul - because the creditor will claim from the purchasers who bought fields from the debtor already from that day, whereas really, the Shibud only began from the night, when the witnesses signed.

Rabeinu Chananel disagrees with this. He learns from the Din of Rabah bar Rav Shiloh - that a Sh'tar (even a Sh'tar Halva'ah) that is written on the day that the Kinyan takes place, but signed only later is Kasher, because no Sh'tar other than a Get requires signatures on the same day.

The earlier explanation however, is the preferred one.

The Sh'tar that is written by day but signed at night and is Kasher, according to Rebbi Shimon - is a Get.

In a case where the Sofrim wrote a Sh'tar (no matter which) in Shili, that they were commissioned to write in Hini, or vice-versa, Rav and Rav Huna instructed their respective Sofrim to - note in the Shtar that they were writing in Shili what they saw take place in Hini (or vice-versa).

The reason for this ruling is - that otherwise, it looks like a lie.

Rava rules that if either the debtor or the creditor wants a Sh'tar of a hundred Zuz to be converted into two of fifty, we will not let them. We will stop ...

... the debtor from doing so - because one Sh'tar of a hundred is to the creditor's advantage, seeing as it forces the debtor to pay quickly (as we explained earlier).

... the creditor from doing so - because it is to the debtor's disadvantage, inasmuch as anyone who claims with a Sh'tar that has been partially paid, is obligated to swear, as we learned in the Mishnah in Kesuvos.

The same will apply in the reverse case, Rava explains, for exactly the same reasons, only in the reverse (since what was to the creditor's advantage in the previous case is now to his disadvantage, and vive-versa).

Rav Ashi rules that we do not comply with a creditor who claims that the debtor has paid half his debt of a hundred Zuz and asks for a new Sh'tar of fifty, and to tear the old one - because we are afraid that really the debtor paid up his debt completely, and when the creditor claimed that he had lost his Sh'tar, he wrote him a receipt. And now, he is trying to pull a fast one on the debtor, by writing a new Sh'tar and claiming that it is a new debt.

In a case where two brothers, one rich and one poor, inherit a bathhouse or an oil-press that their father used to rent out, our Mishnah rules - that they continue to do likewise, and share the profits.

In a case where the father tended to use them for his own personal use - the problem is that the poor man does not have the means to run the bathhouse, or the olives that need to be pressed. So he requests that, from now on, it should be rented out.

The rich brother can reply - that he doesn't want total strangers on their property.

We cannot apply the principle 'Gud O Agud' (either you take it and pay me half, or I will take it and pay you half), like we learned in the first Perek with regard to a shared Chatzer which is too small to divide - because that is only if both options are open to both parties, whereas in this case, the poor brother is unable to buy his brother out.

The Tana also rules that two Yosef ben Shimons who reside in the same town cannot produce a Sh'tar-Chov against each other - because the defendant can always reply that in fact, he is the creditor, and the reason that the claimant has the Sh'tar is because when he repaid the money that that he originally owed him, he (the defendant) returned him the Sh'tar.

Neither can anyone else produce a Sh'tar-Chov against them - because each one can claim that it is the other one who owes the money, and not him.

They can however, produce a Sh'tar-Chov against someone else, as we shall see in the Sugya.

If someone finds a receipt that states that Yosef ben Shimon has paid - both Yosef ben Shimons are Patur from paying.

One avoids all the above problems - by adding their grandfather's name, thereby enabling both Yosef ben Shimons to function regularly in the business world.

If ...

... their grandfathers shared the same name too (perhaps they were cousins) - then they add distinguishing identification marks (short, white or red ... ).

... they even share the same distinguishing marks, too - then they add Kohen or Levi, if possible.

A Sh'tar came before Rav Huna in which was written "Ani P'loni bar P'loni, Lavisi Manah Mimcha'. Rav Huna ruled 'Mimcha, Afilu me'Resh Galusa, va'Afilu mi'Shavur Malka' - by which he meant that the Sh'tar may well have referred to the Resh Galusa or the King (who subsequently lost it).

We know that he did not mean to validate the Sh'tar, and to permit the person holding the Sh'tar to claim with it - because then he should have said so specifically (like Rabah will do shortly).

By learning this way, we would otherwise gain - that 'Afilu me'Resh Galusa ... ' would now mean even if the person holding the Sh'tar was someone who did not usually borrow, such as the Resh Galusa ... '.

Rav Chisda told Rabah - to look into the matter, because on the following day, Rav Huna would question him about it.

Normally, a Get without a date - is Pasul Lechatchilah, but Kasher Bedi'eved.

In the Beraisa that Rabah discovered, Aba Shaul rules that a Get with witnesses, which states 'Gerashtihah Ha'yom' - is Kasher, because 'today' refers to the current day.

By the same token, Rabah argues, 'Mi'mecha ought to refer to the person who is currently holding the Sh'tar.

Abaye asked Rabah whether Aba Shaul's reason might not be because he follows the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, who holds - 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi', dispensing with any need for a date on the Sh'tar.

That will vindicate Rav Huna, who invalidates the Sh'tar in the previous case - because we are afraid that the rightful owner may have lost it, and the current holder found it.

Even though Aba Shaul holds like Rebbi Elazar, he nevertheless requires 'Gerashtihah Ha'yom' in the Get - because in his opinion, it must be clear that the man means to divorce his wife upon receipt of the Get.

According to Rebbi Elazar, the obligation to write the date in a Get - is a Takanas Chachamim (because of 'Peiros' or 'ben Achoso', as we learned in Gitin).

In reply to Abaye's Kashya, Rabah cites our Mishnah. He extrapolates from the Din of two Yosef ben Shimon's claiming from each other or others claiming from them - implying that they can claim from others (as we explained in our Mishnah), a clear proof that we are not afraid that the Sh'tar may have been lost (since if we were, we ought to suspect that perhaps the other Yosef ben Shimon lost the Sh'tar, and the claimant merely found it).

Abaye refutes Rabah's proof from our Mishnah - in that, even though we do suspect that someone with the same name found the very Sh'tar that one of any amount of people (the holder of the Sh'tar, who could be anybody) found a Sh'tar that someone lost, it is to far-fetched to suspect that someone found the very Sh'tar that his namesake lost.

Rabeinu Chananel explains Abaye's answer from the point of view of the loser. That someone found a Sh'tar that an unknown person lost is feasible, according to him, but not when someone whom we know lost it - because if Yosef ben Shimon had lost his Sh'tar, we would have heard about him looking for it.