We learned in our Mishnah that if there are two Yosef ben Shimons in town, they are permitted to produce a Sh'tar against a third person, and we establish the Machlokes between the Tana of our Mishnah and the Tana of the Beraisa, who says that they are not, as to whether we hold 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' - our Tana or 'Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' - the Tana of the Beraisa.

It is possible to circumvent the Beraisa's prohibition - by either of them authorizing the other one to claim the debt as his Shali'ach by means of a Sh'tar Harsha'ah (in which case he will be able to claim 'mi'Mah Nafshach').

They cannot be arguing over whether we suspect that the owner lost his Sh'tar or not - because, as we just learned, even Abaye concedes that we do not contend with the unlikely possibility of someone with with the same name finding the Sh'tar as the person who lost it.

Alternatively, they argue over the same Machlokes as Abaye and Rava, in which case both Tana'im hold 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah', and the basis of their Machlokes will then be - whether the person holding the Sh'tar needs to prove that the Sh'tar was handed to him (the Beraisa), or not (our Mishnah).

Rava holds 'Eino Tzarich Le'havi Re'ayah', Abaye holds 'Tzarich ... ', because we are otherwise afraid - either that it was given to him as a Pikadon, or that he grabbed it from his brothers.

Abaye proves his opinion from a Beraisa, which obligates one of the brothers who produces a Sh'tar-Chov - written either by his father, or by a third person, and claims that his brothers handed it to him, to prove his claim.

Rava refutes Abaye's proof on the grounds that brothers are different - inasmuch as they tend to grab from each other.

In the second Lashon, Rava proves his opinion from the very same Beraisa - because it is precisely a brother, who tend to grab from each other, who needs to prove his claim, implying that others do not.

Abaye refutes Rava's proof, because, he argues - the Tana found it necessary to present the case of brothers, to teach us that - even a brother (whose siblings would have taken special care with regard to their Sh'taros, as we just explained) requires proof that the Sh'tar was handed to him, how much more so others.

A third Beraisa permits even the two Yosef ben Shimons to produce a Sh'tar-Chov against one another. This Tana argues with the Tana of our Mishnah - inasmuch as - he holds 'Ein Kosvin Sh'tar le'Loveh Ela-im-Kein Malveh Imo', in which case it is up to Yosef ben Shimon the creditor to decline or to take precautions (and if he trusts his namesake, then he must suffer the consequences).

Our Mishnah discusses a case where a third person finds a receipt among his documents, stating that Yosef ben Shimon's debt is paid. To reconcile it with the Mishnah, which prohibits a third person from producing a Sh'tar-Chov on either Yosef ben Shimon, Rav Hoshaya establishes the Beraisa - where their grandfathers names too, are inserted in the Sh'tar.

However, we cannot inspect the third name on the receipt - because it speaks where the receipt contained only the conventional two names.

Abaye amends the Beraisa to read 'Nimtza le'Loveh bein Sh'tarosav ... ', and the Beraisa is then coming to teach us that - neither Yosef ben Shimon can claim from the debtor (unless one of them writes a Sh'tar Harsha'ah for the other, as we learned earlier).

We learned in our Mishnah that if their marks of identification are the same, they write Kohen or Levi. If they are both Kohanim or Levi'im - then they add generations further back than their grandfathers.

Our Mishnah rules that in a case where a Shechiv-M'ra declares one of his Sh'tarei-Chov to have already been paid - all of them are considered paid (and he cannot claim from any of his debtors).

In the event that they then discover two Sh'tarei-Chov (of different amounts) among his documents, against one debtor - he or his heirs may claim the smaller of the two from him.

Rava rules that if someone declares ...

...' Sh'tar lach be'Yadi Paru'a' - the larger Sh'tar is considered paid, but not the smaller one.

... 'Chov lach be'Yadi Paru'a' - then all his debts are considered paid.

The equivalent distinction might apply where Reuven says to Shimon 'Sadi Mechurah lach' - in which case his large field is sold; and 'Sadeh she'Yesh li Mechurah lach' - all his fields are sold.

The reason behind the latter ruling - because the word 'Sadeh' is sometimes used as a collective noun, like we find often in T'nach (for example "S'deh Edom", "Beheimah Rabah").

Based on Rava's previous rulings, Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether if Reuven declares to Shimon ...

... 'Sadi Mechurah lach' - Shimon will be able to claim Reuven's largest field.

... 'Sadeh she'Yesh li Mechurah lach' - he will be able to claim all his fields.

To which Rav Ashi replied - that there we will apply the principle 'Yad Ba'al ha'Sh'tar al ha'Tachtonah' (since the Lashon 'Sadi' and 'Sadi she'Yesh li' is a Safek whether Reuven meant the larger field and all his fields or not, the claimant has the underhand).

Indeed, that is also the reason that Rava say 'Chov lach be'Yadi, Kol Sh'tarosav Peru'in' (because we are unsure whether the creditor meant all his fields or just one, so he may only claim the least possible claim).

This is based on the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah'.

In a case where Reuven lends Shimon via an Areiv (a guarantor), the Tana draws a distinction between whether he lends him S'tam - where he is not allowed to approach the Areiv before Beis-Din have obligated the debtor to pay and he is unable to do so, or whether he adds 'al-M'nas she'Epara mi'Mi she'Ertzeh' - where he may go straight to the Areiv (though we will clarify this statement further in the Sugya).

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids Reuven to go straight to the Areiv even in the latter case - if Shimon owns land.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if a man wants to divorce his wife, and an Areiv is mentioned in her Kesubah - he is obligated to swear (a Neder al Da'as Rabim, which cannot be annulled), prohibiting him from having any Hana'ah from his wife's property.

He says this on the additional condition - that the husband has no property.

The reason for this is - because we are afraid that he is in collusion with his wife, to divorce her, and then, after she has claimed her Kesubah from the Areiv, he will take her back, and share the Kesubah with her.

When regarding the Din in our Mishnah ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv', we ask 'Mai Ta'ama'? we mean to ask - why one does not claim from the Areiv at all.

And when Rabah and Rav Yosef answer with 'Gavra Ashleimis li, Gavra Ashlimi lach' - they are quoting the Areiv, who says that he was given the debtor as a deposit, so that, should he die or run away, he would have to pay, and now (that he did not do so) he is handing him back, to pay his debt himself.

Bearing in mind that the Persians would claim from the Areiv at all costs, when Rav Nachman asked 'Hai Diyna de'Parsa'i', what he meant was that - just as the Persian custom is illogical, so too, is our current understanding of the Mishnah (because what is then the point of Arvus?).

So Rav Nachman re-interprets ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv' to mean - ' ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv Techilah', as we explained in the Mishnah.

We know that Rav Nachman's interpretation is correct - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

Rav Huna tries to learn from Yehudah's words "Anochi E'ervenu, mi'Yadi Tevakshenu" (quoted in Mikeitz) the fact that - an Areiv is Meshubad, even without a Kinyan.

Rav Chisda refutes Rav Huna's proof however, on the basis of the Pasuk (there) "T'nah oso al-Yadi, va'Ani Ashivenu" - from which we see that Yehudah was not just an Areiv, but an Areiv Kablan (who specifically undertook to pay, come what may), and perhaps an Areiv Kablan is different.

So Rebbi Yitzchak learns it from the Pasuk "L'kach Bigdo ki Arav Zar ... ". Another Pasuk in Mishlei says that someone who ...

... undertakes to be an Areiv - should open his hand and pay.

... insults someone - should bring his friends and beg the insulted person for Mechilah.

When Ameimar connects the question whether an Areiv is Meshubad or not to a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi - he is referring to the Machlokes whether 'Asmachta Kanya' (Rebbi Yossi) or not (Rebbi Yehudah), which we discussed earlier in the Perek.

Rav Ashi queries Ameimar - based in the fact that on the one hand, we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ('Asmachta Lo Kanya'), and on the other, that an Areiv is Meshubad.

Rav Ashi therefore reconciles Rebbi Yehudah with the Din that an Areiv is Meshubad - inasmuch as due to the satisfaction that the Areiv feels when the creditor places his trust in him, and lends the debtor on account of his promise to act as a guarantor, he is Meshabed himself with a full heart, even without a Kinyan.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, forbids a creditor to claim from the Areiv as long as the debtor has property, from which we can infer that - the Tana Kama permits it.

Rabah bar bar Amar Rebbi Yochanan however, rules - that a creditor may not claim from the Areiv if the debtor has property (as we explained in the Mishnah).

To prevent our Mishnah from clashing with the Tana Kama - we therefore amends the Mishnah, adding 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, be'she'Ein Nechasim le'Loveh ... ' (like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the original text).

And the Machlokes between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tana Kama is - in the case of an Areiv Kablan.

Despite Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan's statement 'Kol Makom she'Shanah Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel be'Mishnaseinu, Halachah Kamoso ... ', he rules like the Tana Kama in this case - because the statement concludes - 'Chutz me'Areiv (our case), Tzidon (in Gitin) ve'Re'ayah Acharonah' (in Sanhedrin).