Question #1: The wording is difficult. It connotes that since they already did their Shelichus, this causes that they cannot do again, like in Gitin (63b). They wrote Tafvasa, and her name was Nafvasa. It says that they did their Shelichus, and they cannot write again;

There it is fine, but here one cannot resolve this at all. All the more so if they never did their Shelichus, that it was a Milveh Al Peh, they cannot write from the first date, for if so it is totally predated!

Question #2: There in Gitin, this that they cannot do their Shelichus [again] is because their Shelichus ceased once they did the first. If they do another, this is not the Shelichus of the husband, who did not command to write it. However, if he commands to write a second, they can do it;

Here, even though the borrower commands them to write a document from the first date, they may not. If not, what forced the lender to tear the first document, if the borrower does not force him? If so, the borrower wants this!

Suggestion: The borrower wants only from the second date.

Rejection: What claim is this?!

Answer: You are forced to explain here "can witnesses, even though they did their Shelichus, and a lien took affect through them, can they do due to this another document like the first? [Surely they cannot,] since it looks predated!"

Even if the borrower commands them, it is unreasonable [that they may do so]. If [they could], people would say that every predated document is Kosher, and they will come to sign on a predated document.

Distinction: This that Beis Din writes from the first date will not lead one to sign on a predated document, for people know that it is Pasul. They will attribute its Hechsher because Beis Din is powerful to uproot money.

Disclaimer: The wording is very difficult.

Question: According to the Havah Amina that we discuss with Achrayus, it is difficult what it says above (168b) "but documents of sale, they write without Achrayus"!

Answer: Above, it means as follows. He says that he lost his document, and we are concerned lest he take from buyers and later take from buyers again;

However, here we discuss when we know that it was lost, or we saw that it was burned.

Explanation: R. Yehudah did not explain to R. Yosi that [it is from the first date]. However, the Beraisa teaches about R. Yehudah's opinion according to the truth.

Inference: This expression connotes that it is not written explicitly so [that it is Shabbos or Yom Kipur], rather, it says the third of Nisan, and [Rosh Chodesh Nisan] was on Thursday, and now it turns out that the third of Nisan is on Shabbos;

And similarly "on Monday in the second week of Tishrei", and [Rosh Hashanah] was on Shabbos, so it turns out that the date is Yom Kipur.

Question #1: We should say that he erred about which day was declared Rosh Chodesh, and it should be Kosher [even] according to R. Yosi. Why does he disqualify?

Question #2: Also according to R. Yehudah it is better to say so (that he erred about Rosh Chodesh) than to say that [the date] was written in jest;

Answer - part 1: This is not difficult at all regarding Yom Kipur. Since it mentions the day of the week, it was known that that day is Yom Kipur. He would not err about this. However, it is difficult from Shabbos!

Answer - part 2 (Ri): The case is, [the date] is after the majority of the month, like it says in Sanhedrin (41b) that it is impossible that he did not hear (which day was fixed to be Rosh Chodesh).

Assertion (Ri): He accepted Rava's answer.

Implied question: In Sotah (7b) on the Mishnah of "she is Shoveres (partially pays) her Kesuvah and leaves", it says that this shows that we write a receipt. Abaye said that the text should say "Mekara'as" (she tears. This implies that he holds that we do not write a receipt!)

Answer: This is a mere Dichuy, that we cannot learn from [that Mishnah], for in the Sugya of one who claims that he paid an act of Beis Din (Bava Metzi'a 17b) it connotes that [Abaye] holds that we write a receipt.

Explanation: Perhaps they used to forget to write "this document [was not written on this date...]" Therefore, they wrote [the date of the document in the receipt].