(Rav Yosef bar Minyomi citing Rav Nachman): If Beis Din told Reuven 'go give to Shimon', and later Reuven claims that he paid him, he is believed;

If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we do not give to him.

If Beis Din told Reuven 'you are obligated to give Shimon', and Reuven later claims that he paid him, he is not believed;

If Shimon requests an Adrachta, we write one for him.

(Rav Zvid citing Rav Nachman): Whether Beis Din said 'go give' or 'you are obligated to give', Reuven is believed to say that he paid, and we do not write an Adrachta for Shimon.

The two expressions differ about the following. If they said 'go give', and Reuven claims that he paid, and witnesses say that they once saw him refuse to pay, he is established to be a liar on that debt;

If they said 'you are obligated to give', and Reuven claims that he paid, and witnesses say that he once refused to pay, he is not established to be a liar on that debt.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: When they said 'you are obligated to give', Reuven was merely stalling. He thinks that Beis Din might change their minds.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): Levi claimed 100 from Yehudah. He denied it all, and witnesses testified that he has it. Yehudah then said that he paid. He is established to be a liar on this money; he is not believed.

Shabtai wrote in his daughter-in-law's Kesuvah that he would give to her a silk garment. She lost her Kesuvah. He denied the matter. Witnesses testified that he had written it; he said that he gave it to her.

R. Chiya: He is established to be a liar about that garment.

(R. Avin): Reuven was obligated to swear to Shimon. He claims that he swore, and witnesses testified that he refused to swear. He is established to be a liar about that oath.

(R. Avahu): Presumably, that is only when Beis Din obligated him to swear. If he accepted on himself to swear, he is believed. People often say (about self-imposed obligations, not according to Beis Din) 'I will not fulfill it' (even if they intend to fulfill it).

R. Avin heard this, and said that indeed, this was his intent.

(R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): If one finds in the market a validated document for a loan given that same day, he returns it to the lender.

We are not concerned lest the loan was never given, for it was validated;

We are not concerned lest it was paid, for people do not pay loans on the same day.

Question (R. Zeira): You said in the name of R. Yochanan that if a loan was paid, the document cannot be used for another loan (of the same amount between the same parties), because the lien (that the document imposes against the borrower) has been pardoned!

Question: In what case does R. Yochanan teach that the document may not be used again?

If it is on a later day, why does he forbid (only) because the lien was pardoned? It may not be used because the date precedes the loan!

(Mishnah): Predated loan documents are invalid!

Answer: Rather, R. Yochanan teaches that the document may not be used the same day. This shows that people sometimes pay a loan the same day!

Answer #1 (Rav Asi): It is possible to pay a loan on the same day. However, this is rare, so (if we do not know that this occurred), we are not concerned for it.

Answer #2 (Rav Kahana): R. Yochanan says that we return a document on the same day if the borrower admits that he did not pay.

Question: If so, of course it may be returned!

Answer: One might have thought that perhaps it was paid, and he claims that it was not, in order to use it again to borrow money, and save the cost of another document;

R. Yochanan teaches that we are not concerned for this. The lender would not do so, lest Chachamim find out, and disqualify it (for collection from Meshubadim (Rashi), or even from Bnei Chorin (Rashbam)).

Question: Why is R. Yochanan's law different than the Mishnah?

(Mishnah): If one finds loan documents, if they have Achrayus, he may not return them.

We established this to be when the borrower admits. We are concerned lest the loan was given after the date on the document, and the document will be used to collect from buyers illegally!

We do not say that the lender fears to use such a document, and demands a new document with the proper date!

Answer: There, the lender stands to gain from the early date. It enables him to collect from buyers who bought before the loan;

Here, since only the borrower gains (he saves the cost of another document), the lender demands a proper document.

(R. Chiya bar Aba citing R. Yochanan): If one claims that he paid an obligation that Chachamim enacted, he is not believed.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Regarding such enactments, we consider it as if a document was written.

Question (R. Chiya bar Aba): A Mishnah teaches this!

(Mishnah): If a woman showed her Get and she did not have a Kesuvah (document), she collects her Kesuvah.

R. Yochanan: You understood the Mishnah due to my teaching!

Question (Abaye): Perhaps the Mishnah discusses a place where they do not write Kesuvos, so the Get is in place of the Kesuvah, but where they write Kesuvos, she does not collect without a Kesuvah (for one is believed to say that he paid an obligation that Chachamim enacted)!

Retraction (Abaye): What I said is wrong. If where they write Kesuvos she does not collect without a Kesuvah, a widow from Kidushin would collect only with witnesses of death. His heirs could claim that she was already paid!

Question: Perhaps that is indeed true!

Rejection: If so, it was futile to enact a Kesuvah for widows from Kidushin!

Question (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda): How does Abaye know that a widow from Kidushin receives a Kesuvah?

Suggestion (Mishnah): If a woman was widowed or divorced, whether from Kidushin or Nisu'in, she collects everything (her full Kesuvah).

Rejection: Perhaps that is only when he wrote her a Kesuvah!

Question: If so, this is obvious!

Answer: It teaches unlike R. Eliezer ben Azaryah, who says that an addition (over the minimal Kesuvah) was written only on condition that he will make Nisu'in.

Support: It says, 'she collects everything.' We understand this only if he wrote for her (extra);

If he did not write (extra), she gets 100 or 200 (if she was a widow or virgin when she married him). Why does it say 'everything'?!