Inference: Here it connotes that we do not say Migo against a Chazakah, and according to Rabanan, we say.

Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (5b) asked this and did not resolve it, regarding one who claimed a loan after the time [it is due], and [the borrower] said "I paid you within the time."

Explanation: Even the one who is stringent is stringent only about these;

Rava himself holds that even for these, he is not obligated to be Moser Nefesh in private, in Avodah Zarah (54a). There is no difference between these [Aveiros] and others;

In public, for all of them one must [submit to] be killed and not transgress.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The argument is when the borrower agrees that he wrote it (i.e. authorized them to write the document);

R. Meir holds that they are not believed. Since the borrower validated it, we no longer need the witnesses. The document is not validated through them;

Rabanan hold that [the lender] must validate it.

Question #1 (Ri): If so, they should argue without witnesses, about the borrower himself, since their reasons depend on the borrower;

Also, in Bava Basra (154b), it connotes that they argue about the borrower, for R. Yochanan said "I say that if one admits that he wrote a document, all agree that [the lender] need not validate it.

The Gemara asks that they argue about this! [R. Meir says that] they are not believed to disqualify it.

[R. Yochanan] said that witnesses have power to disqualify a document, but he (the borrower or seller) cannot!

Question #2: He should have said that they argue about Rav Huna's law!

Answer (R. Tam and Ri): The Gemara means that R. Meir's reason is like Rav Huna;

Just like Rav Huna says that we do not say Migo for the borrower to disqualify a document, R. Meir says that witnesses, even though they are stronger, cannot disqualify a document through a Migo.

Question: Why isn't he believed through a Migo? If he wanted, he could have said that it is forged!

Answer #1: Perhaps he fears to say that it is forged, lest they contradict him. Therefore, there is no Migo.

Answer #2: Elsewhere, Rashi explained that it is because mid'Oraisa, it does not need not Kiyum, for witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony was investigated [and accepted] in Beis Din;

Rabanan obligated Kiyum when he claims that it was forged. Regarding other claims, e.g. it was paid, they did not obligate Kiyum. The Ri agreed.

Suggestion: He is not believed through a Migo to say that it was paid, for had he paid, why does the lender still have the document?

Rejection: Also when he claims that it is Emanah (he trusted the lender to hold it before the loan was given), we conclude below regarding Rav's teaching that he is not believed, and there this reason (why does the lender still have the document) does not apply.

Question: Perhaps he did not say "the Halachah follows R. Meir" because in Bava Basra (154b), some switch the opinions of R. Meir and Rabanan!

Answer: He could have said "the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel", who holds explicitly in Bava Metzi'a (7a) that if [the borrower] agrees that he wrote it, [the lender] need not validate it.

Question: He could hold even like Rabanan! Witnesses are different, for they have power to weaken a document, according to R. Yochanan!

Answer: Rav Nachman holds that it is unreasonable to distinguish.

Question: Perhaps Rav Huna discusses Moda'ah and Emanah. Below, even Rav Nachman agrees about them!

Answer: Rav Huna said Stam [that when the borrower admits, Kiyum is not needed]. He did not distinguish [why the borrower claims to be exempt].

Question: Why didn't he say that really, the witnesses say so, like Rav Huna taught?

Answer: He does not want to establish [Rav's teaching] unlike Rabanan, who say that witnesses have power to weaken a document.

Question: Why did Rav need to teach both of these?

Answer: (He taught only one of them.) One of them was inferred from the other.

Question: He should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could pardon him, for one who sells a loan document and later pardoned it, it is pardoned (below 85b)!

Answer #1: This is not a Migo, for perhaps he does not want to pardon and forfeit his debt. Now that he says that it is Amanah, he does not lose at all, for the borrower is not a thief. (He knows that he owes him, so he will pay.)

Implied question: In Bava Metzi'a (20b), we say such a Migo, regarding one who found a receipt [for payment of a Kesuvah]. When the woman admits [that she was paid], we return it to her husband;

Citation (20b) Inference: This shows that Shmuel (who says that one who sells a loan document can pardon it) is correct.

Answer: Perhaps there we rely on any Migo, for there is a receipt [that proves that she was paid].

Answer #2: If we would say that selling a loan document is only mid'Rabanan, this is fine;

We could say that only one who sold a loan document, which is only mid'Rabanan, can pardon, but one who owes his fellow man, which is a Torah debt, he cannot pardon.

Support #1: In Bava Basra (147b), it says that Shmuel agrees that if one gave Matanas Shechiv me'Ra (a gift of a dying person), he cannot pardon;

We conclude "Matanas Shechiv me'Ra is mid'Oraisa, so he cannot pardon. If it were only mid'Rabanan, why can't he pardon?!"

Inference: For mid'Oraisa matters, he cannot pardon.

Rebuttal: There, surely if Matanas Shechiv me'Ra is mid'Oraisa, an heir cannot pardon. Why should this heir (of the giver) be stronger than this heir (the recipient of the gift)?!

Support #2 (for Answer #2): The following shows that if Reuven owes Shimon, and Shimon owes Levi, Shimon cannot pardon [Reuven's debt];

We say below (81b) that if Reuven owed his brother Shimon 100 Zuz, and Shimon died and left a Shomeres Yavam, [Reuven] cannot say "since I [will do Yibum and] inherit, I will keep" [the money. After Yibum, the lien for her Kesuvah is only on Shimon's property.]

Rather, we take from him, and he buys land and eats the Peros.

We establish this like R. Noson. This is like when Reuven owes Shimon, and Shimon owes Levi. She has a lien on all her husband's property (including what Reuven owed to him) to pay her Kesuvah;

If he can pardon, why does he buy land? He should pardon to himself, for he inherits, and he can pardon!

Rebuttal: We can say that there is different, for he inherits only due to her, so he cannot uproot her rights.

Answer #3: Some say that only one who sells a loan document can pardon, for the seller's [right to collect the] debt came first. However, if Reuven owes Shimon [and Shimon owes Levi], and Levi's [right to collect the] debt came before Shimon's, Shimon cannot pardon;

Likewise, a Shomeres Yavam, [we discuss when] her loan (i.e. Kesuvah) document preceded her husband's [right to collect the] debt [from his brother].

Question: Still, he (one who says that the loan document he holds is Amanah, and this harms his creditor) should be believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could burn [the loan document], like it says in Sanhedrin (31b)!

Answer #1: Here, the document was established in Beis Din. We say there that once the document was established in Beis Din, we do not say that if he wanted, he could burn it.

Answer #2: The case is, the document is in the hands of a third party.

Inference: This connotes that the Halachah follows R. Noson. In Gitin (37a) we explained this.

Implied question: Why do we write a document for the borrower, even though the lender is not there?

Answer: We do so in order to hand it over to the borrower, but not to the lender.

Explanation: The word "Aven" connotes that from the beginning it was Sheker;

"V'Al Tashken b'Ohalecha Avlah" is a paid document, for now it is fraudulent, but initially it was true.

Explanation: Through this delay, they forget and delay it another time [not for the sake of the scribe's fee], therefore it is not called Avlah.

The one who said that a paid document [is Avlah], he should have been careful.

Suggestion: Because he delays it for the scribe's fee, it is called Avlah.

Rejection: He was not negligent! (There is no reason to call this Avlah.)

Assertion: You are forced to say that this is when their signatures are not available elsewhere.

Proof #1: If their signatures were available elsewhere, this is obvious! The Gemara asked like this above.

Proof #2: Mar bar Rav Ashi said that they are not believed, because it was not supposed to be written;

If their signatures were available elsewhere, even if it were permitted to be written, obviously they are not believed!

Question: Why aren't they believed through a Migo? Rav Nachman himself holds above that we say a Migo to disqualify a document!

He said that when [lenders] come for judgment, he tells them to validate their documents first;

[If not, the borrower] is believed to say that it is paid, Migo he could have said that it is forged;

All the more so, witnesses have power to weaken a document, like it says in Bava Basra (154a)!

Answer (Ri): This is the reason for [not believing witnesses to say that it was] a Moda'a. Since they agree that the document was written and handed over k'Halachah, verbal testimony does not weaken the document, even through a Migo.

Distinction: This is unlike [when witnesses say that] they were coerced or minors, in our Mishnah. There, they do not admit that it was a Kosher document at all/ Rather, they contradict it. Therefore, they are believed through a Migo;

It is not relevant to say that verbal [claims] cannot weaken a document, for they do not admit that it was a document.

Also Amanah, it seems that the reason they are not believed according to Rav Nachman to weaken the document is because they agree that it was written properly with the borrower's consent;

The only one who explains the reason for Amanah because it was forbidden to write it is Mar bar Rav Ashi. According to Rav Nachman, Amanah and Moda'ah are the same.

Implied question: Rav Nachman holds that he is believed to say that it was paid, Migo he could have said that it was forged!

Answer: Also there, he does not weaken the document at all. Therefore, he is believed through a Migo. Rav Nachman properly holds like Rabanan of R. Meir.

Implied question: A Beraisa in Bava Basra (154b) says that he is not believed to say that it is an Amanah document. We wanted to establish it like R. Meir!

Answer: Rav Nachman establishes it according to everyone.

Explanation #1: The Tenai comes for something else, and not to uproot the document. It is a mere addition, in which they explain how their testimony was;

Until now, the document stands. It is not uprooted if the Tenai will be fulfilled. Therefore, this is not weakening the document.

Suggested Explanation #2: The Tenai is a totally different matter. It does not pertain to the first testimony, just like if they testified that it was paid, they are believed.

Rejection: If so, what was the question below "if so, even two and two!", since Tenai is a totally different matter?

Two are believed even when their signatures are available elsewhere! However, I can say that one is not believed, just like he (one) is not believed to say that it was paid!

Therefore, it seems like I explained.

Explanation: The case of Pesulei Edus that was taught is not when they say that they are still Pasul. If it was, why aren't they believed?

Rather, they were Pesulim, and now they agree that they are Kesherim.

Question: In any case, why aren't they believed through a Migo. If they wanted, they could say that they are still Pesulim!

Similarly, whenever two sets of witnesses contradict each other, why don't we believe the latter, through a Migo. If they wanted, they could disqualify the first set through saying that they stole!

Answer (Ri): Migo does not apply to two witnesses, for one does not know what the other is thinking.

Question: The Beraisa in Bava Basra (154b) is difficult for Rav Sheshes!

It says that if he says that it was Amanah, if there are witnesses, i.e. that it is an Amanah document, we follow the witnesses. If not, we follow the document.

Inference: Even though the document does not need Kiyum, like it says "we follow the document", for the borrower admits that he wrote it, like it says there...

Even so, if there are witnesses, we follow the witnesses, and we do not say that contradiction is the beginning of Hazamah [and it is only in front of the witnesses]!

Answer: He says "this [Beraisa here] teaches that", but that [Beraisa in Bava Basra] disagrees.