Question: Why can not every Meisis then present the same argument and get off scott-free?

Answer: It is only the snake, who was not commanded not to incite, and who was not being punished for that, but for causing Adam and Chavah to sin, who would have been absolved had he been allowed to present that argument; Any other Meisis, on the other hand, who is commanded not to incite, will have transgressed the moment he does.

Question: The Gemara in 'Get Pashut' rules that 'a Shechiv-M'ra who admits that he owes somebody money does need to appoint the people present witnesses, because 'One does not tend to pull someone's leg ('Meshateh Ani bach') when on the verge of death'. Why do we not suspect there (like we say here) 'that he only admitted in order not to make his sons look wealthy'?

Answer: Because it speaks there where the creditor claimed from him and he admitted, in which case the current argument is not applicable, only that of 'Meshateh Ani bach'.

Implied Question: But did we not say earlier that we do not claim 'Meshateh Ani bach' on behalf of the defendant?

Answer: We do however, claim it on behalf of his heirs, as is implied there (that if not for the fact that a person on the verge of death does not tend to pull someone's leg, we would indeed claim 'Meshateh Ani bach' on their behalf.

Ruling: We do however, claim that 'he only admitted in order not to make his sons look wealthy' on the defendant's behalf, just like Rav Nachman did in the episode cited in our Sugya.

Clarification: Even though he did not actually say 'write!' - because S'tam Kinyan stands to be written, as Rashi explains.

Ruling: He does however, have the right to retract (from having it documentated) ...

Proof: Like we say in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah 'Acquire this field on behalf of so-and-so and write a Sh'tar, he may retract from the Sh'tar but not from the field'.

Explanation (Part 1): When the Gemara says in Perek Af-al-Pi that if someone says to witnesses 'write and sign, and give it to him', if he made a Kinyan, he does not need to consult him further (about writing a Sh'tar) - it was unnecessary to have said 'Write!', since the same would have applied had he not said it.

Explanation (Part 2): And the reason the Gemara inserts 'Write!' is on account of the Seifa, to teach us that if he did not make a Kinyan, then even if already said 'Write!', he needs to consult him before writing the Sh'tar.

Explanation (Part 3): And when the Gemara says that if he made a Kinyan he does need to consult, it does not mean that he is unable to retract from the Sh'tar, only we assume that, as long as he has not done so, he wants them to go ahead and write it.

Proof: From the fact that there where he did not make a Kinyan, it is obvious that he is permitted to retract, yet according to one opinion he does not need to consult him before writing the Sh'tar.

Question (Part 1): Now that he is not able to retract from the field, why can he retract from the Sh'tar. 'Mah Nafshach'; if it is talking about a gift, what difference does the Sh'tar make?

Question (Part 2): Whereas if it talking about a document of sale, and the Sh'tar is in order to enable the purchaser to claim from Meshubadim (should his creditor claim the field from him), have we not learned in 'Chezkas ha'Batim' that if someone sells a field with witnesses (but without a Sh'tar), the purchaser has the right to claim from Meshubadim (see Tosfos ha'Rosh)?

Answer: Either way, a person does not like having Sh'taros against him, since Sh'taros have a Kol (publicize the transaction), with the result that his property goes down in value, since people think that they are documents of debt?

Implied Question: Why (seeing as the owner of the property is able to retract from the Sh'tar) does the Gemara in 'ha'Gozel Basra say in a case where someone burns his friend's Sh'tar, that if there are witnesses who know what was written in it, then one writes a fresh Sh'tar? Why can the owner of the property not retract from it?

Answer: It is different there, since the recipient already had a Sh'tar.

Ruling: The Rivan in Shevu'os, citing Rashi (see Mesores ha'Shas) and Rabeinu Gershom, rules like Mar bar Rav Ashi regarding 'Meipach Shevu'ah' and 'Odisa' ('Odisa' here, and 'Meipach Shevu'ah' in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim, where he holds 'Mahafchinan [we make the claimant swear] even by a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa).

Ruling: Rav Hai too, rules like him by Meipach Shevu'ah.

Proof: And he proves this from the Gemara there, which in a case of someone who produces a Sh'tar against his friend, who promptly counters 'Swear that I have not paid!', rules that he is obligated to swear (see Mahasha).

Refutation: There is no proof from there however, since the Shevu'ah there is not a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa.

Ruling: Whereas 'Seider Tana'im and Amora'im' writes that in the whole of Shas the Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi except for 'Meipach Shevu'ah' and 'Odisa'

Ruling: And the Behag too rules that the Halachah is not like him regarding Meipach Shevu'ah.

Ruling: Both the Aruch and the Teshuvas ha'Ge'onim maintain that we do not switch a Shevu'ah d'Oraysa ...

Ruling: Whereas Rabeinu Chananel rules the Halachah is like Mar bar Rav Ashi everywhere except for 'Meipach Shevu'ah' and 'Chivri' (in Perek Beheimah ha'Maksheh'.