I borrowed money from you but I paid you half back.
We would think that Rebbe Yehoshua should agree that he’d be believed here from Pe S’Usser Peh S’Hitter but it can’t be because the end of the Mishna isn’t Rebbe Yehoshua.
The end of the Mishna states that once witnesses testified about the existance of a loan the the borrower can never be believe to exonerate himself from any part of that debt.
He’s not the Peh that verified the existance of the loan.
Rebbe Yehoshua would hold however in this case that he could be believed because we say that: Whoever lends with witnesses doesn’t have to pay back with witnesses.
The Gemora thinks that Rebbe Yehoshua should agree with the case that: a borrower who claims,” money of your father is with me and I paid him back half” should be believed.
The conclusion is that Rebbe Yehoshua can’t agree to this neighter according to the Rabbonen or according to R’ Eliezer Ben Yacov.
The Rabbonen because the nemanus and exemption from a Shevuah is coming the din HaShavus Aveda and not because of peh S’Usser Peh S’Hitter.
Nor can he hold like R’ Eliezer Ben Yacov- who does not simply believe he but requires a Shevua of Modeh B’Mikzas.
Shevous Modeh B’Mikzas
Reason For the Shevouah:
We say that the person either wants to deny everything but is embaressed to lie to the Lender that knows he’s lying and that did for him a favor (Ein Adon Maiz Panim Bifney Baal Chov).
Or he wants to be honest and to pay the whole amount but doesn’t have it all right now and just wants to push off the Lender until later when he will have all the money.
Machlokes Rabbonen and R’ Eliezer Ben Yacov: if a borrower is Maiz Panim to the son of the Lender or not.
R’ Eliezer Ben Yacov-says that the borrower is also embarrassed to be maiz panim to the son so therefore he might be partially denying and thus is required to swear.
According to the Rabbonem the Borrower will only not be Maiz to the actual Lender but to the son he wouldn’t have a problem lying to . For this reason if he admitted part of the loan to the son he must be telling the truth because otherwise he would just have lied.
That’s why when he admits to part of the loan it’s like HaShavas Aveda.
Katav Yadenu but we were forced to sign
The Gemora understands at first that they would only be believed if their coercion was by threat of death but not by threat of financial lost.
This is because a person can’t testify to make himself a Rosha because he’s pusul Adus to himself (he’s a relative).
The Gemora Disputes the claim that threat of death should allow us to believe them and pusul the document.
A witness is only entitled to make one utterance and no more. Therefore this witnesses later qualification that they were forced by fear of death won’t even help.
Machlokes Rabbonen and Rebbe Meir in the senerio of “we were forced to sign”:
The Rabbonen hold here with no verification to the witnesses signature the witnesses are believed to Pusul the document from Peh S’Usser Peh S’Hitter.
However R. Meir holds that they won’t be believed to pusul the Starre because even if they say they were pusul witnesses however we have an Anan Sahadi that if the Lender wrote a Starre then he undoubtably made sure that the witnesses were legitimate. So we see according to R’ Meir that even when the witnesses negate their testimony the Starre and it’s validity can still remain in tact.
Beis Hillel- Praise all Kallot thereby endearing her in the eyes of her new husband.
Beis Shamai- At first said to be truthful and praise only the pretty and important girls. In the end Beis Shamai seemed to agree with Bais Hillel.
Songs of Praise for:
Kallas that are Besulot(virgins).
Rabbonen that earned their Smicha.
Dinim of a Kallah Besulah
Kallal procession for Besula has right of way to a Leviah procession. A kings procession however has right of way over both the Kallah Procession and escorting the Mais.
Mivatlin Talmud Torah for Hotzas HaMaas.
Simoni Proof of Besula in Yehuda.
Rebbe Yehoshua’s Din in the Mishna
Rebbe Yehoshua’s Din that to say to the Yesome “this field was your father’s but I bought it from him”. He’s believed because of “Peh S’Usser Hu HaPeh S’Hitter”.
The Gemora clarifies that this case has to refer to the father’s field only and can’t be that, “this was your field but I bought it from you”. Without the father’s field.
Part of the reason for this is because the din is that there is Machuw S’Lo Bifuniv. Therefore if the owner ran away during the third year of Chazaka he would have been able to be Moche from a distance. It only works with a father’s land where the Yorish was only a child for the third year of Chazaka.