Refuted Explanation: Some commentaries explain that we are only concerned about the loss of the purchasers where there are witnesses who saw the handing over, who know that the Sh'tar is authntic.

Refutation: But this is not correct

Reason: Because if so, there is a big difference between Abaye and Rava, where the only witneses are those that have signed on the Sh'tar.

Explanation #1: This implies that it is not a Chidush because each witness has two Mazimin.

Question: So what if they do, we have a principle that 'Two are like a hundred!' (Shevu'os, 42a)?

Explanation #2: What it therefore means is that two testified against one - where the two Nizumin do not assist one another, where the one does not know about the other ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Inasmuch as either each one saw from a different window, or where the litigant admitted to each one independently.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And the same two witnesses are Mazim both of them, in the same way as if two different witnesses would have testified against each one.

Implied Question: And it only said that they are the same ones ...

Answer: Because we can extrapolate from it that the two Muzamin do not assist one another.

Introduction to Question: Regarding the case in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanherin, Daf 26b) of a Sh'tar Matanah on which two Gazlanim signed, where Rav Papa bar Shmuel thought to declare it Kasher, since they had not yet proclaimed them Pasul ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): The Gemara concludes that a Gazlan d'Oraysa does not require a proclamation, and we are not concerned about the loss of the recipient of the gift ...

Question: Despite the fact that 'the loss of the purchasers is La'av Davka, and we are equally concerned about the loss of a Mekabel Matanah ...

Answer: We nevertheless declare Pasul that gift, since it speaks where witnesses had already testified against them in Bis-Din before they signed on the Sh'tar Matanah ...

Answer #2: Or where that Sh'tar Matanah did not appear until after it was known to Beis-Din that they were Pasul.

Question: Even though the Sh'tar is dated earlier ...

Answer: We have to suspect that perhaps their P'sul pre-dated the Sh'tar, as Tosfos explained earlier (Daf 72b, DH mi'Ka'an').

Question: The case in Perek Zeh Borer (Ibid., Daf 27a) however where one said 'He stole in front of me ... ') ...

Answer: Regarding Dinei Nefashos it is obvious that one declares him Pasul retroactively.

Question #1: In that case the Gemara could have presented the difference (between the two explanation in Rava) with regard to Dinei Nefashos, or with regard to forbidding a woman on her husband ...

Question #2: Or with regard to Gitin, Kidushin or Eidus ha'Chodesh, since according to the reason of 'Chidush', We will not declare all these Pasul retroactively, whereas according to the reason of 'P'seida di'Lekuchos', we will?

Answer: Only the Gemara pushes to find differences with reference to money matters exclusively.

Question: The Gemara could just as well have asked according to the opinion that holds 'mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba hu Nifsal' (Rava), seeing as 'If there is no Geneivah, there is no Tevichah or Mechirah either' ...

Question (cont.): Consequently, when they are Muzam on the Tevichah, why are they obligated to pay?

Answer: Because he holds 'Hakchashah is the beginning of Hazamah'.

Clarification: Because, since they testified simultaneously, one cannot say that they were Pasul when they testified on the Shechitah, even though they become Pasul retroactively.

Reason: Because, since they testified simultaneously, they were Kasher when they testified on the Shechitah, seeing as they were able to retract on the testimony of Geneivah, since it was Toch K'dei Dibur.

Introduction to Question: On what Rashi explains that we do not have the text 've'Huzmu be'Bas Achas', since regarding Hazamah we do not care whether it was simultaneous or one after the other, provided they become Huzam on the Shechitah first ...

Question: The Ri queries the advantage of the fact that the Hazamah on the Tevichah took place first?

Refuted Answer: Because if it because if the Hazamah on the Geneivah took place first, they would automatically be contradicted on the Tevichah ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): And we are currently answering according to Abaye, who maintains later that 'Hakchashah is not the beginning of Hazamah ...

Refutation: In that case, even when they are first Muzam on the Tevichah, they are contradicted on the Geneivah, seeing as they testified on the two simultaneously, and 'Toch K'dei Dibur' is considered like Dibur' ...

Source: As the Gemara will say shortly according to Rebbi Yossi ...

Source: Consequently, when they testified simultaneously and became Muzam on the Tevichah, the entire testimony becomes negated, since 'Toch K'ddei Dibur is like Dibur'?

Reinstating Answer: If we want to justify this answer according to Abaye later, who holds 'Hakchashah La'av Yechilas Hazamah hi', we will have to reinsert the text 've'Huzmu beBas Achas' ...

Reinstating Answer (cont.): Though this is not really necessary, because the Gemara is only concerned with justifying Abaye according to what he holds 'Lemafre'a hu NIfsal, and it does this according to the opinion of the Maksheh, who holds 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah hi' (even though Abaye doesn't), as Tosfos explained (in the previous Dibur).

Precedent: Similarly, later, when the Gemara explains the Mishnah according to Abaye, who says 'Hakchashah La'av Techilas Hazamah', establishing it where they were first Muzam on the Tevichah, it doesn't bother to explain it according to what Abaye holds 'Lemafre'a hu Nifsal' ...

Precedent (cont.): Because if it did, it would have had to establish it when they testified on both simultaneously.

Conclusion: Only such is the way of the Gemara, to tak the trouble to answer exclusively the question that is posed to it.

Abaye (in Zevachim): In the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 30a and 30b) in reply to the question as to what the Din will be if someone says 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah u'Shelamim', Abaye answers 'In such a case, Rebbi Meir definitely agrees (with Rebbi Yossi)'.

Abaye's Reason: And Rebbi Meir's reason, according to him, is, as the Gemara explains in 'Keitzad Ma'arimin' (Temurah, Daf 26a & 26b), because it is as if he specifically said that first the one should take effect and then the other

Rebbi Meir's Reason: And that in turn, is because he ought to have said 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim', but instead, he said 'Temuras Olah u'Shelamim'.

Rava (in Zevachim): Rava disagrees with him however, and says that the Machlokes extends to that case as well ..

Reason: Because according to Rebbi Meir, a person thinks that if both can take effect, then they should; and if not, then the first one should take effect,

Clarification: According to what the Gemara currently thinks in Rebbi Yossi - that 'Toch K'dei Dibur La'av ke'Dibur Dami', it seems that if he intentionally says today that 'It should be a Temuras Shelamim' and tomorrow, that 'It should a Temuras Olah', his declaration does not take effect ...

Reason: And it is akin to 'Devarim she'ba'Lev'.

Clarification (cont.): And it is specifically Toch K'dei Dibur' that is effective ...

Clarification (concl.): Because to explain his words (without retracting) Toch K'dei Dibur is effective.

Clarification: Now the Toch K'dei of Temurah is speaking about the longer 'Toch K'dei Dibur' ...

Clarification (cont.): And since he holds of the shorter Shi'ur but not of the longer one, it seems that the longer one is not effective at all, even with regard to explaining his (initial) words ...

Reason: Since it is akin to saying today 'Temuras Olah, and tomorow 'Temuras Shelamim', which is Devarim she'ba'Lev (as Tosfos explained in the previous Dibur).

Clarification of Mishnah: And the explanation of the Mishnah is as follows: 'If that was what he initially intended' - i.e. that he said within the shorter Toch K'dei Dibur, which is considered as if he intended that initially, 'then his words take effect' ...

Clarification of Mishnah (cont.): Even if he did not actually have that in mind, since it is Toch K'dei Dibur.

Clarification of Mishnah (concl.): But 'If he changed his mind' - i.e. he said it within the longer Toch K'dei Dibur, which is equivalent to changing one's mind, 'Then it is a Temuras Olah' - even if he initially had both of them in mind.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos, Daf 27b [See there Tosfos DH 've'ha'Nosein']) that 'Somone who greets his Rebbe or who responds to his greeting, causes the Shechinah to depart from Yisrael ...

Answer: That speaks where he greets him in the same manner as he greets a friend - where he says to him 'Shalom Alecha', without adding the word 'Rebbi'.

Implied Question: And when it says in Perk Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 89a) 'Since when does an Eved greet his master?' ...

Answer: An Eved is different, since he is in awe of his master, and under no circumstances is he permitted he greet him.

Question: Like whom does Rav Acha mi'Difti hold, when in the firsr Perek of Makos (Daf 6a) and in Perek Shevu'as ha'Eidus (Shevu'os, Daf 32a & 32b) he defines Toch K'dei Dibur as 'K'dei She'ilas Talmid le'Rav'?

Question (cont.): Since the Rabanan do not hold of 'K'dei Dibur' at all - even a short one, and Rebbi Yossi too, concedes that 'ke'Talmid le'Rav is not ke'Dibur'?

Answer: He holds like the Beraisa (in Nazir, Daf 21a 21b) 'Mi she'Amar Hareini Nazir ve'Shama Chaveiro ve'Amar 'va'Ani' .

Halachah: And the Halachah is that 'Toch K'dei Dibur is considered Dibur'. And indeed the Gemara in the last Perek of Nedarim (Daf 87a) Paskens that 'Toch K'dei Dibur is like Dibur - with the four exceptions of 'Megadef (someone who curses Hash-m, Oveid Avodah Zarah, Mekadesh and Magaresh ...

Halachah (cont.): And even the Shi'ur of She'ilas Talmid le'Rav, like Resh Lakish (in Nazir, 20b) and Rav Acha in Makos (Daf 6a) and in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus' (Shevu'os, Daf 32a).

Reason: And as for the reason for the Shi'ur of 'K'dei She'ilas Talmid le'Rav', Rabeinu Tam explains that it is because if a person is testifying or busy with a business transaction, and his friend or his Rebbe greets him, he is duty-bound to interrupt and to return his greeting ...

Source (Gemara): As the Gemara says in B'rachos (Daf 6b) 'Someone who does not return his friend's greeting is called a Gazlan,

Source (Pasuk): As the Pasuk says (in Yeshayah, 3) 'Gezeilas he'Ani be'Vateichem".

Conclusion: Which is why the Chachamim instituted that this (time-lag) should not be considered a break.

Support: An this is evident in Nazi r (Daf 20b) where it says 'If so, you leave no space for a Talmid).

Question: In the last Perek of Nedarim (Daf 87a) however, this reason does not go down well, where, with regard to the Mitzvah of Keri'ah, the Gemara says that - 'If he thought that a relative had died, but he only died after he tore Keri'ah, then - if he died within K'dei Dibur, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah, and if not, he has not'.

Question (cont.): How will the this Shi'ur apply there?

Answer: It seems that the Chachamim were lenient with regard to Keri'ah.

Initial Explanation: The Ri explains that this entire Sugya goes according to the Gemara's current contention that Rava's inference is from the Reisha.

Authentic Explanation: But in actual fact, we conclude that it is from the Seifa, in which case Abaye never made this statement, and it is the B'nei Yeshivah who said it according to Abaye, inasmuch as they thought thar Rava's inference is from the Reisha.

Authentic Explanation (cont.): But according to the Maskana, Abaye said that the Reisha speaks about three groups - As Rava explained, without Meipach and Hazamah, and the Seifa, and the Seifa, about two groups with Meipach and Hazamah.

Implied Question: And it is La'av Davka that Abaye mentioned 'Afchinhu' first, because then they would be contradicted ...

Answer #1: But they were first Mazim them and then they inverted the cases.

Answer #1: Alternatively, they first inverted the cases and were then Mazim them Toch K'dei Dibur.

Explanation #1: The Ri explains that Abaye establishes it by three groups as is evident later, when it says 'Abaye will say to you that all very well the Reisha can only be speaking with three groups, since it says ''she'Harei ha'Rav Omer kein', and it speaks where the middle pair inverted the cases and were then Mazim the first ones ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Because then the middle pair are not contradicted at all, and one cannot extrapolate from there that 'Hakchashah is the beginning of Hazamah' since they must are obligated to pay.

Implied Question: And when the Tana says that 'They are found to be Zom'min, the middle ones are Chayav to pay the value of the eye to the Eved, by the same token they are Chayav to pay the value of the eye to the first ones

Reason: Since they rendered them Chayav to pay the value of the eye to the master, on account of "Ka'asher Zamam" ...

Answer: And it is only because the first ones are not mentioned in the Beraisa that he does specifically mention it.

Refutation: However, we do not actually need the last witnesses to switch the cases of of the middle ones' testimony ...

Reason: Because, since they become Zom'min, the testimony of the first ones automatically stands.

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that Abaye establishes the Reisha by two pairs of witnesses just like the Seifa.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And to justify (the statement) 'she'Harei ha'Rav Omer kein', one can explain that granted, initially, when we did not know that they inverted the cases, the question 'she'Harei ha'Rav Omer kein' was indeed a problem ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): But now that we do know that they did, the master is pleased with their testimony, seeing as they only obligate him to pay for the tooth, because he knows that witnesses would come to obligate him to pay for the eye .

Conclusion: That being so, one can establish the entire Sugya according to the Maskana, that Rava only cited the Reisha in order to extrapolate from it that the Seifa speaks by three pairs of witnesses, like the Seifa.

Conclusion (cont.): And Abaye answered him that one can also learn the other way round - that since the Seifa speaks by two pairs of witnesses, so does the Reisha, and you have no proof for the Seifa (to the contrary) from the Reisha, since it is possible to establish the entire Beraisa by two pairs.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says later 'Granted the Reisha can only be speaking by three pairs' ...

Answer: What it means is that even if you cannot explain 'she'Harei ha'Rav Omer kein', withut establishing it by three pairs, nevertheless the Seifa speaks by two pairs. (Continued on the following Daf).