A wife who has her document of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses] unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the Rambam, not Raavad Laws of Gitin 12-3.] But if he says it he lost it and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a document of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. The later authorities question, "Why the difference?" Rav Shach writes the the loan needs establishing and so it it a case the same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same mouth that establishes that he never borrowed anything. The divorce however is valid with the husband not saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a document of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here. He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it. [i know this seems way to obvious for it to be a simple mistake. i am just writing it down as it is until hopefully i get some answer ]
___________________________________________________________________________
A wife who has her doc of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses] unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the רמב''ם, not ראב''ד Laws of גירושין ] But if he says it he lost it, and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a שטר of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. אחרונים are puzzled by the difference. רב שך writes the the loan needs establishing, and so it it a case the הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (The same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same person that says that he never borrowed anything.) The divorce however is valid without the husband saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a שטר of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here. He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it.
_________________________________________________________________________________
אשה
שיש לה מסמך גירושין אינה צריכה להעמידו [בשאילת העדים] אלא אם כן הבעל אומר שזויף.
[זו דעת הרמב''ם, לא ראב''ד הלכות גירושין י''ב ה''ג] אבל אם אמר הפסיד, והיא
מצאה, אינו נאמן. אובדן מסמך גירושין אינו שכיח. אבל על שטר של הלוואה שבה הלווה
טוען טענה חלשה דומה, הוא נאמן. אחרונים שואלים מההבדל. רב שך כותב את ההלוואה
צריכה להקים ולכן זה מקרה הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (אותו אדם שקובע שכתב את זה
הוא אותו אדם שאומר שמעולם לא שאל כלום.) הגירושין לעומת זאת תקפים מבלי שהבעל אמר
דבר. השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהפעם היחידה שאתה צריך להקים שטר של הלוואה היא כאשר
גובים אותה לא בנוכחות הלווה. אבל במקרה שלנו הלווה כאן. הוא אומר שהוא כתב את זה
אבל הוא איבד את זה
