In relation to the idea that there might be a connection between Abayee and R. Meir, I would like to mention that there is a hint to this idea in Rav Nachum of the Mir in Bava Mezia page 13. The connection he sees is through the Rif who holds that witnesses cause a document of divorce to be valid by their signature, and he holds with the law of Abaye that witnesses on a document cause the acquisition to the lender immediately. There does seem to be a connection in that the Gemara says that the document is not acquired until it gets into the hands of the lender. However, I was looking to see if perhaps Rav Shach makes such a connection, and did not see it. It occurred to me that the reason is that the Rambam does not decide the law like Abayee, nor that law of R. Meir, and that even if he would, the laws are radically different. The Gemara is saying that Abayee holds the acquisition is caused by the signatures of the witness retroactively from the time they signed. This cannot have a connection with R Meir that holds the witnesses on the divorce (get) make it a valid document, but still the divorce does not happen until it is given into the hands of the woman. [We know that the Rambam decided the law is not like Abaye because he wrote in laws of loans that one can write a document of a loan for a borrower even if the lender is not with him if a kinyan sudar is written in the document, but unless that kinyan happened and was written into the document, that document cannot be written because he might write in in Nisan and not borrow until Tishrei and thus the document would be invalid. Clearly the witnesses on the document do not make it to be acquired immediately to the lender as Abayee holds, and as stated in Bava Mezia pg 13.]-------[We know that the רמב''ם decided the law is not like אביי because he wrote in laws of loans that one can write a שטר of a loan for a borrower even if the lender is not with him if a קניין (סודר) is written in the שטר, but unless that קניין סודר happened and was written into the שטר, that שטר cannot be written because he might write in in מיסן and not borrow until תשרי and thus the שטר would be invalid. Clearly the witnesses on the שטר do not make it to be acquired immediately to the lender as אביי holds, and as stated in בבא מציעא דף י''ג ע''א.-------it also occurred to me to ask this question on the Rambam laws of a lender and a borrower 23 law 5 . What is the situation and what does the document say? For the Rambam writes one can write a document for a borrower even if the lender is not with him but one cannot write for a lender unless the borrower is with him. when is this said with a doc that a kinyan sudar is stated in it. I would like to ask if the loan already happened then there is a obligation even without a kinyan sudar. if no loan happened then why should there be an obligation. if the obligation is because of the kinyan sudar to give money then what does it have any relance to a loan. perhaps the kinyan sudar is the lender accepts on himself by a kinyan sudar to make a loan? This seems the most likely but it is related to a different argument that I recall seeing in ketuboth. I think over there on around page 102 there is a case where one can make himself obligated to give money just with a document but there is another opinion that that is only if the obligation to give money was pre-existing before the document was written and all that is happening is that a person admits that h e already owes money, not that he is accepting new obligation. So does this apply to a kinyan sudar? can one be obligated to give a loan by means of a kinyan sudar. or can one make himself obligated to give money out of the blue by a kinyan sudar? Rav Shach brings an argument if there is a kinyan sudar to make a loan if the lender is obligated to go through with it. The Ri Migash and the Ramban say he is obligated, and the Rashba says no. --------------------------------------it also occurred to me to ask this question on the רמב''ם laws of a lender and a borrower פרק כ''ג הלכה ה' . What is the situation and what does the שטר say? For the רמב''ם writes one can write a שטר for a borrower even if the lender is not with him, but one cannot write for a lender unless the borrower is with him. when is this said with a שטר that a קניין סודר is stated in it. I would like to ask if the loan already happened, then there is a obligation even without a קניין סודר. If no loan happened then why should there be an obligation. If the obligation is because of the קניין סודר to give money then what does it have any relavance to a loan. perhaps the קניין סודר is the lender accepts on himself by a קניין סודר to make a loan? This seems the most likely but it is related to a different argument that I recall seeing in כתובות. I think over there on around page 102 there is a case where one can make himself obligated to give money just with a שטר but there is another opinion that that is only if the obligation to give money was pre-existing before the שטר was written and all that is happening is that a person admits that h e already owes money, not that he is accepting a new obligation. So does this apply to a קניין סודר? Can one be obligated to give a loan by means of a קניין סודר. Or can one make himself obligated to give money out of the blue by a קניין סודר? רב שך brings an argument if there is a קניין סודר to make a loan if the lender is obligated to go through with it. The ר''י מיגש and the רמב''ן say he is obligated, and the רשב''א says no.[Rav Nachum of the Mir asks similar questions about document of acquisition, but here I am asking specifically about what the Rambam might when brining the question about documents of a loan.]