I realized on the way back from the sea that there is a basic argument between Rabainu Izhak of Tosphot and the Rambam about how to explain the subject of two witnesses that say their signature on a doc of a loan was not valid as opposed to when they say the signatures were valid but there never was any loan. The reason I thought my approach in the previous blog entry was best was that I was thinking along the lines of the Rambam. However, I understand now that Rav Shach and Reb aaron kotler are explaining the subject according to Tosphot. However, I want to add that I have a few questions on the approach of Tosphot even though I assume with more thought I can find an answer. But the questions are these. two against two is a doubt either from the torah or from the sages. So, what can that have any relationship with what Rav Nachman said you do not believe the witnesses when they say the doc was fictious. If it is a doubt then it is a doubt. Or if you want to say we divide what they say then that should be what is said. There seems to be no relation between what Rav nachman said and the case of two against two. Also Tosphot brings a proof that it is a case of two against two from a later statement of the Gemara where the witnesses on the doc died and two other witnesses come and testify that the original signatures were not forged however the doc itself was fictitious. [In this was Tosphot shows that the two on the doc and the two that testify about the doc are considered two against two. The problem I see in this is that two other witnesses that testify about the doc are in fact two separate witnesses from the two on the doc. But to say that the two witnesses on the doc and those same witnesses come in later into court to testify about their signatures are considered two against two is too much of a stretch.----------------------------------------------I realized on the way back from the sea that there is a basic argument betweenרבינו יצחק of תוספות and the רמב''ם about how to explain the subject of two witnesses that say their signature on a שטר of a loan was not valid as opposed to when they say the signatures were valid but there never was any loan. The reason I thought my approach in the previous blog entry was best was that I was thinking along the lines of the רמב''ם. However, I understand now that רב שך and ר' אהרן קוטלר are explaining the subject according to תוספות. However, I want to add that I have a few questions on the approach of תוספות even though I assume with more thought I can find an answer. But the questions are these. two against two is a doubt either from the תורה or from the חכמים. So, what can that have any relationship with what ר' נחמן said you do not believe the witnesses when they say the שטר was fictious. If it is a doubt then it is a doubt. Or if you want to say we divide what they say, then that should be what is said. There seems to be no relation between what ר' נחמן said and the case of two against two. Also תוספות brings a proof that it is a case of two against two from a later statement of the גמרא where the witnesses on the שטר died, and two other witnesses come and testify that the original signatures were not forged, however the שטר itself was fictitious. [In this WAY תוספות shows that the two on the שטר and the two that testify about the שטר are considered two against two. The problem I see in this is that two other witnesses that testify about the שטר are in fact two separate witnesses from the two on the שטר. But to say that the two witnesses on the שטר and those same witnesses come in later into court to testify about their signatures are considered two against two is too much of a stretch.