Ketuboth page 18

I was walking back from the sea shore and it occurred to me a better explanation of the Mishna in Ketuboth page 18 and the argument went between Rav Nachman and Mar Bar Rav ashi. the whole length of reasoning I might forget so let me just write down my conclusion. I was thinking about the argument between all the Rishonim against the Ramban. To all other Rishonm two against two is a doubt from the words of the scribes, a safek derabanan. To the Ramban, it is a safek from the Torah, a doubt from the Torah. Therefore, I think this cannot have any relation to the argument between Rav Nachman and Mar Bar Rav Ashi. {Rav Nachman says two witnesses that say the signatures on a doc are their but it was adoc of confidence or protest are not believed. Mar Bar Rav Ashi said they are not believed about a doc of confidence but are believed about a doc of protest.}. In that argument, one might have been tempted to explain the two that testify the signatures on the doc are theirs, are believed about their signatures, but not the absence of a loan. It might have seemed to be two against two, i.e., two verbally against two on the doc. But it began to occur to me that that cannot make any sense. If believe them about their signature why not believe them about the absence of a loan. (Even if you say the law is we can divide their testimony, but here there is no reason to do so as in usual cases of dividing the testimony.) Rather we must look at what the Rambam says about document of confidence. The witnesses that sign on it are false witnesses. Therefore, what we have here is not two against two. It is not that you believe them about one thing but not about the other. Rather, when Rav Nachman says you do not believe them that means hundred percent. You do not believe them at all about anything, not about their signatures nor about the loan. As far as Rav Nachman is concerned, they are false witnesses by admitted they signed on a doc of confidence or a doc of protest. [Therefore, the doc is neither confirmed nor denied. It is not invalid. But it also has not been confirmed.] But the law is like Mar Bar Rav Ashi that you do not believe them if they say it was a doc of confidence, but you do believe them if they say it was a doc of protest.------------------------------------------I was walking back from the sea shore and it occurred to me a better explanation of the משנה in כתובות י''ח ע''ב and the argument went between רב נחמן and מר בר רב אשי. the whole length of reasoning I might forget, so let me just write down my conclusion. I was thinking about the argument between all the ראשונים against the Ramban. To all other ,ראשונים two against two is a doubt from the words of the scribes, a ספק דרבנן. To theרמב''ן , it is a ספק דאורייתא, a doubt from the Torah. Therefore, I think this cannot have any relation to the argument between רב נחמן and מר בר רב אשי. {רב נחמן says two witnesses that say the signatures on a שטר are their, but it was aשטר of confidence אמנה or protest מודעה are not believed. מר בר רב אשי said they are not believed about a שטר of אמנה but are believed about a שטר of מודעה.}. In that argument, one might have been tempted to explain the two that testify the signatures on the שטר are theirs, are believed about their signatures, but not the absence of a loan. It might have seemed to be two against two, i.e., two verbally against two on the שטר. But it began to occur to me that that cannot make any sense. If believe them about their signature, why not believe them about the absence of a loan. (Even if you say the law is we can divide their testimony, but here there is no reason to do so as in usual cases of dividing the testimony.) Rather we must look at what the רמב’’ם says about שטר of אמנה. The witnesses that sign on it are false witnesses. Therefore, what we have here is not two against two. It is not that you believe them about one thing, but not about the other. Rather, when רב נחמן says you do not believe them that means hundred percent. You do not believe them at all about anything, not about their signatures nor about the loan. As far as רב נחמן is concerned, they are false witnesses by admitted they signed on a שטר of confidence or a שטר of protest. [Therefore, the שטר is neither confirmed nor denied. It is not invalid. But it also has not been confirmed.] But the law is like מר בר רב אשי that you do not believe them if they say it was a שטר of confidence, but you do believe them if they say it was a שטר of protest.