I have a few suggestions about the approach of the Rambam about documents. one is that he meant what he wrote. there is a tendency to explain away what people find that they do not like e.g., kidushei keseph [Marriage by money]. But i think when he wrote [Laws of Witnessing 3:4] all monetary documents are DeRananan he meant it and the question of the Ramban from documents of gitin divorce and kidushin marriage do not apply.[later I saw that rav shach wrote this in laws of witnessing chapter 3 law 4. the fact that one can acquire a field by a document is written in Jeramiah is still only from the words of the scribes.Rav Shach holds there is no essential difference between a document that causes a acquisition like a document of sale of a field [land], and a document that proves that such a sale occurred. it is this difference that Reb Chaim of brisk depends on in order to answer the questions of the Ramban and the Shach in Shulchan Aruch.] i think also in a weaker vein that there is a connection between this decision and the fact that the law in gitin and documents that witness that see the act cause the act to become real, not the witnesses on the document. while on one hand this seems weak because a get is a document without witnesses at all just by the husband writing the words you are allowed to any man, still the act of divorce is not valid until the witnesses see it. However, I still see what might be a connection here. Another suggestion is for Bava Metzia page 13a. I believe the Rambam explains Rav Asi there like the Rabbainu Chanael that the document of kinyan there is what he explains in laws of loans 23:5 a document in which there is a kinyan for from the time they made the kinyan, there was already a lean on all properties of the borrower. This issue was a debate on page 13 where Rav Asi [or Rav Ashi in the version of Rabbainu Chananel] claimed R. Meir holds a document of kinyan is valid immediately and presumably this applies to the sages also. But, Abayee holds the witnesses on the document cause it and the loan (or any other monetary obligation in it) to be valid immediately. (That sounds like R Meir that the witnesses on a divorce document cause it to be valid when it is given to the woman.) {The Rambam applies this to a different argument. Page 13 deals with a document that was lost, the found by a stranger. But the Rambam applies the document of kinyan there to apply to the law of writing a document of a kinyan to a borrower even when the lender is not with him.} The approach of Abayee I think is not the opinion of the Rambam because he seems to decide like RavAsi.---------------------------------------I have a few suggestions about the approach of the רמב’’ם about שטרs. one is that he meant what he wrote. there is a tendency to explain away what people find that they do not like e.g., קידושי כסף. But i think when he wrote [Laws of Witnessing 3:4] all monetary שטרs are דרבנן he meant it, and the question of the רמב''ן from שטרs of גיטין and קידושין do not apply.[] i think also in a weaker vein that there is a connection between this decision and the fact that the law in גיטין and שטרs that witness that see the act cause the act to become real, not the witnesses on the שטר. while on one hand this seems weak because a get is a שטר without witnesses at all just by the husband writing the words you are allowed to any man, still the act of divorce is not valid until the witnesses see it. However, I still see what might be a connection here. Another suggestion is for בבא מציעא י''ג ע''א. I believe the רמב’’ם explains רב אסי there like רבינו חננאל that the שטר of אקנייתא there is what he explains in ה' טוען ונטען פרק ג' הלכה ד' : a שטר in which there is a קניין is valid from the time they made the קניין since there was already a שיעבוד on all קרקעות of the borrower. This issue was a debate on page 13 where רב אסי [or רב אשיi in the version of רבינו חננאל] claimed ר' מאיר holds a שטר of קניין is valid immediately and presumably this applies to the sages also. But, אביי holds the witnesses on the שטר cause it and the loan (or any other monetary obligation in it) to be valid immediately. (That sounds like ר' מאיר that the עדי חתימה כרתי.) {The רמב’’ם applies שטר אקנייתא to a different argument. Page י''ג deals with a שטר that was lost, then found by a stranger. But the רמב’’ם applies the שטר of אקנייתא there to apply to the law of writing a שטר of a התחייבות to a borrower, even when the lender is not with him.} The approach of the רמב’’ם I think is not like אבייbecause he seems to decide like רב אסי.

הרמב"ם כותב בהלכות עדות פרק ג' הלכה ד' שאי אפשר להכריע בדין הכרוך בכסף אלא אם כן יש שני עדים, לא רק את חתימתם על מסמך. אני חושב שהרמב"ם מתכוון שזה יחול על כל דין הכרוך בכסף. אפשר לטעון נגד זה מהגמרא בסנהדרין פרק א' ששואלת כיצד מסמכים מאוחרים יכולים להיות תקפים? האם איננו צריכים את היכולת לחקור על ידי דרישה וחקירה? כיצד נוכל לעשות זאת אלא אם כן יש תאריך מדויק על המסמך? הגמרא עונה שיש תקנה כך שהדלת לא תיסגר בפני אלו המעוניינים ללוות. השואל מאמין שמסמכים תקפים על פי דין התורה. עם זאת, אני סבור שהרמב"ם הבין שהמשיב של הגמרא דוחה הנחה זו, וקובע במקום זאת שכל המסמכים הממוניים הם דרבנן, ושהם נחשבים תקפים לטובת אלו המעוניינים ללוות רק דרבנן. עם זאת, הרב חיים מבריסק כתב שהרמב"ם סבור שמסמכים הגורמים לרכישה תקפים מדין התורה, אך לא מסמכים שהם רק הוכחה לכך שהתבצעה רכישה. אולם רב שך מביא כמה ראיות נגד גישה זו, וכותב שהרמב"ם סבור שאפילו מסמכים ממוניים תקפים מדין התורה, אך לא מסמכים שיש עליהם טוען ונטען. כאשר יש מחלוקת בין הצדדים המעורבים צריך את העדים בפועל-------אחת ההוכחות של רב שך נגד רב חיים היא ששטר הלוואה כשלעצמו כן גורם לרכישה, כמו מסמך מכירת שדה, [וכך נעלמת טענת רב חיים שזה רק מסמך הוכחה שקרתה הלוואה]. זה נכון להרבה ראשונים כולל רש''י והרמב''ן, אולם לא לפי רבינו חננאל שכותב (בבא מציעא י''ג ע''א) על מסמך הרכישה (שטר אקנייתא) שמביא שם רב אסי שהרכישה שם נגרמה על ידי קניין סודר, לא על ידי המסמך. כמו כן, הרשב"א קובע שאפילו לאחר שהמסמך נחתם והוא תקף, עדיין אין חובה לתת או לקבל את ההלוואה עד להמרת הכסף, ולכן לדעתם, מסמך הלוואה יכול להיקרא מסמך הוכחה, ולא מסמך הגורם לרכישה

The Rambam writes in laws of testimony 3:4 that one cannot decide a case involving money unless you have two witnesses, not just their signature on a document. I think the Rambam might mean this to apply to all cases involving money. You might argue against this from the Gemara in Sanhedrin that asks how can late documents be valid? Do not we need the ability to cross-examine? How can we so unless there is an exact date on the document? The Gemara answers there is a decree so that the door will not be shut in front of those who wish to borrow. The questioner believes documents are valid by the law of the Torah. However, I think the Rambam understood that the answerer of the Gemara rejects that assumption, and holds instead that all monetary documents are derabanan, and that they are considered valid for the benefit of those who want to borrow. However, Rav Chaim of Brisk wrote that the Rambam hold documents that cause a acquisition are valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents that are merely proof that an acquisition has been made. Rav Shach brings a few proofs against that approach, and writes that the Rambam holds even monetary documents are also valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents upon which there is disagreement. When there is disagreement among the parties involved you need the actual witnesses.----------------------------------------------The רמב’’ם writes in laws of testimony פרק ג הלכה ד' that one cannot decide a case involving money unless you have two witnesses, not just their signature on a document. I think the רמב’’ם might mean this to apply to all cases involving money. You might argue against this from the גמרא in סנהדרין פרק א' that asks how can late documents be valid? Do not we need the ability to cross-examine דרישה וחקירה ? How can we so unless there is an exact date on the document? The גמרא answers there is a decree so that the door will not be shut in front of those who wish to borrow. The questioner believes documents are valid by the law of the תורה. However, I think the רמב’’ם understood that the answerer of the גמרא rejects that assumption, and holds instead that all monetary documents are דרבנן, and that they are considered valid for the benefit of those who want to borrow. However, רב חיים מבריסק wrote that the רמב’’ם hold documents that cause a acquisition are valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents that are merely proof that an acquisition has been made. רב שך brings a few proofs against that approach, and writes that the רמב’’ם holds even monetary documents are also valid from the law of the Torah, but not documents upon which there is disagreement. When there is disagreement among the parties involved you need the actual witnesses.-----One oof the proofs of Rav Shach against Rav Chaim is that a document of a loan just by itself does cause a acquisition, just like a document of a sale of a field, [and thus the claim of Reb Chaim disappears that it is just a document of proof that a loan happened]. That is true to many Rishonim including Rashi and the Ramban. However, not according to Rabbainu Chananel who writes in Bava Metzia page 13 side a about the document of acquisition that Rav Asi brings there that the acquisition was caused by a Kinyan Sudar, not by the document. Also, the Rashba holds even after the document was signed and is valid, still there is no obligation to make or receive the loan until money has been exchanged and therefore there to their opinion, a document of a loan can be called a document of proof, not a document that causes a acquisition.-----------One of the proofs of רב שך against חייםis that a document of a loan just by itself does cause a acquisition, just like a document of a sale of a field, [and thus the claim of רב חיים disappears that it is just a document of proof that a loan happened]. That is true to many ראשונים including רש''י and the רמב''ן. However, not according to רבינו חננאל who writes in בבא מציעא י''ג ע''א about the document of acquisition that רב אסי brings there that the acquisition was caused by a קניין סודר, not by the document. Also, the רשב''א holds even after the document was signed and is valid, still there is no obligation to make or receive the loan until money has been exchanged, and therefore there to their opinion, a document of a loan can be called a document of proof, not a document that causes a acquisition.

הרמב''ם כתב במשנה תורה שקידושין בכסף הם דרבנן שכן זה נלמד על ידי גזרה שווה. כמה פרשנים טענו שהרמב''ם באמת התכוון שהוא מהתורה. אולם, הרמב''ן בספר המצוות שורש ב' מביא שאלה ותשובה של הרמב''ם על אותה סוגיא. הרמב''ם נשאל ישירות על כך וחוזר על הטענה שקידושי כסף דרבנן. הוא אפילו ממשיך ומסביר שכל מה שנלמד על ידי הי"ג מדות הוא דרבנן אלא אם כן כתוב בגמרא בגלוי שזה ''מן התורה'', כלומר צריך לומר את המילים המדויקות האלה. אפילו אם כתוב ''הלכה למשה מסיני'' זה לא אומר שזה מהתורה. אלא זה אומר שמשה גזר את זה מהתורה

The Rambam wrote in Mishna Torah that marriage by money [e.g., a ring] is derababan (from the scribes), since it is learned by a gezera shava (a principle of learning law from the text, but not statd in the text). Some commentators claimed the Rambam really meant that it is from the Torah. However, the Ramban (Nachmanides) in Sefer ha’Mitzvot Root 2 brings a question and answer of the Rambam about this issue. The Rambam was asked directly about this and reiterates the claim the marriage by money is from the scribes. He even goes on to explain that everything learned by the 13 midot is from the scribes unless it says openly in the gemara that is ''from the Torah.'' that is it has to say those exact words. Even if it says, "It is a Law to Moses from Sinai," that does not mean it is from the Torah. Rather, it means that Moses derived it from the Torah.-----------------------------The רמב’’ם wrote in תורה משנה that marriage by money is דרבנן since it is learned by a גזרה שווה. On the side some commentators claimed the רמב’’ם really meant that it is from the תורה. However, the רמב''ן in ספר המצוות שורש ב' brings a question and answer of the רמב’’ם about this very same issue. The רמב’’ם was asked directly about this and reiterates the claim the קידושי כסף is דרבנן. He even goes on to explain that everything learned by the 13 מדות is דרבנן unless it says openly in the גמרא that is ''from the תורה.'' that is it has to say those exact words. Even if it says הלכה למשה מסיני, that does not mean it is from the תורה. Rather, it means that משה derived it from the תורה.

בבא מציעא דף ז'

בדרך חזרה מחוף הים, עלה בדעתי שיש לי מידה מסוימת של חוסר בהירות לגבי מצבים בהם יש ספק למי שייך שטר; - או לפחות מבחינתי יש צורך לראות את ההבדלים. כי בתחילת בבא מציעא יש לנו מקרה שבו שני אנשים מצאו שטר, ויש דין אחד. ויש מקרה נוסף של אדם ששומר שטר, אבל הוא שכח אם זה היה עבור המלווה או הלווה. אחר כך, יש מקרה שבו המלווה והלווה מחזיקים שטר, והמלווה טוען שהוא לא שולם, והלווה טוען שהוא שילם אותו, ויש ויכוח בעמוד ז' מה הדין? אחר כך, יש מקרה של שטר של הלוואה שנמצא ברחוב, ולא ברור ממי היא נפלה. לשמואל היא מוחזרת למלווה. [ר' יוחנן חולק על כך.] עם זאת, ייתכן שזה תלוי בנסיבות, שכן היה מקרה עם הרא''ש, רבינו אשר בספרד של ימי הביניים, שם הוא שפט את המקרה על סמך ראיות נסיבתיות כפי שהובאו בטור חושן משפט, פרקים 65 ו-66. בכל מקרה, מדוע המקרה של המלווה והלווה המחזיקים בשטר יהיה כה שונה ממקרה של צד שלישי המחזיק בו עבורם ושכח למי הוא שייך

bava metzia page 7

On the way back from the sea shore, it occurred to me that there is a certain amount of lack of clarity about situations where there is doubt who owns a document;- or at least for me there is a need to see the differences. For in the beginning of Bava Metzia we have a case where there are two people that have found a document, and there is one law. And there is another case of a person who is guarding a document but he forgot if it was for the lender or borrower. Then, there is a case of the lender and borrower holding a document, and the lender claims it was not paid, and the borrower claims he paid it, and there is an argument on pg. 7 about what is the law? Then, there is a case of a document of a loan was found in the street, and it is unclear from who it fell. To Shmuel it is given back to the lender. [R. Yochanan disagrees.] However, this might depend on circumstances for there was a case with the Rosh in medieval Spain where he judged the case based on circumstantial evidence as brought in the Tur Chochen Mishpat, chapter 65 and 66. In any case, why would the case of the lender and borrower holding the document be so different from the case of a third party holding it for them and who forgot to whom it belonged?===========================On the way back from the sea shore, it occurred to me that יש לי a certain amount of lack of clarity about situations where there is doubt who owns a שטר;- or at least for me there is a need to see the differences. For in the beginning of בבא מציעא we have a case where there are two people that have found a שטר, and there is one law. And there is another case of a person who is guarding a שטר but he forgot if it was for the lender or borrower. Then, there is a case of the lender and borrower holding a שטר, and the lender claims it was not paid, and the borrower claims he paid it, and there is an argument on pg. 7 about what is the law? Then, there is a case of a שטר of a loan was found in the street, and it is unclear from who it fell. To שמואל it is given back to the lender. [ר' יוחנן disagrees.] However, this might depend on circumstances for there was a case with the רא''ש, רבינו אשר in medieval Spain where he judged the case based on circumstantial evidence as brought in the טור חושן משפט, chapter 65 and 66. In any case, why would the case of the lender and borrower holding the שטר be so different from the case of a third party שלישholding it for them and who forgot to whom it belonged?