Gemara Markings Daf Yomi
Bava Metzia 13
You'd baze on the baze about two-thirds of the way down the unload is a new missiona. Matsa Shtarehehev. Let's say the other person is walking along and oh, what's this? He finds a IOU document. "I mjbana krais nakhhasim." If there's written into it a krais nakhhasim. That's literally like a guarantee using assets. Sometimes when the person takes a loan, how does the person lending the money know he's gonna get it back? Well, he leans his real estate to the loan meaning like if he defaults and doesn't pay back the loan then the lender can go and collect from the lovers properties. So person walking along finds what appears to be a lost document. If it's a krais nakhhasim, low yachsir. I squeal and I'm the low yachsir. Well, but I don't give it back and we'll see why and to who because based in the frying man, based on we'll use that to collect that document and even as far as using the a krais, however, comma, and I underlined these four words. "Ain van a krais nakhhasim." If there's no mention of a guarantee written into the document, then yachsir. I squeal and I'm the yachsir. In that case, you could give it back. Now give it back to who? To the mauva. There's no point in giving it back to the lover. Give it back to the mauva. He can collect with it and Shain, based in Nifrai Man, because based in is not going to use that document to collect from the lover's property, should he default, dee vera be meir, we bachs de be meir. The khachamim, the other opinion, to make opinion on the issue, I bachs the khachamim, they say. "Ben kachu, ben kach," either way, even if it doesn't have a krais nakhhasim, then lo yachsir, do not give it back. Maybe they should be based in Nifrai Man, because apparently based in will use it to collect and we'll see what we mean from that. It says a gamar, but my eskina, a little bit of background. What's the case? Who's claiming what? What's the lovers saying? What's the mauva saying? So Ilema, I squiggle and Ilema if you want to say. Kishahai of modas, when the lover says, "Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right. I owe that money." Well, then why in the world comma key? Here's a quote from the Mishnah. Three words. Yishba had four words. Yishba had a krais nakhhasim just because there's a guarantee written on my lo yachsir. Question mark ha'ma, ha'ma, why would you give it back? The guy who apparently owes the money says, "Yeah, well, the money!" So they give it back to the mauva. On the other hand, the Ile, I squiggle and I, in this word, the Ikashai of modas, if the lover is not admitting, whatever he's saying, but it's basically not that he owes the money, he ain't been a krais nakhhasim, even if there's no guarantees written in. On my yachsir, why in the world would you give that back to the mauva? Question mark ha'ma. No, he, de loy, gavi, minish, stop. Okay, fine. So there's no guarantee written in, so he's not going to be able to collect from properties of the lova, but we may hire me, but gavi. He will use it to collect from actual assets that the lover still has, that the lover saying that the whole thing isn't true. Either it's a phony document or he already paid it back. So la ole, there's going to be two main approaches that we'll take in this. The first is here, la ole, kashikai of moda. I double in line, kashikai of moda and I put a Roman numeral 1a in the margin. So the first approach is going to be, it's where the lover says, yes, I agree. I owe the money. The, and you'd give a little bit of an olive about, let's see, two, four, six, eight, nine lines from the bottom. First word, online is kashay, and I double underline, kashay in high of moda and put a big Roman numeral 2 in the margin there. So the first approach we're going to see is going to be where we're explaining it as the lova admits. Yeah, yeah, I owe the money. And the second approach, which we'll see when we get to the bottom of the next download, is where he's not moda. So let's do the first approach. The case of the mission is where the high of, where the lova, the one who owes the money admits, yeah, I owe the money. But ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, what's the reason that when there is a rise in a custom, then you don't give it back. Well, de chai, shina, and I don't know, and chai, shina, and what are we concerned about? Shema kasa wa wa espanisa. Maybe the document was written out and dated in April, the lova artistry. But the actual loan didn't take place until September. Now, the problem with that is, and I dot underlined the next five words, the us of the image of the kukhai shilaikadin. If it has a krais written in, then a krais is basically, if the lova defaults, you go to land assets that he may have had at the time of the loan, but doesn't have any more, and you can actually seize away from them. The us of the mudraf. Now, if the document was written out in April, but the loan actually took place only in September, then any of the property sold in May, June, July, like through the whole summer, shouldn't be susceptible to BCs, but yet they will be. That's the concern. Ask the gamara ehakti one second, if that's the case. Then kolstari to also look common, like any document that comes before the court, may hush lova lahi, we should be concerned that maybe it was written out at one time, but the loan only took place much later. So how are we going to understand that? Well, look at my answers very simply, kolstari, lo rei, the typical document, doesn't have something like literally bad or suspicious or flawed or questionable about it. Honey, these, since they basically were found lost somewhere in like a public area, rei definitely have something suspicious about them, and could be that you would say, listen, if they were a kosher document, like people would have been careful with it, it must be there's something questionable about it. Well, I'll ask that more than a la ha, ditz naan. There's a mission in Bava Basra, and the mission at the end of Bava Basra says as follows, the way they used to write out a document, they'd have a professional like scribes document writers, and you did actually not have to have, according to the mission, both parties there do the right documents enough for the lova, the one who wants to borrow the money to come to the sofa, and the mission there goes for a word and a line. Kaisvin star le laiva affopi shein malva emo, that the sofa gets knock on the door, who is it? It's me, it's Mr. Lova. Mr. Lova says, he's read a document for me that, you know, I owe Steve $1,000, and yet you write out even though Steve's not there, even though the mouth is not there. Now, if that's the case though, le khatri lasset márhe kasvi eenu, how exactly the sofa write it out, ne chus shema kas of lova's benisan, so maybe he's going to date it today's date, what is that? March whatever, March 11th, March 12th, March 13th, and lo lova artichre, but the lova's not going to take place for another six months, in which case, if at the time it comes to pay back that loan, the lova doesn't have money to pay back, but also the image of l'kuche le khatin, it's going to end up being l'kucheis, who had purchased property from me, let's say, in May or June or July, that the lien didn't exist because the loan hadn't even been given, yet they would have their land seized away. Amoravasi, I call him number one. Ravasi's going to have one way of dealing with this. About 12 lines down on Yud Gimmelomidalef, last one in line is a baye, I circled the baye in, called him number two. This is going to be two ways to deal with this. The bottom line is, if this mission, the second spot of Abastra, says that we could write out a document for lova even though the milk is not there, well then, how are you supposed to know when the actual money changed hands? So says Ravasi bestarehaknaa, that we're talking about here, is where the lova agrees to give over the lien on his assets, even if he never takes the loan. Okay, the standard situation is obviously the lova doesn't want to have to pay anything back unless he actually takes the loan. Here, he's actually giving over his assets, whether he takes the loan or not. Daha, Shabid Naevshay, because in that case, the lova is being misshabid himself regardless of whether he borrowed any money in the end or not. Well, ask the Gimmara, Ihakhi, if that's the case, I put a question marking here and the margin goes down till about eight lines. So last words on the line are Alaflamid, one second then. Ihakhi, if what we're talking about is Starihaknaa, that's the exceptional case in Bava Basra, but our Mishnah was talking about a star that's not Haknaa, Ihakhi, Masneezing the katani, is a quote from our Mishnah, it goes for just under a line. Imi ishbihanah, Krayah, ishnah, haasim, lo yachsir, if it has a guarantee written in, you cannot, the finder cannot give it back. Vu Kim, then we establish that as being Kishah, hai, fmota. That's a case where, yeah, the lova says, yeah, that's right, I owe that money. Kamu, mishim, shema kasim, lo yaspin, really love a tishre, and the concern would be that maybe it was written down in April, but the lova actually didn't take place until September. For us, the micha, the kukkushal, kadin, and then you know it, we never know, because maybe if the loan's defaulted on you'll have the kukkushu are being having assets, he's from then that not correctly. Well, one second. Ami lo yachsir. Why should you give it back? Let's take a look at this. Like, what's the concern? Nexi, colon, eis, kuglen, and the word e, if, on the one hand, bistar haqnav, it's one of these star haqnavs, hai shiba lei nafshay, we just said, as star haqnav, like the case of habastra, that the lova's making himself mischupid to pay back, whether he takes the loan or not. On the other hand, eis, kuglen, and this word, eis, bistar, de lo yachnav, like a regular document, leika le michas, there's no concern for that. Why, daha amris, ki leika, milva vahad dei, la kazvinaan. If the malva isn't there along with it, you will not have that written out. So either way, it should be fine. That is a question on kravasi. Well, I'm a la kravasi. kravasi explains that according to him, afal gav, even though, here's a three word phrase, de story, de la vahaknav, that if you have a regular document, not a haqnav document, connector, ki leika, milva vahad dei, la kazvinaan. If the malva's not there, you ain't going to have it written out, which means, like, by definition, it's only going to be if the lova and malva will be written out of its regular document, kamamasnissen. However, the michna, kavan de nafal. Again, this is a document. What happened? It was found by somebody in the shuk. That already looks a little bit suspicious. Kavan de nafal isra lei. Again, there's something suspicious or flawed or potentially problematic about it. The haixinan, and in that case, will be concerned Dilma, ikri vakasa. You never know. Maybe it was just happened to be written out improperly, like, before the loam took place. Normally, we won't be concerned with that. But since there's already, like, questions about this document, maybe we will be concerned about it. Okay, that's all the rivasi approach. Abhayi, who we had circled, is at number two, a second approach. Abhayi says like this. It doesn't make a difference. Adav be kasumav zachan lei, that when the witness is signed on the document, that is what clenches the responsibility to pay it back. Kamakaneshu, vafilushdari de la vakna, even like a regular document. Not one of those, that seems a little bit unusual, but the loam is going to pay back, whether he takes the loan or not. But even just like a regular document, mishum decashale. And this is because it was a little bit challenging. Abhayi was amazed that rivasi was saying, "Well, you never know what could happen." Kavan de Amra be started to love hakda'a, since you're saying in the mishna that the mishna is a case of like a regular document and not a hakma document. Well, kilei se them of abhayadai loi kasvinan, since if the malfa is not there, there's no way a sofa will ever write it out. If that's the case, then you really don't have to be concerned about. Laikalamei, kashtaka vacasav. Like, there's no possibility that it'll just happen to be written. It may just happen to be written. It's not going to happen. I underline the word laikal. We have no concern for that. Ella. Put a triangle on this Ella. This is going to be a question. And then about seven lines later, first word online is low. Third word is Ella. Put a triangle around that Ella. So here's the first question. This is going to be a question on what Abhayi just said. Abhayi said that the signatories, when they sign, that's when the responsibility to pay back is created. Ella hajid. It's not what do you do then with the mission that we'll have a little bit later in Armaserta. I box it off. It goes for almost three lines. Matsu gite na shim. Let's say somebody, our case in our mission was you found a IOU. A whole bunch of other documents that someone could find. Let's say when you found a divorce document, a shikarevatim is an emancipation, freeing the slave. Daitiki is a will of a person who's on his deathbed. I found that document, a mattana, a gift document that a person gives a document, so he's giving a gift to someone else. Shaivirim would be a receipt. And you have those things. What are you supposed to do with it once you found it? Do you give it back? Who do you give it back to? Well, Hareza, behold, lo yachts there, do not give it back. Shemak Suvinhayu, because you never know. Maybe these documents were written out, because they had to be written out by someone at some time, but the actual transaction, which they were speaking about, never actually happened. The nimlakhalam shilayt naam, and the person with them written out, decided actually not to give them, and like you don't know who to give it back to. Okay, that's the end of the tineq source. Well, one second. Vahki, nimlakhalayam, maihave. Well, so what if the person changed their mind? Ha'amra, didn't we say that if you have a document and the Adim signed on it, we had just said eta v'h'asumah of zah'unlai. They'll witness sign on the document. That's what gives it the effectiveness, not whether it was even actual transaction or not. Well, we have to qualify that. Right. When the Adim signed on the document, it gives it effectiveness. When's that? Hanim i lei he'he'cha dikha m'atulayyade. That's when at least the document gets to the hands of the possession, the possession of the person is supposed to get to the possession of. Vahki'cha d'he'cha dulay m'atulayyade. If you had a document written up, even if there's Adim, but it never gets into the possession of the one who's supposed to get into the possession of, lo aminam. There, for sure, we did not say that that would be the case. Ella, I put a triangle on this one, Ella, already, and I also put a number one in the margin and circled it. About nine lines later, last one line is Hashi'an, and I put a number two in the margin and circled it. Now, these number one and two are going to be questions on Abai. We had two approaches that we were dealing with from the beginning. We had Revasi, and we had Abai, and we are going to question now Abai twice. So, here's the first. Ella must eat dikha tani, well, then, let's read back into our Mishnah. Here's a quote from our Mishnah two words, plus a line I put the right angles in. The Mishnah said, "Matsa shtari hai of somebody finds an IOU document, y miyishma nakrais nakrais nakrais nakrais mif written into the document as some sort of guarantee, lo yachtsir, do not give it back." Vu kimna, we established that as being Kshachai of Moda. That's a case where the lo of admits, "Yeah, yeah, yo, the money." Bumishum, and then why not give it back? Shema kasil, though, is when they send the concern being that maybe it was written out in April. Voloi lo vah, tishu, but the loan actually didn't take place until September. Now, let's look that in light of Revasi, in light of Abai. Bish, lemai squiggle, and land the Bishtama, all is well, according to Revasi. Remember, Revasi was the last line of the previous someone who was coming to comment off the Bhavabastra Mishnah, that said you could write a star for the lo vi, even though the lo vah is not there. Bishum, the Revasi dama, who had said, "Bishtariach naysa," that is specifically with the Stariach naysa, where the lo vah is agreeing that he owes, whether he actually gets the money for the loan or not. Muki lo, so he, Revasi, will establish our Mishnah as being Bishtari, de la vahk naysa. In our Mishnah's case, we're just a star that's not. A star could naysa is like a regular document. Ookadamran, like we had said above, on about the 10th line. Elwei squiggle, and on the Ela, biye damaar, a biye who went with the approach that, "Oh no, once the idim sign, that's what clenches the deal," damaar, ida bakasuma, zachunlei, maiikla maimar. Like, since the lo vah is moda, he agrees, "Yeah, yeah, I owe the money," and the date is not a problem, according to a biye, then why not give it back? Question on a biye. Well, here's what a biye would answer you, amalakha biye, and here I put a Roman numeral 1b in the margin. We had assumed up until now that this is where the lo vah agreed, and the reason is because we're hoshesh for some sort of, it was written out in April, and whether the land was only taken, the money was only given for the loan in September. Well, here's the reason, actually, a biye would tell you, musti zen hangotaima de chaiishle piroinu lukhanunya. I dot underlined those three words, "This is the new concern." The new concern is that the loan really was paid back, but there's a scheme going on between the lo vah and lo vah. The document, after it was paid back, will accidentally be dropped in the marketplace, and then it'll be found, and the lo vah will say, "Yeah, yeah, I didn't pay it back," and they'll go back to the lo vah, and the lo vah will say, "Okay, lo vah, I don't pay up," he'll say, "I don't have any money to pay up," and then they'll collect from the lo vah. Now, they shouldn't be collecting any of the lo vah because the money's already paid up, and once they collect from the lo vah, they're going to split it, and that's what we're concerned about. Asks the gomara, ule schmuel, and this is the second question that we're going to have on a biye. According to schmuel, though, d'ammar, this is a question that takes about six lines to develop. According to schmuel, who says, "No, lo vah, lukhanunu lukhanunya," we're not really concerned about that as being a realistic possibility, "My ikalameimar," then, again, we're kind of stuck. What are you going to say, Pshad, is in our mishna. Now, who does schmuel hold like? Is schmuel, now, although schmuel came first, but does he hold like the opinion espoused later by revasi, or the opinion espoused later in abai? In other words, how does schmuel understand the mishna? "Ha nihreis wiggle on the ha nihreis savar la f schmuel holds like revasi d'ammar," who had said. On the bottom of the previous somewhat, when commenting off the mishna from above abasra, bishthari hakna, mukila, well, he'll establish the mishna massnissen, bishthari de la vahkna. "Hello, schmuel una in the word 'elah." Once again, we're kind of pouncing on a biye because 'e savar ka biye,' who had explained our mishna as being 'aide bechasumma zachun, like that when the witness is signed, that's what clunches a deal. 'My ikalameimar,' we're kind of stuck. Oh, well, we're not kind of stuck because schmuel has a drastically different approach to the way he views our mishna. Up until now, we've been insisting that it's where the document was found, and the loa says, "Yeah, yeah, I stole the money." Actually, she says schmuel, mukila massnissen, and we double underline kisha aim hai hai hai have mode. We had a big Roman numeral two in the margin, that the mishna's case is where, no, no, the loa doesn't admit. Well, one second. If the loa doesn't admit this document is found, the loa doesn't admit that he owes the money. I hai hai, if that's the case, kie aim bahana chrasumma yachsir. If there's no guarantees written document, why exactly are you giving it back to the malva? No, he'd delay guvim and mishabdi. True, okay, the malva won't be able to collect from some sort of other lean properties, but even a hai hai mik bagavi, he will be able to collect from the loa's actual assets according to a mayor in our mishna, and the loa's saying that he doesn't know anything. More answers, this is schmuel litame. This is schmuel, according to his other opinions, we have heard him say specifically about Rebi Mayor. Dahmer schmuel underline schmuel. Omer hai, you're Rebi mayor. I'm under mayor. So we interview schmuel, hai schmuel. What would Rebi mayor hold about this? Well, you know what schmuel would tell you? Rebi mayor would say, schar hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai hai. Without a chrias, aim go, but the malva cannot use to collect loa mim mishabdi, not from a schmuel property. The loa mim nae chrias, for that matter, not from anything that the loa has. Almost like a loan document without a chrias is basically worthless. I squeak online below my nae chrias. Well, if it's basically worthless, it's almost like a blank piece of paper. Vukimah akhar shayna gavid can't be used to collect, period, amayak sia, then why are you giving it back? What's the point? Why does anyone need it or want it? And interestingly enough, amarib nasun bar usia. You don't really need it, actually, for any purpose other than as a bottle cap. Lots are al-pizla kisei to wrap it around your bottle of the milva. So that's where the malva get it back, so you can use it as a bottle cap. Well, then the haju little leiva, when you give it back to the leiva, lots of people say kisei shall leiva, so that he'll be able to use this bottle cap, as the malva get is a bottle cap. Well, it kind of makes sense that you don't get back to leiva, kisei leiva, hudamra, it's the love who's saying leiva to our malva. It's the love who's insisting this whole thing is false, so yankin, give him back that document, give him back to the malva. What's the wrong one to do with it? Nothing. He'll use it as a bottle cap. Kama. Amar rebeluzr. I circled rebeluzr. We had schmuel circled about 10 lines from the bottom of you'd give him an olive. We're going to circle rebeluzr here, and let's see, two, four, six lines later. Last term in the line is rebeluzr. All three of them are going to be different approaches. We had schmuel's approach to this rebeluzr. It'd be actually quite similar to schmuel's approach as to what's the case, where they're arguing, where they're not arguing, meaning the mayor and the chamom of the mission that we started this year with. So it says rebeluzr. Makhlokus, I put a diamond around the term makhlokus. Beshhe, a nice squiggle underline word, word Beshhe. The makhlokus in the mission between the mayor and the chamm is, is we're Aynchai of Moda, where the lova is saying, "No, I don't agree that I owe that money." For whatever reason, either the law document is false or it was true, but I paid it back already, but she Aynchai of Moda. De Rabbi Meir Andel and Remeir Zavar, star she Aynchai Krasnachasim, if it doesn't have a Kras written into it, Aynhagavilim Mishabdi, the loimy bin Aynchai'ri. It can't use a collect from anything if the lova is saying that doesn't agree to it. Therefore, it basically becomes like an oral loan and an oral loan, meaning like, "Hey, Bob, can I borrow a hundred dollars?" Yeah, sure. If there's no aid in there, then too bad if the lova doesn't admit that he owes it, the makhlokus can never get it back. The Rabana and the Rabana and the Rabana and the Rabana and Savri, Mi'gva Gavi, they say, "No, it can be collected from." It's basically like an oral loan, but an oral loan that has witnesses to it, and that's where I can be collected from, and that's why the Rabana and Savri, not to get back. Aval, I double-ended on the Aval, Aval, Krasnachai of Moda, if the lova, he admits, "Yeah, yeah, I owe that money. Divraha kul," I don't like that. Divrakul, Yaxir, for sure, you give it back, but it's like she don't live here on Le Canunya, and aren't you maybe concerned that this is all sort of like a ruse. It's a trick, and I am not really concerned for that. That's according to Rab al-Laza, Rabiolchanan, who's the third approach to understanding our Mishnah. He serves Rabiolchanan's name, Rabiolchananamar, the makhlokus. We put a diamond around the makhlokus. Rabiolchanan says, "That makhlokus between Rabimeir and the Khachamim, in the Mishnah that we open this year with, is Krasnachai of Moda." Not like Rab al-Lazaan said, it's where he doesn't admit. No, no, here he admits. The lova says, "Yeah, yeah, I owe the money." Well, then what's the makhlokus between a mayor and a run-on? Rabimeir, who I underlined, saw were, "Start sharing my Khachasim if you have a document, and does not have a Khashritan into it? Mimi-shabdi-hu-de-loi-gavi." Well, you can't collect from the Shubha property. Avalmid-nei-chai-ri-mid-va-gavi. You would be able to collect from Mimi-chai-rin, and the life you'd admit, said, "He owes the money." Virabana, and on the Rabana, Rabana and Savri, they hold Mimi-shabdi-nami-gavi. Not only can the mother collect from Mimi-chai-rin of the lova, but even from Mimi-shabdi-m, he can collect. Like we had said, that, well, where's the Chryosus are written into the document? Well, a lack of a Chryosritan to a document is basically a mistake on behalf of the scribe, and we will be concerned that Avalm-kachayim-chai-ev-mo-de, where the Chai-ev did not agree. Even if he agrees it was written, but he says it was paid off, we're going to be concerned for that. Period. From here to the end of the shear, the Gomorra essentially brings a brice that is a support for a Biochenan, a question on one issue to rebel-us-er, and a question on two issues or a two of the double-two of the two schmool. Here we go. Tanya-kava-sidre-bi-o-genan-vets-yuf-sidre-bel-us-er-bakhada-vets-yuf-sidre-mool-be-tarti. So we have the following brice, which we're going to see right now, goes for just over five lines, let's box it off, and here's the brice. Matsu-star-clave, same case as we started out the mission of today's shear with. Somebody's walking along and, "Oh, look at this. Here's a IOU document." Well, it depends. What do you do with it depends on whether there's a chrys written in or not. If I underline these four words, yes, but I have a chrys in a Hasim, and directly one line below, I underline those four words, ain't my chrys in a Hasim. So let's see what happens. If the document has a chrys in a Hasim written in, Af-opi-shish-nam-ma-idim, even if both the lova and the mauva agree, "Yeah, yeah, give it back to the mauva." Lo-yachs, you're lo-la-za-va-la-za. Uh, no, we're not going to give it back, because why? Apparently, we are, yes, hosh-e-for-kin-union. We're, uh, concerned that maybe there's a little bit of a scheme going on between the two of them. Kama, aim in a chrys in a Hasim, then it depends. If there's no guarantees written in, biz-a-n-b-a, biz-mans-cha-lave-a-ma-idim-a, the loa says, "Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right, I owe that money." Yeah, so the mauva, give it back to the lender. B, aim a lova-my-diff, the lova doesn't agree, then lo-yachs-er, don't give it back, lo-la-za-va-la-za, not to either of them, diva-re-re-b-may-er. Sha'iah-re-b-may-er, I box-re-b-may-er's name now, Re-b-may-er-im-er, a starry, and I think it's written in a hove, a star-hove, shish-men-a-chrys-n-hossim. If you have a document and there is a guarantee written in, gova, that document can be used to be collected, even in a hossim-a-shubadim. Kama-us-he-n-a-chrys-n-hossim. If there's no guarantee written in, gova, the collection, can be made by the mauva, from the lova, only from the hossim-a-ne-chrys-n-hire. The kahama-we-box, the kahama-n, the kahama-m-se, echad-za-va, echad-za. Oh, no, either one can be used to collect, gova, min-a-hossim-a-shubadim, even from properties that had been subsequently sold by the lova. That is the end of the snake source. Now, let's analyze how is this, it's basically a direct support for Rabbiokhanan, because it's saying like word for what he said. How is it a single Tuftha to rebel-uzr? So let's underline these words now. Tuftha's rebel-uzr bekhata. And on Yud-da-la-man-al-af, on the third line, let's underline Tuftha to Shmul-ba-tarti. So let's go over the first one. How is this a single Tuftha to rebel-uzr? Well, and now we're going to analyze this pretty carefully, because it's kind of going to look like test, like it's actually double Tuftha and rebel-uzr. But what do rebel-uzr say? Dhammar. Firstly, Lorebi mayor. If you would ask rebel-uzr the Amor, what would rebel-uzr mayor the Tana hold, the Ruby mayor? Star-shamed by Christ Nahasim. If you have a document that has no guarantees written in it, ain't a gova min-a-hossim-a-shubadim? You can't collect from any assets, okay? That's the first thing that we know rebel-uzr holds. Vikkha Amor, and here's the second thing I call the number two, rebel-uzr would also say, "Bain Lorebi mayor, bain Lorebannan, lo haishinan." We're not concerned that in some sort of trick going on over here, some sort of ploy, we're not Hoshr's Lekinonia. Okay, now what does the Brice say about those two points? Ubrice katani, about the first point the rebel-uzr said, what did the Brice say, the one we just quoted four, five, six lines ago, that a star-shamed by Christ Nahasim, a document that it does not have guarantees written into it. I mean, Ms. Shabti, who did the legavi? Well, you can't collect from Ms. Shubadim, but you can, yes, that do. You could be Hami bin-a-hair, bin-a-hair, bin-a-hair, bin-a-hair, bin-a-hair, bin-a-hair. So that's not at all like what rebel-uzr said. And secondly, the katani, there's also what the above Brice has said. This is the second issue. Ben Lorebi mayor, bain Lorebannan, haishinan lekinonia. Apparently, according to both of them, we're cautious for that, because what did we say up above? Here's a quote, right angles. "Ahfapu-shish-nam-ayd, mivin, if both of them all they'll all agree, don't give it back, loyachs-loyachs-loyachs-loyachs-a-loyachs-a-t, either one." Now, that certainly sounds alma-hashinan lekinonia. Okay, that definitely is a refutation of rebel-uzr, but it seems like it's a double refutation on two points as he refuted. So the Gamora asks this, "Fahah-hani, tarti-hu." That's two ways that the Brice refuted the rebel-uzr approach, and says the Gamora true. It's two different results that would come from that, but it's all based on the same issue. Hadda-hu, it's really one d'hadd-tah-am, who has got one reason. What's the reason? Demi-shum-de-kah-am-a-re-balluzr. Since rebel-uzr said the Mahlokus-bain-shri-ev-mari-de, he meant tart-sar-he. Since rebel-uzr had tried to explain that the disagreement between remire and the cham is when the lover does not agree, that's what you have to say like that. Let's see the rashi. The top rashi on your dollar-man-alef, umishani-we-ansu-kah-de-hu, d'hadd-tah-mah-hu. Tama-kah-d, it's one underlying reason his kikul-a-re-biy-la-zr-la-laimar-esh-dan to say both of those things. What's the underlying reason? Demi-shum-de-kah-am-a-re-since he explains the Mahlokus-bamish-l-biy-open-the-shri-ev-mari-de-is-where-the-lo-vid-doesn't-agree-huz-kah-laim-ar. He's forced to say, He said that our Brice actually is a double Tufthid to somebody else, that's somebody else's schmul, Tufthid to schmul, but Tarte. So what are the two ways it's a schmul? Chaddai double underline the word chadda kerebi el lazar. The way he established the mission is a case where the lova doesn't agree. The chadda, and secondly, why this is the Tufthid to schmul, I double in the word chadda, dama or schmul, what does schmul himself say? Matsu star haknaa, the schok yachsir le baileim, that if you find one of these star haknaas, in the marketplace, you would actually give it back to the mauve in this case. Now, apparently then, le chi sheenant, le pyron, and are we concerned that maybe it was already paid up? We're not concerned about that, comma connector. You know why the Tufthid would be there? Tufthid to kattani haknaa? Well, what does it say over here? And here's a one-line quote from our tine exsore, so put the right angles in. Af al-pishishnaem, even if both agree, lo yachsir, lo lo lazar, we're not going to go back to either of them. Now, they both agreed, why not? Connector Alma, it seems pretty clear that what's the only thing to be concerned about, like she'll appear on the mate who was paid off. And this is some sort of scheme between the mauve and leiva that they're going to go collect from the lakukheis and then split it to Koshikein. And if that's the case that all the more so hakha here, de lo yachsir le pyron, if the lova is not even midden, then certainly we should be Koshu said it was paid off. Like, we should be concerned that, like, perhaps the lova's claim that he repaid the loan is actually true. Period. Adkad.