And we place the money by its presumptive owner - ואוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה
Summary:
According to (תוספות first interpretation of) רש"י, a תפיסה לאחר שנולד הספק, where there is a טענת ברי is מהני. By תקפו כהן the תפיסה is not מהני since it is a טענת שמא. [By משכיר ושוכר we can assume that the משכיר was מודה.]
According to the alternate interpretation (and the רשב"א) a תפיסה לאחר שנולד הספק is ineffective.
Rather, ר"נ said, we place the two against, etc. - אלא אמר רב נחמן אוקי תרי להדי כולי
Summary:
The rule, that by שני כתי עדים המכחישות זו את זו they can each באה בפני עצמה ומעידה, is limited to situations where the contradictory testimonies allow for a חזקת כשרות. However if the testimony does not allow for a חזקת כשרות (or does not impinge on the חזקת כשרות) then they cannot testify.
Alternately they can only testify if they openly contradict the opposing עדים, not if their contradiction is merely assumed (by a אנן סהדי, etc.)
And we place the field in the presumptive possession of בר שטיא, etc. - ואוקי ארעא בחזקת בר שטיא
Summary:
In a ספק concerning קרקע we award it to the מרא קמא; in a ספק concerning מטלטלין we award it to the current מוחזק.
A חזקה דהשתא is not valid when the status of the item in question fluctuates.
Perhaps he indeed forged the signatures - דלמא זיופא זייף
Summary:
The rule prohibiting קיום השטר from שטרות which are in the possession of the בעל השטר is only if the קיום is done by comparison; but not if it is accomplishes through טביעת עין.
And ר"י says even if he does not recall it independently - ורבי יוחנן אומר אף על פי שאין זוכרה מעצמו
Summary:
If an עד cannot remember the testimony even after reading the document stating the testimony, there are various views in which manner he may testify that he knows this testimony from the document:
A. He may testify, only if two עדים sign on the document; i.e. if it is a valid שטר.
B. He may testify only if it is written מדעת המתחייב; regardless if only one עד signs on the שטר.
C. He may testify in any case; if it is written כתיקון שטרות.
If the עד remembers the testimony after reading the document; he may testify in בי"ד; or alternately he may send this document to בי"ד (according to תוספות).However רש"י disagrees and prohibits sending any testimony בכתב.
