[פשוט שכתוב בו עד אחד כו']: בשלמא מקושר שכתוב בו שני עדים פסול איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובעלמא כשר הכא נמי כשר קמ"ל דפסול אלא פשוט שכתוב בו עד אחד פשיטא אמר אביי לא נצרכא דאפי' עד אחד בכתב ועד אחד בפה אמימר אכשר בעד אחד בכתב ועד אחד על פה א"ל רב אשי לאמימר והא דאביי מאי א"ל לא שמיע לי כלומר לא סבירא לי אלא קשיא
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to an ordinary document in which the signature of a single witness is written, and a tied document in which the signatures of only two witnesses are written, they are both not valid. The Gemara asks: Granted, it was necessary for the mishna to teach that a tied document in which the signatures of only two witnesses are written is not valid, as it might enter your mind to say that since generally a document is valid with two signatures, here too it is valid; therefore, the mishna teaches us that it is in fact not valid. But why was it necessary to state that an ordinary document in which the signature of a single witness is written is not valid; isn’t this obvious? Abaye said: It is necessary to state this halakha only to teach that even if there is one witness signed on the document in writing and, in addition, one witness testifies orally to the contents of the document, the document is not valid. The Gemara relates: Ameimar deemed a document valid in the case of one witness signed on the document in writing and one witness testifying orally to the contents of the document. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: And what of that statement of Abaye, which deemed such a document invalid? Ameimar said to him: I did not hear of it, as though to say: I do not hold like it; I disagree with Abaye. Rav Ashi asks: But if you disagree, the difficulty
מתניתין הא קא משמע לן דשנים במקושר כעד אחד בפשוט מה התם פסולא דאורייתא אף הכא נמי פסולא דאורייתא תדע דשלחו מתם חברייא לר' ירמיה עד אחד בכתב ועד אחד על פה מהו שיצטרפו אליבא דתנא קמא דרבי יהושע בן קרחה לא תיבעי לך דאפילו שנים בכתב ושנים על פה לא מצטרפי אלא כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר' יהושע בן קרחה שנים בכתב ושנים על פה הוא דמצטרפי אבל עד אחד בכתב ואחד על פה לא מצרפינן או דלמא לא שנא שלח להו אני איני כדיי ששלחתם לי אלא כך דעת תלמידכם נוטה שיצטרפו
with the mishna remains: Why does the mishna state that which is obvious, that a document with a single witness’s signature is not valid? The Gemara answers that the mishna teaches us this: That the case of two witnesses signed on a tied document is similar to the case of one witness signed on an ordinary document: Just as there, in the case of a single witness signed on an ordinary document, the disqualification is by Torah law, so too here, in the case of two witnesses signed on a tied document, the disqualification is by Torah law. Ameimar added: Know that the signature of one witness on a document and the oral testimony of one person about it can be combined into a single testimony, as the colleagues of the academy sent a question from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Rabbi Yirmeya seeking clarification of a baraita. The baraita states that the first tanna holds that the testimony of two witnesses to an event can be combined into a single testimony only if both of them witnessed the event together, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa holds that the testimony can be combined even if they saw the event one after the other. Furthermore, the first tanna holds that their testimony is accepted only if they both testify together. By contrast, Rabbi Natan holds that the testimony of one witness may be accepted today, and when the other witness comes the next day his testimony may be accepted, and the two testimonies may thereby be combined. The dilemma they posed to Rabbi Yirmeya was this: In the case of a loan for which there is one witness in writing, signed on a promissory note, and one other witness who testifies to the loan orally, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that the two of them will combine to testify as two witnesses? The dilemma is clarified: According to the opinion of the first tanna of the baraita, who engages in a dispute with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, you should not raise the dilemma, as according to his opinion there are situations where even two testimonies in writing or two oral testimonies are not combined into a single testimony. All the more so they are not combined when one is written and one is oral. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. The dilemma is: Is it only testimonies of two witnesses in writing or two oral witnesses that are combined into a single testimony, but we do not combine testimony of one witness in writing and one orally? Or perhaps there is no difference between these cases. Rabbi Yirmeya humbly sent back his response to the colleagues of the academy: I am not worthy of being the recipient of the query that you sent to me. But this is how the opinion of your student, i.e., himself, leans: That the testimonies should be combined. This exchange between Rabbi Yirmeya and his questioners indicates that Ameimar’s opinion is accepted.
אמר אביי לא נצרכא - למיתני עד אחד בפשוט פסול אלא היכא דקמסייע ליה עד אחד בעל פה ואתא מתני' לאשמועינן דלא סמכינן אשטרא לטרוף מלקוחות דשני עדים הכתובים בשטר הוא דנפקי ליה לקלא ואינו אלא כמלוה על פה וטרפה מבני חרי כדין המלוה את חבירו בעדים בלא שטר וגם הלוה יכול לומר פרעתי ולא יכול המלוה לטעון ללוה היה לך לקרוע שטר שבידי מכיון שלא נעשה כתיקון חכמים לא חשבו הלוה ולא נזכר לשואלו למלוה: אמימר אכשר בעד אחד בכתב - וכתב ידו מקויים ממקום אחר בעדים ועד אחד נמי בעל פה מסהיד על אותה מלוה ונראה בעיני דלגמרי מכשיר אפילו לטרוף מלקוחות כאילו נחתמו שני עדים דעד אחד בשטר ועד אחד בעל פה מפקי ליה לקלא ונראים הדברים כן דסתם מכשיר לגמרי משמע:
מהו שיצטרפו - דנימא כמאן דחתימי תרוייהו בשטרא דמי: