אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint, i.e., words with a bare trace, of malicious speech.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב רוֹב בְּגָזֵל וּמִיעוּט בַּעֲרָיוֹת וְהַכֹּל בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרָע סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרָע: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The majority of people suc-cumb to sin with regard to robbery, and a minority of people succumb to sin with regard to sexual matters, and everyone succumbs to sin with regard to malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that all people sin with regard to malicious speech? The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav was referring to uttering a hint of malicious speech.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה וְתַנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ מִנְהַג מְדִינָה § The mishna teaches, with regard to documents, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with regional custom. The Gemara wonders: And does the first tanna not accept that one should follow the regional custom? It is not reasonable that he would take issue with such a basic concept.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי פָּשׁוּט וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ עֲבֵיד לִי פָּשׁוּט וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר קְפֵידָא נְהִיגִי מְקוּשָּׁר וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ עֲבֵיד לִי מְקוּשָּׁר וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ פָּשׁוּט קְפֵידָא Rav Ashi said in explanation: In a place where the custom is to write an ordinary document, and one said to a scribe: Make an ordinary document for me, and the scribe went and made a tied document for him, it is assumed that he was particular about wanting an ordinary document. Similarly, in a place where the custom is to write a tied document, and one said to a scribe: Make a tied document for me, and the scribe went and made an ordinary document for him, it is assumed that he was particular about wanting a tied document. In both of these cases, the document is considered to have been written without the consent of the one who requested it. If it is a bill of divorce it may not be used, as a bill of divorce must be written with the knowledge and consent of the husband.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּאַתְרָא דִּנְהִיגִי בְּפָשׁוּט וּמְקוּשָּׁר וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ עֲבֵיד לִי פָּשׁוּט וַאֲזַל עֲבַד לֵיהּ מְקוּשָּׁר מָר סָבַר קְפֵידָא וּמָר סָבַר מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ When the tanna’im of the mishna disagree is in a place where the custom is to write both an ordinary document and a tied document, and one said to a scribe: Make an ordinary document for me, and the scribe went and made a tied document for him. In such a case, one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the one requesting the document was particular about wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the one requesting the document was merely indicating his position to the scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ Abaye said: Concerning Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar, they all hold that when one gives instructions to an agent, he is merely indicating his position to him, as opposed to expressing an insistence on certain details.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָא דַּאֲמַרַן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דִּתְנַן Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds this is the case, as we have just said. Rabbi Shimon holds this as well, as we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 48a), as explained by the Gemara there, that the first tanna rules that if a woman appoints an agent to accept her betrothal money and tells him that the man will be giving a golden dinar, or that he will be giving a silver dinar, and he in fact gives the other type of dinar, the betrothal is not valid, as in accepting the wrong dinar the agent did not follow the woman’s instructions exactly.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אִם הִטְעָהּ לְשֶׁבַח הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת But Rabbi Shimon says: If he misled her to her advantage, i.e., he told her he was going to give a silver dinar and gave her a golden dinar, she is betrothed. When the woman told the agent to receive the silver dinar she did not mean to insist that the dinar be silver as opposed to gold, but was only indicating her position, which is that she would have no objection to receiving only a silver dinar.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דִּתְנַן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאָמְרָה הִתְקַבֵּל לִי גִּיטִּי מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וְקִיבְּלוֹ לָהּ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר פָּסוּל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַכְשִׁיר מָר סָבַר קְפֵידָא וּמָר סָבַר מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ: Abaye continues: Rabbi Elazar also holds this, as we learned in a mishna (Gittin 65a): With regard to the woman who, when designating her agent for receipt of her bill of divorce, said to her agent: Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, and he received it for her in another place, the divorce is invalid; and Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that the woman is particular that her instructions be followed, and one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that she was merely indicating her position to the agent, informing him of where she thought her husband would be.
[פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד כּוּ׳] בִּשְׁלָמָא מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים פָּסוּל אִיצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וּבְעָלְמָא כָּשֵׁר הָכָא נָמֵי כָּשֵׁר קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָסוּל אֶלָּא פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד פְּשִׁיטָא § 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?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי לָא נִצְרְכָא דַּאֲפִילּוּ עֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב וְעֵד אֶחָד בְּפֶה 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.
אַמֵּימָר אַכְשַׁר בְּעֵד אֶחָד בִּכְתָב וְעֵד אֶחָד עַל פֶּה אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְאַמֵּימָר וְהָא דְּאַבָּיֵי מַאי אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי כְּלוֹמַר לָא סְבִירָא לִי 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.
אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא Rav Ashi asks: But if you disagree, the difficulty