Cases of whether one should focus on the pronunciation of a word as compared to its written version, for any number of cases where both are presented, when they are not the same. The dispute upholds both, truth be told. One example: How many walls are required for a kosher sukkah - based on the written/read word in the Torah. Also, which wins? It seems that pronunciation always does, so the Gemara explores if that is accurate.

On why the mishnah needs to include damages and half-damages in its list (about how many judges for this kind of case). Also, a dispute about whether the number of judges really needs to be odd. Also, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's position that 5 judges are needed, not 3! Perhaps 3 judges on the side of the verdict? Which means 5 to make the majority... (except that is rejected too, because how can it possibly always mean that X number of judges agree to the final verdict?). Plus, more on the word for God in His attribute of justice and that for judges (Elokim/elohim). But why do the sages disagree with Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's 5? The difference between how the Torah is written and how it is read, for select terms.

Beginning Sanhedrin! With an introduction to the court system, as initially instituted, in some measure, in the Torah. And the first mishnah -- this time, all of the mishnah of the chapter, printed together at its beginning. First and foremost, determining the number of judges needed for each case of damages, in "monetary law" (dini mamanot) - 3, and then for capital cases (dini nefashot) - 23. Plus, how do we know the number of judges for the courts? That is, which verses from the Torah?). Also, the Gemara opens with an evaluation as to why the mishnah specifies certain of the basic monetary issues, and not include them in a more general umbrella presentation of monetary issues.

In the case of one who wrote an IOU document in his own handwriting, without witnesses, then the collection can only take place from unencumbered property -- even if that same IOU was later ratified in court. A bill of divorce is brought in the attempt to argue that such a document should function as a complete IOU and be able to collect from property that has a lien on it. Though the Gemara highlights the differences in the cases instead of accepting the argument. Also, in the case of needing the collect (and pay back) the guarantor... to avoid being strangled. With praise going to one sage, even though the halakhic decision is not according to him -- because the process of halakhic thinking is part of what is needed.

Returning to the person on his deathbed -- what about liability incurred by a person in these circumstances? What are the implications of his status for how the funds/property can be collected? Note that the witness factor is significantly diminished because of that deathbed status. Also, a new mishnah! (the last mishnah of the tractate) One who lends via a document can collect from "encumbered property" - that which has a lien on it. And again, what is the role of the guarantor? Plus, the value of studying these laws of property, in accord with Torah requirements. Also, the Gemara's analysis of when the loan can be paid back from encumbered property and when not -- it's a machloket! Between Ullah and Rabbah with regard to which approach is the Torah law. Plus, the exceptions made are done so out of concern for, on the one hand, the customers, and on the other, the borrowers.

More on the guarantor -- distinguishing between a regular one and a "kablan guarantor." So, here, the halakhic concept becomes a halakhic category, with variations that have ramifications. How, then, does one collect money from a guarantor. Plus, a guarantor for a loan from a creditor who is not Jewish. Plus, a guarantor for a wife's ketubah funds. Also, a concrete case of using a ketubah guarantor as a means of finding the funds for the young couple (remarried) -- but such shenanigans!

More on people who have the same name -- and a need for a scribe to write an IOU -- with a third approach to making the deal work, including, if both parties are present at the scribe. Also, a new mishnah! When one of many (or even 2) IOUs has been paid back - and the holder of them doesn't know which of them is paid back -- the mishnah says to act stringently, to ensure nobody would be paying back twice. Also, another new mishnah! On the role of a guarantor - and how one might cheat via the guarantor, or cheat him. But what if the original signatory has the funds to pay? Plus, the supporting story of Benjamin and the cup in leaving the halls of Egypt (for a different kind of guarantor), including a biblical prooftext.

On the ways to write documents, especially those used to effect transfer -- including if the document is written in a different place from that actual transfer of property. Plus, the scribe's responsibility not only with regard to the writing of the words, but also to the writing of it. Also, a new mishnah! A case of two brothers: 1 wealthy, 1 poor. Their father leaves them property that was used to make a profit. Plus, the case of two parties with the same name -- for example, Yosef bar Shimon.... Also, an incident about a document attesting to a lender borrowing funds, but there's no identifying name for the creditor. Which would cause a whole host of problems if the document itself were treated as valid (which it just might be, if there were witnesses).

Everyone agrees that if the date of an IOU is the date of a Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the given assumption is that the document was post-dated, with some occasions that - despite this apparent exceptions that are the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yossi. Also, other cases of bills being dated to some future date, after the funds for that bill becoming available -- presumably for financial flexibility.

When an apparently previous owner claims he is the current owner, against the apparent current owner. What kind of proof would be necessary? All of which leads into a case and a story - to summarize the issues and the legal decision: an outstanding loan that is contested. Also, a new mishnah! The case of one who has paid a portion of his debt, what do you do with the IOU notes? How much scope for confusion - or fraud - and when do you need the courts?