Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 14, 2016 | 讬状讘 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 18

The gemara rejects Abaye’s support of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that was derived from the mishna in Gitin that one cannot claim that a maaseh beit din was already paid – even if the person doesn’t provide documentation. 聽His support was based on the fact that an engaged woman whose husband dies can demand her ketuba even if there was no ketuba written. 聽In the end this cannot be proven to be a fact so the gemara assumes Abaye must have provided proof from a different direction and proceeds to explain from where. 聽The mishna says if one finds a get or will or other such docuemnts, he cannot return it because maybe the person who was giving it changed his mind and decided not to give it. 聽This implies that if he says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed. 聽This contradicts a mishna in Gittin that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed as maybe soemone else with the same name wants to use the get and is claiming it as his own. 聽Raba brings an answer and then the gemara narrows a bit the focus of his answer. 聽Then Rabbi Zeira asks a similar question from the mishna in Gittin but on a braita, not on our mishna. 聽He resolves it in the same way as Raba. 聽However it is unclear about whether he also narrows the focus of his answer or not. 聽2 further answers are brought to resolve the contradiction between the braita and the mishna in Gittin.

诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 讜诪讗转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

then what is meant by the wording: She collects all that she is entitled to? What she has is only the main sum of the marriage contract of one hundred or two hundred dinars that she can collect. Clearly, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote a marriage contract, and it does not indicate that a betrothed widow receives payment of her marriage contract.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

And if one would say that the marriage contract of a betrothed woman is instead derived from that which Rav 岣yya bar Ami teaches, that is also difficult. He teaches: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor may he become ritually impure at her funeral if she dies, if he is a priest; and similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him if he dies, and she may not become ritually impure at his funeral. If she dies, he does not inherit her property. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract.

讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

If it is derived from here that a betrothed woman receives payment of a marriage contract, this is not proof, as perhaps this too is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her. And if you would say that if it is referring to a case where he wrote her a marriage contract, what is the purpose of stating this? One could answer that while this clause is obvious, it was necessary for Rav 岣yya bar Ami to state that conversely, if she dies, he does not inherit her property.

讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讙讟 讛讬讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讟讜 讙讟 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

Rather, Abaye retracted his objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 proof from the mishna, not because of the case of a widow from betrothal, but due to an indication from within the mishna itself. Because if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, where a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce is effectively her marriage contract, and therefore she can use her bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract, that does not make sense; is it written in a bill of divorce that the husband is liable to pay the wife the one hundred or two hundred dinars she is owed? In fact, this is not written in a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪讙讘讗 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 驻专注转讬

And even if you would say that since the Sages instituted that she use the bill of divorce to collect her marriage contract, it is considered as though the liability of the husband to pay one hundred or two hundred dinars is written in it, and it would still be problematic to say that the bill of divorce is sufficient for her to collect payment. The husband should still be able to claim that he is exempt, and say: I already paid it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬 驻专注转讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬拽专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇谉 诇讗 砖讘拽转谉 讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 讘讬讛

And if you would say that if the husband would state such a claim, we would say to him: If, in fact, you paid her, you should have torn up the bill of divorce, and he could respond and say to us: She did not allow me to tear it up, because she said: I need the bill of divorce to remarry, by using it as proof that I am divorced.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬拽专注讬讛 讜诪讻转讘 讗讙讘讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚谞谉 讚拽专注谞讜讛讜 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬讟讗 驻住讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讙讘讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讙讘讬

And if you would say that we would then say to him: You should have torn up the bill of divorce and written on the back of it: The reason that we tore up this bill of divorce is not because it is an invalid bill of divorce, but rather it is in order that the woman not collect payment of her marriage contract again with it, this suggestion is not always applicable. Does everyone who collects payment of a marriage contract collect payment in court, where it is possible to write such a legal statement? Therefore, the suggestion that a bill of divorce serves as a marriage contract remains untenable. This leads to the conclusion that the basis for collecting payment of a marriage contract where such a document does not exist must be a court enactment, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇讗 诇转谞谉

MISHNA: If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills, or deeds of a gift, or receipts, he may not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞诪诇讱 砖诇讗 诇转谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

GEMARA: It can be inferred from the mishna that the only reason that these documents are not returned is that there is a concern that the person obligated by the document reconsidered with regard to them and decided not to deliver them. But if the writer says: Give this found document to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him. And since the mishna places no limitation on this, presumably this is the halakha even if a long time passed since it was lost, and there is no concern that perhaps the document belongs to someone else with the same name.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Gittin 27a): With regard to an agent who was bringing a bill of divorce to a woman, and it was lost by him, if he found it immediately, the bill of divorce is still valid. If not, then it is not valid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife鈥檚 name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转

Rabba says: This is not difficult, because there, in tractate Gittin, the mishna is stated with regard to a place where caravans passing through are common, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. By contrast, the mishna here is stated with regard to a place where caravans passing through are uncommon, so there is no such concern.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转

The Gemara adds: And even in a place where caravans passing through are common, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, and this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, for example, Yosef ben Shimon in that one city.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with this same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this:

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

We are concerned about the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. And Rav 岣sda said to Rabba about this issue: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in a mishna (20a): One must return any court enactment, i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. Since the bill of divorce was found in the court, it is in this category and must be returned.

讜讛讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻讬 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 驻砖讬讟 专讘讛 讚讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara concludes its proof that even in a place where passing caravans are common, the concern that the bill of divorce belongs to another couple applies only if it is known that there is another couple in the same locale with the same names as those written in the bill of divorce: And the court of Rav Huna is comparable to a place where passing caravans are common, as many people from different places pass through for judgment. And yet, Rabba resolved that if one finds a bill of divorce there, he should return it. Evidently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in the city, then there is indeed a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.

注讘讚 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讻讬转谞讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in a flax house in the city of Pumbedita, in accordance with his halakha, and he instructed that the bill of divorce should be returned.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻讬转谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讻讬讞讬谉 砖讬讬专转讗

There is disagreement as to the exact details of the case. There are those who say that this occurred in the place where people sell flax, and it is specifically because it was not established that two couples with the same names lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written that Rabba ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned despite the fact that passing caravans are common there.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜 讻讬转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 砖讬讬专讜转

And there are those who say that it occurred in the place where people soak flax, and he ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned even though it was established that there were two couples with the same names living in the city where the bill of divorce was written, as passing caravans are uncommon there.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛

Similarly, Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita, and he resolves the contradiction employing the same distinction. We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who was bringing a bill of divorce to a woman and he lost it, if he found it immediately, the bill of divorce is still valid, but if not, it is not valid. And Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between this mishna and a baraita that states: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, in a case when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it to the wife, the finder must return it to the wife; but if the husband does not admit to this, he may return it neither to this one, the husband, nor to that one, the wife.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

In any event, the baraita teaches that in a case when the husband admits that he wrote it, the finder must return it to the wife, and this is the halakha even if it was found after a long time.

讜诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转

And Rabbi Zeira answers that here, in the case of the mishna, the bill of divorce is valid only if it is found immediately, as it is a case where it is found in a place where passing caravans are common. And there, in the baraita, the bill of divorce can be returned even if it was found after a long time, as it is a case where it is found in a place where passing caravans are uncommon.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 谞讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 谞讛讚专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛

The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. There are those who say, with regard to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that the finder should not return the bill of divorce in a place where passing caravans are common: And this applies specifically in a case where it is established that there are two couples in the town with the same names. In that case, Rabbi Zeira holds that the bill of divorce should not be returned, and this is the same ruling as that of Rabba. And there are those who say: In a place where passing caravans are common, even if it is not established that there are two couples with the same names, the bill of divorce should not be returned, and Rabbi Zeira disagrees with the ruling of Rabba.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabba does not state his explanation in accordance with that of Rabbi Zeira and raise a contradiction from the baraita, as he holds that a mishna serves as a stronger basis for raising a difficulty than a baraita, as the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language; but what is the reason that Rabbi Zeira does not state his explanation in accordance with that of Rabba and raise a contradiction from the Mishna?

讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽讗 转谞讬 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have said to you: Does the mishna actually teach that if the one who wrote the document says: Give it to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him, and that this is the halakha even if a long time passed since it was lost? This was only an inference from the mishna. Perhaps the mishna merely means to indicate that if the writer says: Give it to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him, but actually, this is to be understood as we maintain in the mishna in Gittin, that this halakha applies only if the document was found immediately. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira posed his question from the baraita.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: According to the one who says that according to the opinion of Rabbi Zeira a document may not be returned in a place where passing caravans are common, and this is the halakha even if it was not established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in town, and he disagrees with Rabba, with regard to what do Rabbi Zeira and Rabba disagree? What is the foundation of their dispute?

专讘讛 住讘专 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: Rabba maintains his opinion based on the mishna (20a) that teaches: One must return any court enactment. He understands that we are dealing with a document that was found in court, and a court is equivalent to a place where passing caravans are common. And therefore, he maintains that it is specifically in a place where it is established that there are two people with the same name that the finder should not return the document to its presumed owner; but in a place where it is not established that there are two people with the same name, he should return it.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讞讝讬专 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 讚讗砖转讻讞 讗讘专讗讬

And Rabbi Zeira, who disagrees with Rabba, could have said to you: Does the mishna teach that one must return any court enactment that was found in court? It teaches that one must return any court enactment, without specifying the location where the court enactment was found, and it is actually referring to a case where the documents were found outside the court. If it was found inside the court, it should not be returned. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira was not convinced by Rabba鈥檚 proof.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞转诪谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Yirmeya states an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here and the baraita, on the one hand, and the mishna in Gittin on the other: A found bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of a person named Yosef ben Shimon other than this one, in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转专诪讬 砖诪讗 讻砖诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讻注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that one returns the bill of divorce? Since it clearly belongs to him, there is no question that it must be returned to him. The Gemara answers that it is necessary lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps it happened that another bill of divorce was written in which the names of the husband and the wife are identical to the names of the husband and wife of the second bill of divorce, and the names of the witnesses on that bill of divorce are identical to the names of the witnesses on this bill of divorce, when in fact they are different witnesses. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转

Rav Ashi stated another resolution to the contradiction: The bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the person claiming to have lost it provides a clear-cut distinguishing mark, e.g., he says: There is a hole in the bill of divorce next to such and such a letter.

讜讚讜拽讗 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗讘诇 谞拽讘 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi permits one to return such a bill of divorce specifically when the one claiming to have lost it says that the hole is next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark. But if he said only that it had a hole without mentioning its precise location, one should not return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi is uncertain whether a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of distinguishing marks by Torah law or whether it is by rabbinic law. Therefore, in the case of a bill of divorce, he holds that one may rely only on a clear-cut distinguishing mark, as everyone agrees that a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark by Torah law.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar 岣na

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 18

诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 讜诪讗转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

then what is meant by the wording: She collects all that she is entitled to? What she has is only the main sum of the marriage contract of one hundred or two hundred dinars that she can collect. Clearly, the mishna is referring to a case where the husband wrote a marriage contract, and it does not indicate that a betrothed widow receives payment of her marriage contract.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

And if one would say that the marriage contract of a betrothed woman is instead derived from that which Rav 岣yya bar Ami teaches, that is also difficult. He teaches: One does not enter acute mourning on the day of the death of his betrothed wife, nor may he become ritually impure at her funeral if she dies, if he is a priest; and similarly, she does not enter acute mourning for him if he dies, and she may not become ritually impure at his funeral. If she dies, he does not inherit her property. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract.

讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

If it is derived from here that a betrothed woman receives payment of a marriage contract, this is not proof, as perhaps this too is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her. And if you would say that if it is referring to a case where he wrote her a marriage contract, what is the purpose of stating this? One could answer that while this clause is obvious, it was necessary for Rav 岣yya bar Ami to state that conversely, if she dies, he does not inherit her property.

讗诇讗 讗讘讬讬 诪讙讜驻讛 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讙讟 讛讬讬谞讜 讻转讜讘转讛 讗讟讜 讙讟 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛

Rather, Abaye retracted his objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 proof from the mishna, not because of the case of a widow from betrothal, but due to an indication from within the mishna itself. Because if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, where a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce is effectively her marriage contract, and therefore she can use her bill of divorce to collect payment of her marriage contract, that does not make sense; is it written in a bill of divorce that the husband is liable to pay the wife the one hundred or two hundred dinars she is owed? In fact, this is not written in a bill of divorce.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇诪讙讘讗 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讚诪讬 诇讟注讜谉 讜诇讬诪讗 驻专注转讬

And even if you would say that since the Sages instituted that she use the bill of divorce to collect her marriage contract, it is considered as though the liability of the husband to pay one hundred or two hundred dinars is written in it, and it would still be problematic to say that the bill of divorce is sufficient for her to collect payment. The husband should still be able to claim that he is exempt, and say: I already paid it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬 驻专注转讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬拽专注讬讛 讗诪专 诇谉 诇讗 砖讘拽转谉 讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 讘讬讛

And if you would say that if the husband would state such a claim, we would say to him: If, in fact, you paid her, you should have torn up the bill of divorce, and he could respond and say to us: She did not allow me to tear it up, because she said: I need the bill of divorce to remarry, by using it as proof that I am divorced.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇诪讬拽专注讬讛 讜诪讻转讘 讗讙讘讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚谞谉 讚拽专注谞讜讛讜 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬讟讗 驻住讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讙讘讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讙讘讬

And if you would say that we would then say to him: You should have torn up the bill of divorce and written on the back of it: The reason that we tore up this bill of divorce is not because it is an invalid bill of divorce, but rather it is in order that the woman not collect payment of her marriage contract again with it, this suggestion is not always applicable. Does everyone who collects payment of a marriage contract collect payment in court, where it is possible to write such a legal statement? Therefore, the suggestion that a bill of divorce serves as a marriage contract remains untenable. This leads to the conclusion that the basis for collecting payment of a marriage contract where such a document does not exist must be a court enactment, in accordance with the interpretation of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讛 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇讗 诇转谞谉

MISHNA: If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission of slaves, or wills, or deeds of a gift, or receipts, he may not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided not to deliver them.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚谞诪诇讱 砖诇讗 诇转谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

GEMARA: It can be inferred from the mishna that the only reason that these documents are not returned is that there is a concern that the person obligated by the document reconsidered with regard to them and decided not to deliver them. But if the writer says: Give this found document to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him. And since the mishna places no limitation on this, presumably this is the halakha even if a long time passed since it was lost, and there is no concern that perhaps the document belongs to someone else with the same name.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Gittin 27a): With regard to an agent who was bringing a bill of divorce to a woman, and it was lost by him, if he found it immediately, the bill of divorce is still valid. If not, then it is not valid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife鈥檚 name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转

Rabba says: This is not difficult, because there, in tractate Gittin, the mishna is stated with regard to a place where caravans passing through are common, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. By contrast, the mishna here is stated with regard to a place where caravans passing through are uncommon, so there is no such concern.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转

The Gemara adds: And even in a place where caravans passing through are common, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, and this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, for example, Yosef ben Shimon in that one city.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讜讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗

As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with this same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this:

讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诪讬谞讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专

We are concerned about the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. And Rav 岣sda said to Rabba about this issue: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in a mishna (20a): One must return any court enactment, i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. Since the bill of divorce was found in the court, it is in this category and must be returned.

讜讛讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻讬 诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 驻砖讬讟 专讘讛 讚讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗

The Gemara concludes its proof that even in a place where passing caravans are common, the concern that the bill of divorce belongs to another couple applies only if it is known that there is another couple in the same locale with the same names as those written in the bill of divorce: And the court of Rav Huna is comparable to a place where passing caravans are common, as many people from different places pass through for judgment. And yet, Rabba resolved that if one finds a bill of divorce there, he should return it. Evidently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in the city, then there is indeed a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.

注讘讚 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讬 讻讬转谞讗 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in a flax house in the city of Pumbedita, in accordance with his halakha, and he instructed that the bill of divorce should be returned.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻讬转谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讻讬讞讬谉 砖讬讬专转讗

There is disagreement as to the exact details of the case. There are those who say that this occurred in the place where people sell flax, and it is specifically because it was not established that two couples with the same names lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written that Rabba ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned despite the fact that passing caravans are common there.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜 讻讬转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 砖讬讬专讜转

And there are those who say that it occurred in the place where people soak flax, and he ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned even though it was established that there were two couples with the same names living in the city where the bill of divorce was written, as passing caravans are uncommon there.

专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛

Similarly, Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita, and he resolves the contradiction employing the same distinction. We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who was bringing a bill of divorce to a woman and he lost it, if he found it immediately, the bill of divorce is still valid, but if not, it is not valid. And Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between this mishna and a baraita that states: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, in a case when the husband admits that he wrote and gave it to the wife, the finder must return it to the wife; but if the husband does not admit to this, he may return it neither to this one, the husband, nor to that one, the wife.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛

In any event, the baraita teaches that in a case when the husband admits that he wrote it, the finder must return it to the wife, and this is the halakha even if it was found after a long time.

讜诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转

And Rabbi Zeira answers that here, in the case of the mishna, the bill of divorce is valid only if it is found immediately, as it is a case where it is found in a place where passing caravans are common. And there, in the baraita, the bill of divorce can be returned even if it was found after a long time, as it is a case where it is found in a place where passing caravans are uncommon.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 谞讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 谞讛讚专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛

The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. There are those who say, with regard to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that the finder should not return the bill of divorce in a place where passing caravans are common: And this applies specifically in a case where it is established that there are two couples in the town with the same names. In that case, Rabbi Zeira holds that the bill of divorce should not be returned, and this is the same ruling as that of Rabba. And there are those who say: In a place where passing caravans are common, even if it is not established that there are two couples with the same names, the bill of divorce should not be returned, and Rabbi Zeira disagrees with the ruling of Rabba.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, Rabba does not state his explanation in accordance with that of Rabbi Zeira and raise a contradiction from the baraita, as he holds that a mishna serves as a stronger basis for raising a difficulty than a baraita, as the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language; but what is the reason that Rabbi Zeira does not state his explanation in accordance with that of Rabba and raise a contradiction from the Mishna?

讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽讗 转谞讬 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have said to you: Does the mishna actually teach that if the one who wrote the document says: Give it to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him, and that this is the halakha even if a long time passed since it was lost? This was only an inference from the mishna. Perhaps the mishna merely means to indicate that if the writer says: Give it to the intended recipient, the finder must give it to him, but actually, this is to be understood as we maintain in the mishna in Gittin, that this halakha applies only if the document was found immediately. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira posed his question from the baraita.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: According to the one who says that according to the opinion of Rabbi Zeira a document may not be returned in a place where passing caravans are common, and this is the halakha even if it was not established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in town, and he disagrees with Rabba, with regard to what do Rabbi Zeira and Rabba disagree? What is the foundation of their dispute?

专讘讛 住讘专 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: Rabba maintains his opinion based on the mishna (20a) that teaches: One must return any court enactment. He understands that we are dealing with a document that was found in court, and a court is equivalent to a place where passing caravans are common. And therefore, he maintains that it is specifically in a place where it is established that there are two people with the same name that the finder should not return the document to its presumed owner; but in a place where it is not established that there are two people with the same name, he should return it.

讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖谞诪爪讗讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讞讝讬专 拽转谞讬 讜诇注讜诇诐 讚讗砖转讻讞 讗讘专讗讬

And Rabbi Zeira, who disagrees with Rabba, could have said to you: Does the mishna teach that one must return any court enactment that was found in court? It teaches that one must return any court enactment, without specifying the location where the court enactment was found, and it is actually referring to a case where the documents were found outside the court. If it was found inside the court, it should not be returned. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira was not convinced by Rabba鈥檚 proof.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞转诪谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Yirmeya states an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here and the baraita, on the one hand, and the mishna in Gittin on the other: A found bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of a person named Yosef ben Shimon other than this one, in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗转专诪讬 砖诪讗 讻砖诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讻注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that one returns the bill of divorce? Since it clearly belongs to him, there is no question that it must be returned to him. The Gemara answers that it is necessary lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps it happened that another bill of divorce was written in which the names of the husband and the wife are identical to the names of the husband and wife of the second bill of divorce, and the names of the witnesses on that bill of divorce are identical to the names of the witnesses on this bill of divorce, when in fact they are different witnesses. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗 讗诪专 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转

Rav Ashi stated another resolution to the contradiction: The bill of divorce should be returned only in a case where the person claiming to have lost it provides a clear-cut distinguishing mark, e.g., he says: There is a hole in the bill of divorce next to such and such a letter.

讜讚讜拽讗 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讗讘诇 谞拽讘 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi permits one to return such a bill of divorce specifically when the one claiming to have lost it says that the hole is next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark. But if he said only that it had a hole without mentioning its precise location, one should not return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.

专讘 讗砖讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬诐 讗讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi is uncertain whether a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of distinguishing marks by Torah law or whether it is by rabbinic law. Therefore, in the case of a bill of divorce, he holds that one may rely only on a clear-cut distinguishing mark, as everyone agrees that a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark by Torah law.

专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛

The Gemara relates that Rabba bar bar 岣na

Scroll To Top