Bava Batra 167b (קסז:) — the Talmud in English

A document of indebtedness is written

for the borrower

,

so that the document will be ready in his possession to give to the lender when he lends him money,

even though the lender is not with him.

But one does not write

a document of indebtedness

for the lender until the borrower is with him.

For the document is to the borrower’s disadvantage, and therefore it may not be written without his consent.

And the borrower pays

the

fee

of the scribe, because he benefits from the loan.

A deed of acquisition is written

for the seller,

even though the

buyer

is not with him.

But one does not write

a deed of acquisition

for the

buyer

until the seller is with him.

For the document is to the seller’s disadvantage.

And the buyer pays

the

fee

of the scribe, because he benefits from the transaction.

Documents of betrothal are not written,

stating how much the father of the groom will give his son and how much the father of the bride will give his daughter for their marriage. Likewise, a

marriage document,

the ketuba,

is not written except with the knowledge of both of them.

That is, with the knowledge of the groom’s father and the bride’s father in documents of betrothal, since each is subject to an obligation therein, and with the knowledge of the groom and bride in the ketuba, since the groom undertakes an obligation to the woman in the ketuba, and the bride must also consent to it, so that she can be certain that he did not write for her less than the amount to which she is entitled.

And the groom pays

the

fee

of the scribe of these documents, because he is the one acquiring the woman.

A sharecropping document is not written,

a document recording an agreement between one who receives a field from another to work it and to divide the produce it yields with the owner, according to the ratio agreed upon between them.

And

a

tenant-farming document,

a document recording an agreement between one who leases the field from its owner in return for a fixed payment of such-and-such an amount of produce per year,

is not written except with the knowledge of both,

with the knowledge of the owner of the field and the sharecropper, or of the owner of the field and the tenant, since both must consent: one to his undertaking to work the field, and the other to transferring the field to the sharecropper or tenant.

And the recipient

of the field

pays

the

fee

of the scribe, since he benefits from the transaction.

Documents of arbitration are not written,

documents in which the claims of the two litigants are recorded, or in which the names of the judges are recorded when each litigant has selected judges to adjudicate their case,

nor is any document of the court,

such as a document of authorization to seize property, which the court writes for a lender when the borrower does not repay his debt, authorizing him to descend upon the borrower’s property and take it in payment of his debt,

written except with the knowledge of both,

the two parties.

In the case of documents of arbitration, because the claims of both are written there, or the judges selected by both. But in the case of a document of authorization to seize property, this must first be made known to the borrower, so that he will hasten to pay his debt before the document authorizing the lender to collect from his property is written.

And both of them pay

the

fee

of the scribe, in the case of documents of arbitration.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For both of them,

the two litigants,

two documents are written,

two documents of arbitration,

one for each of them individually

so that each will have a separate document for himself, and each will pay his own scribe’s fee.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

What is the meaning of

“provided that he knows them,”

stated in our Mishna with regard to a woman’s get and a receipt?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This is what it is saying:

provided that

the scribe [and the signing witnesses

knows

the

man’s name in the get.

They must know that this is indeed the man’s name, the man for whom they are writing the get. For otherwise, perhaps he will write the get for the wife of another man whose name is the same, so that she can use it to collect her ketuba from him, as the law is that a woman can collect her ketuba by means of the get alone.

And

likewise, the scribe and the witnesses must know the

name of the

woman, in the receipt,

so that they know that this is indeed her name. For otherwise, there is concern that perhaps she intends to write the receipt for another man whose divorced wife has the same name, thereby causing that woman to lose her ketuba.

Rav Safra, Rav Aḥa bar Huna, and Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana were sitting, and Abaye was sitting with them, and they sat and raised a question:

They asked about Rav’s statement. It appears from his words that only

the man’s name in the get—yes,

the witnesses and scribe must know it, whereas

the woman’s name—not,

they need not know it. Likewise, only

the woman’s name in the receipt—yes,

they must know it, whereas

the man’s name—not.

They were perplexed by this:

But let us be concerned:

Even though we know the man’s name in the get, since we do not know the woman’s name, we should be concerned

lest he write a get,

perhaps he will indeed write his own name in the get, but will write in it not the name of his wife but the name of another woman whose husband has the same name as his,

and go and deliver it to the wife of that other man,

giving it to the wife of the other man whose name is the same as his, so that she can use it to collect her ketuba from him?

And

likewise with regard to a receipt, let us be concerned: Even though we know that this is the name of the woman requesting that a receipt be written, since we do not know the husband’s name,

sometimes a woman will go and write a receipt,

perhaps she will write in the receipt the name of another man whose wife has the same name as hers,

and give it to a man who is not hers,

handing it to that other man, who is not her husband, in order to cause his wife to lose her ketuba?!

Abaye said to them: This is what Rav said:

One must know

the man’s name in the get, and the same applies to the woman’s name.

The scribe and witnesses must also know that this is indeed the name of this man’s wife who is writing the get, so that he cannot give the get to another woman.

Likewise, one must know

the woman’s name in the receipt, and the same applies to the man’s name.

One must also know that this is the name of her husband, so that she cannot give the receipt to another man.

But they still had difficulty with the very words of the tanna of the Mishna: What benefit is there in knowing the man’s and woman’s names in the get? In any event,

let us be concerned about two

Yosef ben Shimon

who reside in one city,

for perhaps there is another man in the city whose name is the same as that of the husband who is divorcing his wife, and their wives’ names are also the same, and

perhaps he writes a get,

and although he writes his own name and his wife’s name in the get,

he goes and delivers it to the wife of that other man,

giving it to the wife of the other man whose names, his and his wife’s, are the same as theirs?!

Rav Aḥa bar Huna said to them: This is what Rav said:

“Yosef ben Shimon”

who reside in one city may divorce their wives only in each other’s presence!

The second husband must also be present when the first gives the get to his wife. This removes the concern that he might give the get to another man’s wife. They still had difficulty with the Mishna: How can a get be written for any person at all, even when we know that his name is “Yosef ben Shimon,” as written in the get? For

perhaps he goes to another city,

perhaps he came here from another city, and his true name is “Reuven ben Yaakov,”

but he presents his name as

“Yosef ben Shimon,”

and writes a get.

He adopted the name “Yosef ben Shimon” here in order to have a get written under that name, and afterward

he goes and delivers it to the wife of that other man,

taking the get and returning to his city, where a man named Yosef ben Shimon lives, and giving it there to his wife?!

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana said to them: This is what Rav said: Anyone whose name has been established in the city for thirty days,

meaning that he has already been called by this name here for thirty days,

we have no concern regarding him

that perhaps this is not his true name, for he would not have dared to change his name for so long, out of fear that the matter might become known.

The Gemara discusses this:

If his name has not been established, what is the law?

What should be done with a newcomer to the city, whose name has not yet been established for thirty days? How should they write a get for him?

Abaye said: They should call him, and he answers.

There is a way to test him: call him suddenly by his name, and if he answers, this is a sign that it is his true name.

Rav Zevid said:

This is not proof, because

a swindler—

is careful in his deceit!

A swindler knows to be cautious and to answer immediately when he is called by his false name. Therefore, there is no solution other than to wait until his name has been established for thirty days.

The Gemara cites an incident that occurred involving a receipt for a ketuba: An incident occurred involving

a certain receipt,

a receipt for a ketuba,

on which

there was signed

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba.

A certain woman came before him,

After some time, the woman whose name was written on the receipt came to him to demand her ketuba from her husband.

She said to him

to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba:

It was not I!

It was not I who had you sign a receipt stating that I had received payment of my ketuba. Rather, perhaps another woman, whose name was the same as mine and whose husband's name was the same as my husband's, was the one who had you sign this receipt and gave it to her husband. But I have still not received payment of my ketuba.

He said

to her, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba:

I too said to them: She is not the one!

I also just told the other witnesses who had signed the receipt together with me that I did not remember you as the woman for whom we had signed a receipt, and that you were in the right.

But

they said to me,

they replied that you were indeed the woman for whom we had signed the receipt, but

age had affected her, and her voice had changed,

she had grown old, and her voice had changed and become deeper; therefore, you did not recognize her.