Bava Metzia 18a — the Talmud in English

But if you say that he did not write it for her, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

what does she collect the whole amount?

After all, only

a maneh and two hundred zuz are what she has,

for he did not write a ketuba addition for her!

But rather, from what Rav Hiyya bar Ami taught: his betrothed wife

who died,

not

does he become

an onen [

the status of mourning did not apply to him ] ] for her.

And

if he is a kohen,

he does not become impure for her.

For it is learned that he becomes impure for his wife from the verse: “For his relative,” where “his relative” is his wife. And this is specifically with regard to his married wife, who is his flesh-relative; but a betrothed woman, who has not yet come to physical closeness, is not his relative.

And similarly she,

the betrothed woman, whose betrothed died,

is not an onenet and does not become impure for him .

She died

—

he does not inherit her.

For the inheritance of a woman is learned from the verse: “His relative who is nearest to him from his family, and he shall inherit her,” and a betrothed woman is not his relative.

He died —

she collects her ketuba,

It is proven from here that a betrothed woman has a ketuba!

This proof too can be rejected in the same manner,

perhaps

it is speaking of a case

in which he wrote her

a ketuba and obligated himself to her.

And if you would say:

if it is speaking of a case

in which he wrote her —

what does it teach us?

What novelty is there in this, that she collects her ketuba?

It can be said that indeed there is no novelty in her collecting her ketuba. And

“She died, he does not inherit her” was necessary for him

to teach us. And therefore the tanna taught that if he died, she collects her ketuba, to teach us that despite their intentions having drawn so close, to the point that he wrote her a ketuba of his own accord, nevertheless he does not inherit her .

Rather, Abaye, who said above:

“The matter I said is not a matter,” because it was difficult for him

from the body of the Mishna —

is retracting it.

For if it enters your mind

that the reason is not because one does not make a claim against an act of the court, but rather that

we are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba, the get is its ketuba—is it that a get states a maneh and two hundred zuz,

so that it can be said that it proves the debt?

And if you would say: Since the Sages instituted that she collect it —

it is considered as though it were written in it,

he can make a claim and say: “I paid!”

And if you would say: We say to him, “If you paid it” —

“You should have torn it,” he says to us: “She did not let me”

[she did not allow me to tear it], for

she said: “I need to marry with it”

[I need the get in order to marry on its basis].

And if you would say

that

we say to him: “You should have torn it, and write alongside it”

[and the court should write on the get]:

“This get of ours, we tore it not because it is an invalid get, but so that she should not collect with it another time”

[We tore this get, not because it was an invalid get, but so that she should not collect with it a second time],

It is impossible to say this, for

is it that everyone who collects —

collects in the court

[Does everyone who pays a debt pay in the presence of a court]? He can claim: “I paid it in a place where there was no court to write this for me”!

Mishna:

If

a person finds

a

divorce documents, and manumission documents of slaves

[or documents of manumission of slaves], or he finds

a dayyteki

[the will of a dangerously ill person], or documents of

a gift, and receipts

[or he finds receipts, documents attesting that the borrower repaid his debt] —

he shall not return them.

Because

I say:

perhaps

they had been written, and

in the end he

changed his mind about them

and wrote them

so as not to give them.

And therefore it is impossible to obligate him on the basis of the document .

Gemara:

It follows that

the reason

that he should not return the documents is because

of

the concern that perhaps

he changed his mind

about them

so as not to give them. Now

if

he said

that he wrote them,

“Give them”

to their owners, in which case it is certain that the one who wrote them gave them to their owners —

they give

them to the one who claims them,

even

if the documents were found

after

another

considerable time

after they were lost. And there is no concern that perhaps another person wrote the document, whose name is the same as his , and it fell from him.

And he raises a contradiction:

An agent of the husband

who brings a get

to the woman,

and it was lost from him,

if

he found it

the agent

immediately,

that is, before enough time had passed for a caravan to have passed and remained there —

it is valid.

For then there is no concern that perhaps the get that was found fell from another person who was in a caravan that passed there.

If not,

if it was not found immediately —

it is invalid,

because there is concern that this get is not the get that was lost, but belongs to another person whose name is the same as the name of the person in the lost get. And this is not as we inferred from our Mishna, that even if it was found after a considerable time, it is valid!

Rabba said: It is not difficult. Here,

what we learned, that if it was found after a considerable time it is invalid, is speaking of its being found

in a place where caravans are common.

For then there is concern that perhaps it fell from a person who was in a caravan that passed here.

But

here,

in our Mishna, it is speaking of

a place where caravans are not common.

And therefore he returns them even if the documents were found after a considerable time .

And the Gemara adds to Rabba’s words:

And even in a place where caravans are common,

where Rabba said that there is concern that perhaps it fell from another person,

and this

is specifically in a case

in which two Yosef ben Shimon were established in one city

[it is known to us that in that city in which the get was written there are two people whose names are identical, such as their names being “Yosef ben Shimon”]. For then there is concern that the get fell from another person whose name is the same as his , and even their wives’ names are identical.

But if two such people were not established, there is no concern that perhaps there is another person there bearing the same name, and there is also no concern that perhaps there is another city whose name is the same as the name of this city, and there is a person there bearing the same name, because it is a remote concern .

For if you do not say this, there is a difficulty

between the words of

Rabba —

against

the words of

Rabba

elsewhere.

For there was this get that was found in the court of Rav Huna

[which was found in Rav Huna’s court],

in which it was written

that it had been written

in the city of Shavirei, which is on the Rakhis River

[in the city of Shavirei, which lies on the Rakhis River].