Yevamot 116a (קטז.) — the Talmud in English

Why should we be concerned about this document

that Rava bar Avuha collected with it?

If the concern is that it was lost, that the document fell from the creditor, and this person, whose name is the same as the creditor’s, found it, there is no need for concern, because the creditor is exceedingly careful to guard it so that it will not be lost.

If the concern is that it was deposited, that perhaps the creditor deposited it with this person, whose name is the same as his, there is no need for concern about that either.

Since the name of the depositor is the same as the name of the one with whom it was deposited, he would not deposit it with him,

because the owner of the document is concerned that the depositary might use the document to collect the debt for himself.

What are you saying,

why should there be concern,

perhaps he transferred it to him?

There is no need for concern about that, since documents,

such as a promissory note,

are acquired through transfer

without an act of acquisition, and once that has occurred, he cannot retract.

There was an incident involving

a certain divorce document that was found in Sura,

and the woman came forward and claimed it ,

and this was written in it: In Sura, the city, I, Anan bar Ḥiyya of Nehardea, have released and divorced so-and-so, my wife.

And we were concerned that perhaps this was not the divorce document of that Anan, the husband of this woman, but rather of another Anan.

And the Sages investigated from Sura to Nehardea, and there was no other Anan bar Ḥiyya, except for Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra, who was in Nehardea.

And witnesses came

from Nehardea

and said: On that very day when that divorce document was written

in Sura,

Anan bar Ḥiyya of Ḥagra was with us

he was with us in Nehardea.

Abaye said: Even according to me, who say that we are concerned

about two people named Anan,

here we are not concerned.

For all of Nehardea was investigated, and there is no reason to be concerned about this Anan,

as the witnesses say that he was in Nehardea; what was he doing in Sura?

For it is impossible to travel from Nehardea to Sura on that same day.

Rava said: Even according to me, who say that we are not concerned

about two people named Anan where no such second person has been established,

here we are concerned,

since another man with the same name has been established. And

perhaps he traveled by a flying camel,

which travels as swiftly as a flying bird,

or perhaps by means of a leap,

by means of a miraculous shortening of the road through the use of the Explicit Name,

or perhaps he transferred instructions

an oral instruction

to

the witnesses, and although he was not with them, perhaps he initially told them in his own city: Write a divorce document for my wife, and afterward the witnesses traveled to Sura.

And

as Rav said to the scribes, and likewise Rav Huna said to the scribes

who write documents:

When you are

located

in Shili, write the place of the

document, which is

in Shili, although the instructions were conveyed

although you were instructed to write it

in Hini

—the name of a place.

And when you are in Hini, write it in Hini, although the instructions were conveyed in Shili.

And now the Gemara returns to the previous problem:

What is the ruling concerning the sesame seeds?

What is the halakhic ruling? Are we concerned that perhaps they moved the seeds and these are other seeds, or not?

Rav Yeimar said: We are not concerned.

Ravina said: We are concerned.

And the halakha is that we are concerned:

We learned in the Mishna:

“There was a quarrel between him and her,” and so on

she is not deemed credible. And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What are the circumstances of a quarrel between him and her

such that, because of it, the woman hates her husband?

For if there was merely some anger between them, this is not called a “quarrel,” since it is normal for a man and his wife to become angry with one another at times, and the woman does not hate him because of this. Rather, it is referring to a quarrel that leads to divorce, in which case it is usual that she hates him.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to a woman who says to her husband in her anger: “Divorce me!”

And we wonder:

But all women also say this to their husbands in their anger. Yet they do not become divorced even if they say this formula!?

And we answer:

Rather, it is referring to a woman who says to her husband: “You divorced me.”

And we challenge this:

Let her be deemed credible

that she is divorced,

based on the ruling of Rav Hamnuna,

as Rav Hamnuna said: If a woman says to her husband, “You divorced me,” she is deemed credible.

This is because she has the presumption that a married woman does not have the audacity to make such a claim in her husband’s presence.

And we answer: Here, it is referring to a woman who

says

to her husband:

“You divorced me in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so.”

And we asked

the witnesses

and they said: “That never happened.”

And in such a case Rav Hamnuna concedes that the woman is not deemed credible.

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason,

what is the reason for our Mishna, which maintains that if there was

a quarrel

between them, she is not deemed credible when she says, “My husband died”?

Rav Ḥanina said: Because she lies,

as, due to the intensity of her hatred, she intends to prohibit herself to her husband.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Because she says what she infers from appearances. If she sees that her husband has entered a dangerous situation,

she is certain that he has died, and does not consider the possibility that perhaps he did not die and that she will marry. Since she hates him, she is not precise in what she sees, and says that he died based on her heart’s conjecture.

What is the practical difference between them,

what is the practical difference between these two reasons?