Yevamot 116a — the Talmud in English

For what concern should there be regarding this document,

with which Rava bar Avuha collected the debt?

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

If because of a deposit: perhaps the creditor deposited it with this person, whose name is the same as his name—there is no concern for this either.

Since the name of the depositor is the same as the name of the bailee, he would not deposit it with him,

because the owner of the document is concerned that perhaps the bailee will collect the debt for himself with the document.

What are you saying,

why should there be concern,

perhaps he gave it to him?

There is no concern for this, since documents,

such as a promissory note,

are acquired through delivery

without an act of acquisition, and he can no longer retract.

An incident involving

a certain get that was found in Sura,

and the woman came and claimed it ,

and it was written in it as follows: “In Sura the city, I, Anan bar Hiyya of Nehardea, have released and divorced So-and-so, my wife.”

And we are concerned that perhaps this is not the get of that Anan, the husband of this woman, but of another Anan.

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

And witnesses came

from Nehardea

and said: On that day, when that get was written

in Sura,

Anan bar Hiyya Meḥagara 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 concern regarding this Anan,

for the witnesses say that he was in Nehardea; what was he doing in Sura,

and it is not possible to come on that same day from Nehardea to Sura.

Rava said: Even according to me, who do not suspect

two people named Anan where the existence of another has not been established,

here we are concerned,

since another man with his name has been established. And

perhaps he traveled on a flying camel,

for he travels swiftly, like a flying bird,

or alternatively, by a leap,

by means of a leap in the road through the use of the Explicit Name,

or alternatively, words

a statement

he gave

to the witnesses, and although he was not with them, perhaps at first he said to them in his city, “Write a get for my wife,” and afterward the witnesses went to Sura.

And

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

who write documents:

When you are

present

in Shili, a place-name, write the place of the

document, which is

in Shili, even though instructions were conveyed

to you to write it

in Hini

a place-name.

And when you are in Hini, write it in Hini, even though instructions were conveyed in Shili.

And now the Gemara returns to the earlier problem:

What was decided regarding the sesame?

How is the halakha decided: do we suspect that they moved them and this is another one, or not?

Rav Yemar said: We do not suspect.

Ravina said: We suspect.

And the halakha is: We suspect:

We learned in the Mishna:

“A quarrel between him and her, and so on,”

she is not believed. And we raised the question:

What are the circumstances of a quarrel between him and her,

because of which the woman hates her husband?

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: It is when she says to her husband at the time of her anger: “Divorce me!”

And we wondered:

But all women also say this to their husbands, to their husbands, at the time of their anger. Yet they do not become divorced even if they say this formulation!?

And we answer:

Rather, it is when she says to her husband: “You divorced me.”

And we object:

Let her be believed

that she is divorced,

on the basis of Rav Hamnuna,

for Rav Hamnuna said: A woman who says to her husband, “You divorced me,” is believed.

Since she has a presumption that a married woman does not brazenly speak before her husband.

And we answer: Here it is referring

to one who says

to her husband:

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

And we ask

the witnesses about it,

and they say: “Such a thing never happened.”

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

And we raised the question:

What is the reason,

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

a quarrel

between them, she is not believed to say, “My husband died”?

Rav Hanina said: Because she lies,

for, out of great hatred, she intends to prohibit herself to her husband.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Because she speaks based on imagined perception. If she sees that her husband has entered a state of danger,

she is certain of his death, and does not set her mind to say, “Perhaps he did not die, and I should not marry.” Since she hates him, she is not precise in her observation, and says that he died according to the conjecture of her heart.

What is the practical difference between them,

what is the practical difference between the two reasons?