Bava Batra 344

אמר רב הונא ממך אפילו מריש גלותא ואפילו משבור מלכא

R. Huna decided [that], 'from you' [might] even [signify] 'from the exilarch', and even 'from King Shapur'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the pronoun might refer to anybody, the creditor is not in a position to establish his claim. ');">¹</span> Said R. Hisda to Rabbah: Go and consider this matter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in it'. ');">²</span>

אמר ליה רב חסדא לרבה פוק עיין בה דלאורתא בעי לה רב הונא מינך

for in the evening R. Huna will question you on the subject. He went out, carefully considered [the matter], and found [the following Baraitha] wherein it was taught: [In the case of] a letter of divorce which bears [the signatures of] witnesses but no date,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The omission of the date renders a divorce invalid. ');">³</span> Abba Saul said: If there was written in it. 'I divorced you<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Ms.M. Cur. edd. 'hot'.] ');">⁴</span>

נפק דק ואשכח דתניא גט שיש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן אבא שאול אומר אם כתוב בו גרשתיה היום כשר

this day,' it is valid. This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that it is valid if only the witnesses saw it in the hand of the husband on a certain date, that date being regarded as the legal date of the divorce. ');">⁵</span> clearly proves that that day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which witnesses saw it in the husband's hand though it, the document that date is not entered. ');">⁶</span>

אלמא היום ההוא יומא דנפיק ביה משמע הכא נמי ממך מההוא גברא דנפיק מתותי ידיה משמע

[is taken] to mean that day on which it was produced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as the witnesses saw it on that day in his hand. ');">⁷</span> [so] here also,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of tho deed wherein the name of the creditor does not appear. ');">⁸</span>

אמר ליה אביי ודלמא אבא שאול כרבי אליעזר סבירא ליה דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי אבל הכא ליחוש לנפילה

'from you' must mean from that person who produced [the bond].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from under whose hand it goes out'. Since the bond is produced by a certain person in the presence of the court that person should be assumed to be the creditor. ');">⁹</span> Said Abaye to him: Is it not possible that Abba Saul holds the same view as R. Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd., 'Eliezer'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה לנפילה לא חיישינן ומנא תימרא דלא חיישינן לנפילה

who maintains that the witnesses to the delivery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a letter of divorce to the woman. ');">¹¹</span> affect the legal separation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the signatures of the witnesses, or the date, do not affect the legality of the divorce, hence he stated that the divorce was valid, v. supra 170a. ');">¹²</span>

דתנן שנים שהיו בעיר אחת שם אחד יוסף בן שמעון ושם אחר יוסף בן שמעון אינן יכולין להוציא שטר חוב זה על זה ולא אחר יכול להוציא עליהן שטר חוב הא הם על אחרים יכולין ואמאי ליחוש לנפילה אלא לאו שמע מינה לנפילה לא חיישינן

but here [surely, there is reason] to apprehend that it was lost!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to falling'. i.e.. the bond may have been lost by the real creditor and the present claimant may have found it. ');">¹³</span> He replied unto him: [That a deed] was lost is not to be apprehended.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person who presents a bond must be assumed to be the real creditor. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואביי לנפילה דחד לא חיישינן לנפילה דרבים חיישינן

And whence is it deduced that the losing [of a deed] is not to be apprehended? — For we learned: IF THERE WERE TWO [MEN] IN THE SAME TOWN [AND THE] NAME OF THE ONE [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON AND THE NAME OF [THE] OTHER [WAS] JOSEPH SON OF SIMEON, NEITHER MAY PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THE OTHER, NOR MAY ANOTHER [PERSON] PRODUCE A BOND OF INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THEM. Either of them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they'. ');">¹⁵</span> however [it follows] may [produce a bond of indebtedness] against others. But why? Why not apprehend the loss [of the deed]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One Joseph, the creditor, might have lost the bond and the other Joseph who presents it might have found it. ');">¹⁶</span> from this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the fact that either of them is entitled to establish a claim against a third patty by the production of his bond. ');">¹⁷</span> then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but not'. ');">¹⁸</span> it may be deduced that we do not apprehend the loss. And Abaye?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the inference from our Mishnah, could he suggest that loss of the deed should be apprehended? ');">¹⁹</span> We do not apprehend the loss [of a deed] by one [particular individual];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is most unlikely that a particular person of the very same name as the one who presents the bond should have lost it. ');">²⁰</span> but we do apprehend loss [of deeds] generally by many.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not unusual for people to lose their bonds and for others to find them. Hence, as regards the bond presented at R. Huna's court, Abaye was well justified in suggesting that loss of the deed should be suspected. ');">²¹</span>