Bava Metzia — Daf 7b

מאי שנא ליד דיין אמר רבא הכי קאמר ואחר שמצא שטר שנפל ליד דיין והיכי דמי דכתב ביה הנפק לא יוציאו עולמית

ולא מיבעיא לא כתב ביה הנפק דאיכא למימר כתב ללות ולא לוה אלא אפי' כתב ביה הנפק דמקוים לא יחזיר דחיישינן לפירעון

ורבי יוסי אומר הרי הוא בחזקתו ולא חיישינן לפירעון ולא חייש ר' יוסי לפירעון

והתניא מצא שטר כתובה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

רבי יוסי אומר עודה תחת בעלה יחזיר לאשה נתארמלה או נתגרשה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

איפוך נפל ליד דיין לא יוציאו עולמית דברי רבי יוסי וחכ"א הרי הוא בחזקתו

אי הכי קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן

שטר כתובה כולה רבי יוסי וחסורי מחסרא והכי קתני אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה בד"א שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה אבל עודה תחת בעלה יחזיר לאשה שר"י אומר עודה תחת בעלה יחזיר לאשה נתארמלה או שנתגרשה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

רב פפא אמר לעולם לא תיפוך רבי יוסי לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו

לדידי אפילו נתארמלה או נתגרשה נמי לא חיישינן לפירעון לדידכו אודו לי מיהת בעודה תחת בעלה דיחזיר לאשה דלאו בת פירעון היא

ואמרו ליה רבנן אימור צררי אתפסה

רבינא אמר לעולם איפוך קמייתא וטעמא דרבנן הכא משום דחיישינן לשתי כתובות ורבי יוסי לשתי כתובות לא חייש

אמר רבי אלעזר מחלוקת בששניהם אדוקים בטופס ושניהם בתורף אבל אחד אדוק בטופס ואחד אדוק בתורף זה נוטל טופס וזה נוטל תורף ור' יוחנן אמר לעולם חולקין

ואפילו אחד אדוק בטופס ואחד אדוק בתורף והתניא זה נוטל עד מקום שידו מגעת לא צריכא דקאי תורף בי מצעי

אי הכי מאי למימרא לא צריכא דמקרב לגבי דחד מהו דתימא א"ל פלוג הכי קמ"ל דא"ל מאי חזית דפלגת הכי פלוג הכי

א"ל רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא לרבי אלעזר דאמר זה נוטל טופס וזה נוטל תורף למה ליה וכי לצור ע"פ צלוחיתו הוא צריך

א"ל לדמי

דאמר הכי שטרא דאית ביה זמן כמה שוי ודלית ביה זמן כמה שוי בשטרא דאית ביה זמן גבי ממשעבדי ואידך לא גבי ממשעבדי יהיב ליה היאך דביני ביני

ויחלוקו נמי דאמרן לדמי דאי לא תימא הכי שנים אוחזין בטלית הכי נמי דפלגי הא אפסדוה הא לא קשיא

Why is it different [if the bill fell] into the hands of a judge?  — Raba says: The meaning [of the clause] is this: If a third person finds a bill which has already been in the hands of a judge, that is, when it bears a legal endorsement,  it must never be produced again.  And [thus we learn that a found bill] must not be returned [to the claimant] not only when it bears no legal endorsement, so that it can be assumed that it was written for the purpose of securing a loan but the loan did not take place, but even when it bears a legal endorsement, as when it has been verified [in Court], because we apprehend that payment may have been made.  But R. Jose says: It retains its validity — and we do not apprehend that payment may have been made. But does not R. Jose really apprehend that payment may have been made? Has it not been taught [in a Baraitha]: In the case of a marriage-contract  found in the street, if the husband admits [that he has not paid her the amount specified in the contract] it shall be returned to the wife, but if the husband does not admit it, it must not be returned either to him or to her; R. Jose says that if the wife is still with the husband it shall be returned to her,  but if she has become a widow or has been divorced, it must not be returned either to him or to her?  — Reverse [the Baraitha and read it this way]: If [a bill] fell into the hands of a judge, it must never be produced again; this is the view of R. Jose. And the Sages say that it retains its validity.  But if so, the two opinions of the Rabbis contradict each other!  — [The Baraitha which deals with] the [lost] marriage-contract [conveys] in its entirety [the view of] R. Jose, but a clause is omitted, and [the Baraitha] should read thus: If the husband does not admit [that he has not paid the wife the amount specified in the contract] it must not be returned either to him or to her. This, however, only applies to [the case of] a widow or a divorced woman, but [in the case of a wife] who is still with her husband it shall be returned to the wife; this is the view of R. Jose; for R. Jose says: If the wife is still with the husband, it shall be returned to her; but if she has become a widow or has been divorced, it must not be returned either to him or to her. R. Papa says: There is really no need to reverse [the Baraitha];  R. Jose only states the case in accordance with the views of the Rabbis [and he says to them:] According to me we do not apprehend that payment may have been made even in the case of a widow or a divorced woman, but according to you — admit at least that when the wife is still with the husband [the marriage-contract] should be returned to her, as she is not entitled to receive payment [as long as she is his wife]. But the Rabbis answered him: Say, he handed her over bundles [of valuables] as security [and she has retained them]!  Rabina says: By all means reverse the first [Baraitha],  and the reason why the Rabbis decide here [that if the husband does not admit liability, the marriage-contract must not be returned either to him or to her] is that we apprehend [lest the wife had] two marriage-contracts.  And as to R. Jose — he does not apprehend [lest the wife had] two marriage-contracts. R. Eleazar says: The division  [takes place] when both [claimants] cling either to the form  [of the bill] or to the operative part  [thereof], but if one [claimant] clings to the form, and the other clings to the operative part, one takes the form and the other takes the operative part. And R. Johanan says: They always divide equally. [What!] Even if one clings to the form and the other to the operative part? Was it not taught: Each one takes as much as his hand grasps?  — [Yes.] But it is necessary [to have R. Johanan's decision] in a case where the operative part is contained in the middle [of the document].  But if so, what need is there to state it?  — It is necessary [to state it that it may be applied to a case] where [the operative part] is nearer to one [of the claimants].  You might assume that one could say to the other, 'Divide it this way', therefore we are informed that the other may say to him: 'What makes you think of dividing it this way? Divide it the other way.' R. Aha of Difti said to Rabina: According to R. Eleazar, who says. 'One takes the form [of the bill] and the other takes the operative part.' — of what use are [the parts] to either of them? Does one need them to use as a stopper for one's bottle?  — He [Rabina] answered him: [It is] the estimated value thereof [that has to be considered]. We estimate how much a dated document is worth as compared with one undated: with a dated document a debt may be collected from mortgaged property, but with the other [document] no debt can be collected from mortgaged property  — and one gives the other the difference [in the value of the two documents]. Also [the decision previously given in the words], 'They shall divide,' as quoted,  refers to the value [of the bill]. For if you do not assume this, [how explain:] 'TWO HOLD A GARMENT' [etc.]? Would you say that here also they divide [the garment] in halves? They would surely render it useless! — This presents no difficulty,