Ketubot

does not legally acquire it'.  Thereupon they  seized it themselves, R. Papa rowing  the boat while R. Huna the son of R. Joshua pulled it by the rope. One Master then declared, 'I have acquired all the ship'  and the other similarly declared, 'I have acquired all of it'.  They were met by R. Phinehas b. Ammi who said to them: Both Rab and Samuel ruled that '[Seizure is valid] only if [the produce] was piled up and lay in a public domain'.  'We too', they replied, 'have seized it at the main current of the river'.  When they appeared before Raba he said to them, 'Ye white geese  that strip the people of their cloaks;  thus ruled R. Nahman; [The seizure is valid] only if it took place during the lifetime [of the original owner]. The men of Be-Hozae  once claimed a sum of money from Abimi the son of R. Abbahu, who sent it to them by the hand of Hama the son of Rabbah b. Abbahu. He duly went there and paid them, but when he asked them, 'Return to me the bond', they replied. 'This payment was made in settlement of some other claims'.  He came before R. Abbahu [to complain] and the latter asked him, 'Have you witnesses that you have paid them?' — 'No', he replied. 'Since', the former said to him, 'they could plead  that the payment was never made,  they are also entitled to plead that the payment was made in settlement of some other claims'. What is the law in respect of the agent's liability to refund? — R. Ashi replied; We have to consider the facts. If he  said to him. 'Secure the bond and pay the money' he  must refund it; [but if he  said.] 'Pay the money and secure the bond', he is under no obligation to refund it. The law, however, is not so. He  must refund it in either case, because the other  may well say. 'I deputed you to improve my position, not to make it worse There was a certain woman with whom a case  of bonds was once deposited and when the heirs [of the depositor] came to claim it from her she said, 'I seized them  during [the depositor's] lifetime'.  R. Nahman to whom she came said to her, 'Have you witnesses that it  was claimed from you during [the depositor's] lifetime and that you refused to return it?' — 'No', she replied. 'If so', he said to her, 'your seizure is one that took place after [the owner's] death,  and such a seizure is invalid. A woman was once ordered  to take an oath  at the court of Raba, but when R. Hisda's daughter  said to him, 'I know that she is suspected of [taking false] oaths', Raba transferred the oath to her opponent. On another occasion R. Papa and R. Adda b. Mattena sat in his presence when a bond was brought to him. Said R. Papa to him. 'I know that this bond is paid up'. 'Is there, [Raba] asked him, 'any other man with the Master [to confirm the statement]?' 'No', he replied. 'Although', the other said to him, 'the Master is present [to give evidence] there is no validity [in the testimony of] one witness'.  Said R. Adda b. Mattena to him, 'Should not R. Papa be [deemed as reliable] as the daughter of R. Hisda?'  — 'As to the daughter of R. Hisda [he replied] I am certain of her;  I am not sure, however, about the Master'.  Said R. Papa: Now that the Master has stated [that a judge who can assert,] 'I am certain of a person', may rely upon that person's evidence,  I would tear up a bond on the evidence of my son Abba Mar of whose reliability I am certain. 'I would tear up'! Is such an act conceivable?  — He rather [meant to say,] 'I would impair a bond  on his evidence'. A woman was once ordered to take  an oath at the court of R. Bibi b. Abaye, when her opponent suggested to them, 'Let her rather come and take the oath in our town,  where she might possibly feel ashamed [of her action] and confess'. 'Write out said she to them, 'the verdict in my favour  so that after I shall have taken the oath it may be given to me'. 'Write it out for her', ordered R. Bibi b. Abaye. 'Because', said R. Papi. 'you are descendants of short-lived people you speak frail words;  surely Raba stated, 'An attestation  by judges that was written before the witnesses have identified their signatures is invalid',  from which it is evident [that such an attestation] has the appearance of a false declaration, and so here also [the verdict]  would appear to contain a false statement'. This conclusion,  however, is futile  [as may be inferred] from a statement of R. Nahman, who said; R. Meir ruled that even if [a husband] found it  on a rubbish heap, and then signed and gave it to her, it is valid; and even the Rabbis  differ from R. Meir only in respect of letters of divorce where it is necessary that the writing shall be done specifically in her name, but in respect of other legal documents they agree with him,  for R. Assi stated in the name of R. Johanan, 'A man may not borrow again on a bond on which he has once borrowed and which he has repaid.  because the obligation [incurred by the first loan]  was cancelled;  the reason then is because 'the obligation was cancelled', but that [the contents of the document] have the appearance