ARE WE CONCERNED FOR OTHER PEOPLE WITH THE SAME NAME? (cont.)
Support (Rava, for himself): There were two documents in Mechuza in which the lenders were Chavi bar Nanai and Nanai bar Chavi. Rabah bar Avuha authorized collection of both of them. These are common names in Mechuza (nevertheless we are not concerned for others of the same name!)
Rejection (Abaye): Even if we were concerned that others have the same name, there is no concern (why the bearer should not collect)!
We are not concerned lest the lender dropped it, for people are careful with documents!
We are not concerned lest the lender deposited it with the current bearer. Since they have the same name, he would not deposit it by him!
Suggestion: Perhaps the lender gave it to the current bearer.
Rejection: If so he is entitled to collect, for handing over a document is a proper acquisition!
A Get was found in Sura. It said 'In Sura, I, Anan bar Chiya of Nehardai, divorce my wife Plonis.'
Chachamim checked from Sura to Nehardai. The only other Anan bar Chiya they found was from Chigra and lived in Neharda'a. Witnesses said that he was in Nehardai the day that the Get was written.
Abaye: Even though normally I say that we must be concerned, here there is no concern. Since he was in Nehardai, he could not have written a Get in Sura.
Rava: Even though normally I say that we are not concerned, here we are concerned. Perhaps he went on a fast camel, or by use of a name of Hash-m, or he had previously authorized the Get to be written.
Rav Safra and Rav Huna (to scribes): When you are in Shili, write Shili on the document, even though you were in Hini when asked to write it. When you are in Hini, write Hini, even though you were in Shili when asked to write it.
Question: What was the final ruling about the sesame?
Answer #1 (Rav Yemar): We are not concerned (lest he cleared it out and this is different sesame).
Answer #2 (Ravina): We are concerned.
The Halachah is, we are concerned.
WHEN THEY WERE QUARRELING
(Mishnah): If they were quarreling (she is not believed).
Question: What is the case of a quarrel?
Answer (Rav Yehudah): She tells him 'divorce me.'
Objection: All women say this [when they are angry]!
Correction: Rather, she says 'you divorced me.'
Question: She should be believed, like Rav Hamnuna taught!
(Rav Hamnuna): If a woman says to her husband 'you divorced me', she is believed.
There is a Chazakah that she could not be so impudent to lie to her husband about this.
Answer: The case is, she named the witnesses in front of whom she was divorced, and the witnesses deny this.
Question: Why isn't a woman believed when they were quarreling?
Answer #1 (R. Chanina): We are concerned lest she lie.
Answer #2 (Rav Simi bar Ashi): We are concerned lest she testify from estimation.
They argue about a case in which he started the quarrel (she would not lie, but she would testify from estimation).
Question: Is one witness believed when they were quarreling?
If one witness is normally believed (to say that a man died) because people do not lie about something Avid l'Igluyei, here also the witness would not lie;
If he is believed because she investigates before remarrying, here she will not check.
This question is unresolved.
(Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, she is believed (only if she returns crying and her clothes are torn).
(Beraisa - Chachamim (to R. Yehudah)): According to you, a clever woman will be permitted, but a simple woman will be forbidden! Rather, whether or not she is crying she is permitted.
A woman entered R. Yehudah's Beis Din. They told her to eulogize her husband, tear her garments and undo her hair.
Question: They teach her to lie!
Answer: They hold like Chachamim. They wanted that R. Yehudah would permit her.
WHEN IS SHE BELIEVED?
(Mishnah - Beis Hillel): We heard that she is believed only when she comes from the (grain) harvest, in the same province, like the case that occurred.
Beis Shamai: It is the same whether she comes from the grain harvest, the olive harvest, or the grape harvest, or from one province to another. Chachamim merely discussed the usual case.
Beis Hillel retracted and agreed to Beis Shamai.
(Gemara - Beraisa - Beis Shamai (to Beis Hillel)): According to you, we know only that she is believed during the wheat harvest. What is the source that she is believed during the harvest of barley, grapes, olives, dates and figs?
We must say that the case was during the wheat harvest, but the same applies to all harvests;
Likewise, the case was in the same province, but the same applies to if they were in different provinces!
Beis Hillel: Within the same province there is much traffic, so she is afraid to lie (lest witnesses contradict her). From a different province people do not come often, so she is not afraid to lie.
Beis Shamai say, even from a different province, caravans are common (so she is afraid to lie).
Question: What was the case that occurred?
Answer (Rav Yehudah): In the end of the wheat harvest 10 men went to harvest wheat. One was bitten by a snake and died. His wife came and told Beis Din. They verified her story;
They decreed that a woman who says that her husband died may remarry or do Yibum.
Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue as Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel do:
(Beraisa): One may not transport Mei Chatas (water sanctified with ashes of Parah Adumah) or the ashes across the Yarden River, or in a boat. He may not throw it across a river, float it across, send it across on an animal or with a person being carried across, unless the carrier's feet touch the ground. He may take it across a bridge;
This applies to all rivers.
R. Chananya ben Akiva says, they forbade only in a boat across the Yarden, like the case that occurred (brought below).
Suggestion: Chachamim hold like Beis Shamai, and R. Chananya holds like Beis Hillel.
Rejection #1: Chachamim can hold even like Beis Hillel;
Beis Hillel require her to be in the same province, for she is not afraid to lie if it is far away. Here there is no reason to distinguish the Yarden from other rivers.
Rejection #R. Chananya can hold even like Beis Shamai;
Beis Shamai say that she is believed even from a different province, for she will investigate well whether it is close or far. Here, we decreed only like the case that occurred, in a boat on the Yarden.
Question: What was the case in the boat?
Answer (Rav Yehudah): A man was carrying Mei Chatas and ashes of the Parah Adumah in a boat on the Yarden. Flesh of a corpse was found in the ship's bottom, which made the water and ashes Teme'im;
They decreed not to transport Mei Chatas or the ashes in a boat on the Yarden.
REGARDING WHAT IS SHE BELIEVED?
(Mishnah - Beis Shamai): She may remarry and she receives her Kesuvah;
Beis Hillel say, she may remarry, but does not receive the Kesuvah.
Beis Shamai: If she is believed to permit Ervah (Eshes Ish), which is stringent, all the more so she is believed about money, which is lenient!
Beis Hillel: We find that the children do not inherit based on her testimony.