אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִמְּךָ אֲפִילּוּ מֵרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וַאֲפִילּוּ מִשַּׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא Rav Huna said: The term: From you, in the document do not identify anyone in particular, and can mean even: From the Exilarch, or even: From King Shapur.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה פּוֹק עַיֵּין בָּהּ דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי לַהּ רַב הוּנָא מִינָּךְ Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: Go out and investigate this matter, as tonight Rav Huna will ask this question of you.
נְפַק דָּק וְאַשְׁכַּח דְּתַנְיָא גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר אִם כָּתוּב בּוֹ גֵּרַשְׁתִּיהָ הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר Rabba went out, examined the matter, and discovered a relevant source. As it is taught in a baraita: Concerning a bill of divorce in which there are the signatures of witnesses on the document but there is no date written on it, Abba Shaul says that if it is written in it: I divorced her today, it is valid.
אַלְמָא הַיּוֹם הַהוּא יוֹמָא דְּנָפֵיק בֵּיהּ מַשְׁמַע הָכָא נָמֵי מִמְּךָ מֵהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּנָפֵיק מִתּוּתֵי יְדֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע Rabba concludes: Apparently, the term: Today, indicates that day on which the bill of divorce emerges in the presence of the court. Here too, the term: From you, in a promissory note indicates that man from whose possession it emerges.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וְדִלְמָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר עֵדֵי מְסִירָה כָּרְתִי אֲבָל הָכָא לֵיחוּשׁ לִנְפִילָה Abaye said to him: But this is not a valid proof, as perhaps Abba Shaul holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. But here, let there be a concern for the possibility of the promissory note falling from its rightful owner and being found by the present holder of the document.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ לִנְפִילָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִנְפִילָה Rabba said to Abaye: We are not concerned for the possibility of a promissory note falling from its rightful owner and being found by another. And from where do you say, i.e., from where can it be proven, that we are not concerned for the possibility of a promissory note falling and being found by another?
דִּתְנַן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ בְּעִיר אַחַת שֵׁם אֶחָד יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן וְשֵׁם אַחֵר יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה עַל זֶה וְלֹא אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב הָא הֵם עַל אֲחֵרִים יְכוֹלִין וְאַמַּאי לֵיחוּשׁ לִנְפִילָה אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִנְפִילָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן As we learned in the mishna: If there are two people who were living in one city, one named Yosef ben Shimon and the other also named Yosef ben Shimon, one cannot present a promissory note against the other, as the purported debtor can claim: On the contrary, it is you who owed me money; you repaid me and I returned this note to you upon payment. Nor can another, third person, present a promissory note against either of them. This indicates that one of them can present a promissory note against others. But why can they do so? Let there be a concern for the possibility of the promissory note falling from one Yosef ben Shimon and being found by the other. Rather, must one not conclude from this mishna that we are not concerned for the possibility of the promissory note falling from one Yosef ben Shimon and being found by the other?
וְאַבָּיֵי לִנְפִילָה דְחַד לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִנְפִילָה דְרַבִּים חָיְישִׁינַן The Gemara asks: And why did Abaye, who is concerned for this possibility, not see a proof to the contrary from the mishna? He would counter: We are not concerned for the possibility of a promissory note falling from one particular person and being found by the other person with the same name, which is the case in the mishna, as that is extremely unlikely. We are concerned for the possibility of a promissory note falling from one of the general public and being found by someone else.