שמע מינה איתא לדשמואל דאמר שמואל המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואפי' יורש מוחל Conclude from the fact that this suspicion is not taken into account that the halakha of Shmuel is accepted. As Shmuel says: In the case of one who sells a promissory note to another, and the seller then forgives the debt of the debtor, it is forgiven, since the debtor essentially had a non-transferable obligation to the creditor alone, and even the creditor’s heir can forgive the debt. Therefore, if the wife did engage in the deception mentioned above, it was within her rights, as she is able to forgive the debt of the marriage contract.
אביי אמר אפילו תימא ליתיה לדשמואל הכא במאי עסקינן בששטר כתובה יוצא מתחת ידה ורבא אמר אי משום שטר כתובה חיישינן לשתי כתובות Abaye said: This is not conclusive proof. Even if you say that the halakha of Shmuel is not accepted, here we are dealing with a case where the marriage contract emerges from her possession, which indicates that she did not sell it. And Rava disagreed with Abaye and said: If the reason there is no suspicion that she sold her marriage contract is due to the fact that the marriage contract emerged from her possession, this reason is insufficient, as we should suspect that there might be two marriage contracts.
ואביי אמר חדא לשתי כתובות לא חיישינן ועוד שובר בזמנו טריף אביי לטעמיה דאמר עדיו בחתומיו זכין לו: And Abaye said in response: First, we are not concerned about the remote possibility of two marriage contracts. And furthermore, even if there is only one marriage contract, which was sold before the receipt was given to the husband, the receipt is valid, as a receipt can be used to repossess property from the time it was written, even if it was given on a later date. In saying this, Abaye conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that once a monetary document is written for someone, the document’s witnesses, with their signatures, acquire it on his behalf.
מתני׳ מצא איגרות שום ואיגרות מזון שטרי חליצה ומיאונין (מתני' יבמות קז ב) ושטרי בירורין וכל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר MISHNA: If one found documents of appraisal of a debtor’s property for the purpose of debt collection; or documents concerning food, which were drawn up when one accepted upon himself to provide sustenance for another; documents of ḥalitza; or documents of refusal of a girl upon reaching majority to remain married to the man to whom her mother or brothers married her as a minor after the death of her father; or documents of beirurin, a concept that will be explained in the Gemara; or any court enactment, e.g., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, in all of these cases, the finder must return the document to its presumed owner.
מצא בחפיסה או בדלוסקמא תכריך של שטרות או אגודה של שטרות הרי זה יחזיר וכמה אגודה של שטרות שלשה קשורין זה בזה רשב"ג אומר אחד הלוה משלשה יחזיר ללוה שלשה הלוין מן האחד יחזיר למלוה If one found documents in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema, both of them types of containers, or if he found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. And how many documents are considered to be a bundle of documents? It is three that are tied together. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the documents make reference to loans of one person who borrowed money from three people, the finder must return them to the debtor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost. If the documents make reference to loans of three people who borrowed money from one person, he must return them to the creditor, as they were presumably in his possession before being lost.
מצא שטר בין שטרותיו ואינו יודע מה טיבו יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו אם יש עמהן סמפונות יעשה מה שבסמפונות: If one found a document among his documents that were given to him by other people as a trustee, and he does not know what its nature is, i.e., he does not remember who gave it to him or whether the debt mentioned in it has been paid, the document is placed aside until Elijah the prophet comes and clarifies the issue through his prophecy. If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among them, he should do what is stated in the simponot.
גמ׳ מאי שטרי ברורין הכא תרגמו שטרי טענתא רבי ירמיה אמר זה בורר לו אחד וזה בורר לו אחד: GEMARA: What is meant by documents of beirurin? Here, in Babylonia, the Sages interpret it to mean documents recording each litigant’s clarification [beirur] of his claims in a court case. Rabbi Yirmeya, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, said: It is referring to cases where this litigant chooses [borer] one judge, and that litigant chooses one judge, and they choose the third judge for the case. The two litigants sign a document in which they declare which judges they choose.
וכל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר: ההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי דינא דרב הונא דהוה כתיב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא אמר רב הונא § The Gemara addresses that which the mishna states: And with regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. The Gemara relates: There was a certain bill of divorce that was found in the court of Rav Huna, in which it was written that the bill of divorce was written in Sheviri City, which is located on the Rakhis River. Rav Huna said about this: