What is different about

<<into the hand of

<<a judge?

<<Rava said:

<<thus

<<it means:

<<and another

<<who found

<<a document

<<that had fallen

<<into the hand of

<<a judge —

<<and what

<<are the circumstances?

<<Where was written

<<in it

<<an authorization —

<<he shall not

<<take it out

<<ever.

And it is not necessary [to say]

<<where not

<<was written

<<in it

<<an authorization,

<<where there is

<<to say

<<he wrote it

<<to borrow

<<and did not

<<borrow;

<<but

<<even

<<was written

<<in it

<<an authorization,

<<which is verified,

<<he shall not

<<return it,

<<for we are concerned

<<about repayment.

And Rabbi Yosei

<<says:

<<it

<<remains

<<in its presumed status,

<<and we are not

<<concerned

<<about repayment.

<<And is not

<<concerned

<<Rabbi Yosei

<<about repayment?

But isn't it taught:

<<if one found

<<a document of

<<a kesubah

<<in the market —

<<when

<<the husband

<<admits,

<<he returns it

<<to the woman;

<<if does not

<<the husband

<<admit,

<<he does not

<<return it

<<neither

<<to this one

<<nor

<<to that one.

Rabbi Yosei

<<says:

<<while she is still

<<under

<<her husband,

<<he returns it

<<to the woman;

<<if she was widowed

<<or

<<divorced,

<<he does not

<<return it

<<neither

<<to this one

<<nor

<<to that one.

Reverse it:

<<if it fell

<<into the hand of

<<a judge

<<he shall not

<<take it out

<<ever —

<<the words of

<<Rabbi Yosei;

<<and the Sages

<<say:

<<it

<<remains

<<in its presumed status.

If so,

<<it is difficult:

<<the Rabbis

<<against the Rabbis!

The document of

<<a kesubah —

<<all of it is

<<Rabbi Yosei,

<<and it is incomplete

<<and thus

<<it teaches:

<<if does not

<<the husband

<<admit,

<<he does not

<<return it

<<neither

<<to this one

<<nor

<<to that one.

<<In what case is this said?

<<Where she was widowed

<<or

<<divorced;

<<but

<<while she is still

<<under

<<her husband,

<<he returns it

<<to the woman —

<<for Rabbi Yosei

<<says:

<<while she is still

<<under

<<her husband,

<<he returns it

<<to the woman;

<<if she was widowed

<<or

<<divorced,

<<he does not

<<return it

<<neither

<<to this one

<<nor

<<to that one.

Rav Pappa

<<said:

<<actually

<<do not

<<reverse it;

<<Rabbi Yosei

<<according to the words

<<of the Rabbis

<<said [it]

<<to them.

According to me,

<<even

<<if she was widowed

<<or

<<divorced

<<too

<<we are not

<<concerned

<<about repayment;

<<according to you,

<<agree

<<with me

<<at least

<<while she is still

<<under

<<her husband,

<<that he returns it

<<to the woman,

<<for it is not

<<subject to

<<repayment

<<it is.

And said

<<to him

<<the Rabbis:

<<say

<<bundles [of money]

<<he gave her to hold.

Ravina

<<said:

<<actually

<<reverse

<<the first [Baraisa],

<<and the reason

<<of the Rabbis

<<here

<<is because

<<we are concerned

<<about two

<<kesubos;

<<and Rabbi Yosei

<<about two

<<kesubos

<<is not

<<concerned.

Rabbi Elazar said:

<<the dispute is

<<where both of them

<<are grasping

<<the standard text

<<and both of them

<<the specific text;

<<but

<<one

<<grasping

<<the standard text

<<and one

<<grasping

<<the specific text —

<<this one

<<takes

<<the standard text,

<<and that one

<<takes

<<the specific text.

<<And Rabbi Yochanan

<<said:

<<always

<<they divide.

And even

<<one

<<grasping

<<the standard text

<<and one

<<the specific text.

<<But isn't it taught:

<<this one

<<takes

<<up to

<<the place

<<that his hand

<<reaches!

<<It is necessary only

<<where stands

<<the specific text

<<in the

<<middle.

If so,

<<what is

<<there to say?

<<It is necessary only

<<where it is nearer

<<to

<<one of them.

<<Lest you say:

<<he says

<<to him:

<<divide

<<this way;

<<it teaches us

<<that he says

<<to him:

<<what

<<did you see

<<that you divide

<<this way?

<<Divide

<<that way.

Rav Acha of Difti said to Ravina:

<<According to Rabbi Elazar,

<<who said:

<<this one

<<takes

<<the standard text,

<<and that one

<<takes

<<the specific text —

<<what does he need it for?

<<And

<<to stop up

<<the

<<mouth of

<<his flask

<<does he

<<need it?

He said to him:

<<for its value.

That he says

<<thus:

<<a document

<<that has

<<in it

<<a date,

<<how much

<<is it worth?

<<And one that does not have

<<in it

<<a date,

<<how much

<<is it worth?

<<With a document

<<that has

<<in it

<<a date,

<<he collects

<<from liened property;

<<and the other,

<<he does not

<<collect

<<from liened property.

<<He gives

<<him

<<that one

<<the difference between them.

“And they divide”

<<too

<<that we said —

<<for its value.

<<For if

<<not

<<you say

<<so,

<<two

<<who are holding

<<a garment —

<<so too

<<that they divide it?

<<But

<<they would ruin it!

<<This

<<is not a difficulty,