Study Bava Metzia folio 17B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
he has said nothing. His claim is not accepted. What is the reason that he is not believed? It is because one who is owed any money based on a court enactment is considered like one who is holding a promissory note in his hand, against which a claim of repayment is not accepted without supporting
R' Ḥiyya bar Abba said to R' Yoḥanan: But what are you adding? Isn’t this principle stated in a Mishnah (Ketubot 88b), which teaches: If a woman produced a bill of divorce, and there was no accompanying marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract? This is an example of R' Yoḥan
R' Yoḥanan said to him: True, this Mishnah is a source for my principle; but had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it. In other words, if R' Yoḥanan had not pointed out the principle, R' Ḥiyya bar Abba would not have realized that it was underlying the rul
Abaye said: What qualifies this proof as a pearl? It is not a compelling proof, as perhaps in the Mishnah we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, as in such a place, a woman’s bill of divorce is the same as her marriage contract. But in a place where they do write a
Abaye then said: What I said is not correct. As, if it enters your mind that we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, but in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract then she collects payment, and if not she does not colle