The gemara rejects Abaye’s support of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that was derived from the mishna in Gitin that one cannot claim that a maaseh beit din was already paid – even if the person doesn’t provide documentation. \u00a0His support was based on the fact that an engaged woman whose husband dies can demand her ketuba even if there was no ketuba written. \u00a0In the end this cannot be proven to be a fact so the gemara assumes Abaye must have provided proof from a different direction and proceeds to explain from where. \u00a0The mishna says if one finds a get or will or other such docuemnts, he cannot return it because maybe the person who was giving it changed his mind and decided not to give it. \u00a0This implies that if he says now that he wants to give it (after we find it) he can, even if time has elapsed. \u00a0This contradicts a mishna in Gittin that one can only give a get that was found immediately and not after time has elapsed as maybe soemone else with the same name wants to use the get and is claiming it as his own. \u00a0Raba brings an answer and then the gemara narrows a bit the focus of his answer. \u00a0Then Rabbi Zeira asks a similar question from the mishna in Gittin but on a braita, not on our mishna. \u00a0He resolves it in the same way as Raba. \u00a0However it is unclear about whether he also narrows the focus of his answer or not. \u00a02 further answers are brought to resolve the contradiction between the braita and the mishna in Gittin.<\/p>\n