Yevamot 31B

וארעא אוקמה בחזקת בר שטיא!

let the land remain in the possession of Bar Shatya. Since no substantiated proof was brought forth, the land remains in the hands of its current possessor. As such, the same should be true with regard to cases of betrothal and divorce whose status is uncertain; the woman should remain in her former presumptive status.

אלא אמר אביי: ״יגיד עליו ריעו״. תנא בקידושין, והוא הדין לגירושין. תנא בגירושין, והוא הדין לקידושין.

Rather, Rabba’s understanding of the Mishnah must be rejected, and Abaye said: The Mishnah should be understood according to that which is written: “His fellow speaks of him” (Job 36:33). This principle teaches that a related case can be inferred from the single case cited. The Mishnah teaches the case where it is uncertain whether the item is closer to him or closer to her with regard to betrothal, and the same is true with regard to divorce if it is uncertain whether the bill of divorce fell closer to him or closer to her. Similarly, the Mishnah teaches the case of bills that were written in a questionable manner with regard to divorce, and the same is true with regard to betrothal.

אמר ליה רבא: אי ״יגיד עליו ריעו״, מאי ״זהו״ דקתני?

Rava said to him: If you understand that the legal ruling in all of these cases is the same, and the Mishnah was written in the style of: His fellow speaks of him, then what is the meaning of the term: This is, that the Mishnah teaches? The Mishnah in fact emphasizes that this is a betrothal whose status is uncertain and this is a divorce whose status is uncertain, which indicates this case alone and no other.