Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 12, 2023 | 讻状讙 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 27

If the messenger loses the get and then finds it, under what circumstances can we assume it was the same get and wasn’t switched with another? Our Mishna rules that it must be found immediately or in a container into which the messenger had placed it, or if it had identifying signs. A Mishna in Bava Metzia 18a is brought as one can infer from there that if the husband wanted to use the get after it had been lost for a while, he could. This contradicts our Mishna which says it can only be used if it were found immediately. Raba resolves it by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. However, even in a place with many caravans, it is not an issue unless there are two people with the same name as appears in the document. Rabbi Zeira brought a contradiction to our Mishna from a braita, as the braita says explicitly that the husband can decide to send the get to his wife after it was lost in the marketplace, even after a long time has passed. Again, it is resolved by distinguishing between a place where caravans are/are not frequently found. Why didn’t Raba bring the contradiction from the braita and Rabbi Zeira from the Mishna in Bava Metzia? Rabbi Yirmia and Rav Ashi each resolve the same contradictions in a different manner, by providing more unique circumstances for the cases in the braita and the Mishna in Bava Metzia. Rabbi Yirmia: the witnesses signed on the get testified that they only signed on this particular get and identified the person for whom the get was written. Rav Ashi: it had clear identifying features (siman muvhak). However, if it was a regular siman, he would not permit it to be returned as perhaps simanim are only by rabbinic law and this would not be sufficient in the laws of a married woman to permit her to another man. What is considered “immediate” as mentioned in our Mishna? There are several different explanations.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 诪爪讗讜 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讗诐 诪讻讬专讜 讻砖专


MISHNA: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife鈥檚 name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid.


讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讜转 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇讗 诇讬转谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a bill of divorce was lost before being received by the woman it is invalid unless it was found immediately. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Metzia 18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission, wills [dayetikei], deeds of gifts, or receipts, this finder should not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided that he would not give them. One could infer from this mishna as follows: But if the writer said: Give these found documents to the intended recipient, one gives them, and this is true even if a long time passed since they were lost, and there is no concern that perhaps this document belongs to someone else with the same name.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转


Rabba said: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna that rules that the bill of divorce cannot be used unless it was found immediately, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are frequently found, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. There, in the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are not frequently found, so one may return the document if he knows that the writer did not reconsider.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转


The Gemara comments: And even in a place where caravans are frequently found, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, but this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, in that one town.


讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬


The Gemara continues: As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with the same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found, i.e., brought, in the court of Rav Huna, and the name of the place that was written in it was: In Sheviri the city, which is on the Rakhis River. And Rav Huna said: One is concerned about the possibility of the existence of two cities called Sheviri, and it is possible that this bill of divorce belongs to another man with an identical name.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 讜注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专


The Gemara continues: And Rav 岣sda said to Rabba, who was then a student: Go out and examine this halakha, as Rav Huna will ask you about it at night. Rabba went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 20a): One should return all court enactments, i.e., promissory notes that have been authenticated by the court, to their owner, and there is no concern that perhaps there are two towns with the identical name and that the promissory note belongs to someone else.


讜讛讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 驻砖讬讟 讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


The Gemara explains: But isn鈥檛 the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are frequently found, as there were always many people present there? And yet Rabba resolved the question and ruled that one should return the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. Apparently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in one town, then yes, there is a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.


注讘讚 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讬 讻讬转谞讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜 讻讬转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞谉 砖讬讬专转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻讬转谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讜砖讻讬讞谉 砖讬讬专讜转


The Gemara relates: Rabba performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in the flax house in the city of Pumbedita, in accordance with his ruling of halakha. As to the details of this incident, there are those who say that this was in the place where people soaked flax, and although it was established that there were two people with the same name living in the city mentioned in the bill of divorce, he ruled this way since it was a place where caravans are not frequently found. And there are those who say that this occurred in a place where people sold flax, and it was not established that two people with the same name lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written, and this occurred in a place where caravans are frequently found.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诐 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讛讗


Concerning this issue, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita and then answers it: We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. And if not, it is invalid. And he raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, then when the husband admits that he wrote it and gave it, the finder should return it to the woman. If the husband does not admit to this, then he should not return it, not to this man and not to this woman. One can infer from here: But


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转


when the husband admits that he wrote it, in any event he should return it to the woman, and by omission this appears to be the halakha even if a long time has passed since the bill of divorce was lost. And Rabbi Zeira answers: Here, in the mishna where it states that he should not return it, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are frequently found; there, in the baraita where it states that he should return it, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are not frequently found.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛


The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. There are those who say with regard to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that he should not return it in a place where caravans are frequently found: And this is the case when it is established that there are two people in the town with the identical name. In that case, Rabbi Zeira holds that it should not be returned, and this is the same ruling as that of Rabba. And there are those who say: In a place where caravans are frequently found, even though it is not established that there are two people with identical names, it should not be returned, and he disagrees with the ruling of Rabba.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛


The Gemara clarifies: Granted that Rabba did not say a discourse like that of Rabbi Zeira and raise a contradiction from the baraita, as he holds that it is a stronger challenge to raise a difficulty from the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia because the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language than baraitot. But what is the reason that Rabbi Zeira did not say a discourse like that of Rabba and raise a contradiction from the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia?


讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讚诇诪讗 讗诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诇讗诇转专


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have said to you: Does the mishna teach that if he said: Give the found document to the intended recipient, one gives it, and this is so even if a long time passed? This was only an inference from the mishna. Perhaps the mishna should be interpreted differently, so as to teach: If he said: Give it, then one gives it, but this is only as we maintain in the mishna, when it is found immediately, not if a long time has passed.


专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞转诪谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here, on the one hand, and the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia and the baraita, on the other hand. Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is possible to resolve the contradiction in a different way: The latter permit one to return a lost bill of divorce only in a case where the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of Yosef ben Shimon other than this one, in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬转专诪讬 砖诪讗 讻砖诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讻注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that one returns the bill of divorce? Since it clearly belongs to her, there is no question that it must be returned to her. The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps it happened that another bill of divorce was written in which the names of the husband and the wife are identical to the names of the husband and wife of the second bill of divorce, and the names of the witnesses on that bill of divorce are identical to the names of the witnesses on this bill of divorce, when in fact they are different witnesses. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讜讚讜拽讗 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讗讘诇 谞拽讘 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara suggests an alternative resolution to the contradiction. Rav Ashi said: When do the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia and the baraita rule that one should return the bill of divorce? It is in a case where the one who lost it says: There is a hole in the bill of divorce, next to such and such a letter, as this is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi permits the returning of such a bill of divorce specifically when one says that the hole is next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him. But if he said only that it had a hole without mentioning its precise location, then one should not return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.


诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi is uncertain with regard to whether the obligation to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law or if it is by rabbinic law. Therefore, in the case of a bill of divorce, he holds that one may rely only on a clear-cut distinguishing mark, as everyone agrees that the requirement to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark is by Torah law.


专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讬 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 讜拽住讘专讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讜讚讜拽讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞砖 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗


Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates an incident: Rabba bar bar 岣na lost the bill of divorce that he was transmitting, when he was in the study hall. He said: If they request a distinguishing mark, I have one for it. If it depends on visual recognition, I have methods of recognition for it. They returned the bill of divorce to him. He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it due to the distinguishing mark that I supplied, and they hold that distinguishing marks are used to return lost items by Torah law, or if it was due to my visual recognition, and it is specifically Torah scholars [tzurva miderabbanan] like me who are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, but an ordinary man would not be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖诇讗 诇讗诇转专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 砖转注讘讜专 砖讬讬专讗 讜转砖专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 砖诐 讗讚诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讛讛 讗讚诐 砖诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讙讟 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇拽专讜转讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讻讜转讘讜 讜诇拽专讜转讜


搂 The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce immediately, it is valid, but if not, then it is invalid. The Sages taught: What is considered not immediately? Rabbi Natan says: It is when there was a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take for a caravan to pass by and camp there. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no fixed amount of time; rather, it is within the category of immediately as long as there will be a person that stands and sees that no other person passed there. And some say that he said: It is as long as no person stopped there. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is within the category of immediately if there was not a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: It is equivalent not to the amount of time needed write the bill of divorce, but equivalent to the amount of time it would take to read it. Others say: It is equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write it and to read it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讛讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪注讬讚讬诐 注诇讬讜 讚讗诪专讬 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讜祝 讚讗诪专讬 讗专讜讱 讜讙讜抓


The Gemara adds: And even if there was a delay and the bill of divorce has distinguishing marks on it, the marks attest to it and it is considered a valid bill of divorce. This is the halakha where the distinguishing marks are clear-cut, e.g., when they say: It has a hole next to such and such a letter. And one may not testify with regard to distinguishing marks of the physical description of the bill of divorce itself, e.g., where they say: This bill of divorce is long or short, as these are not considered distinguishing marks.


诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转


In a case where one found a bill of divorce tied up in a pouch or in a purse [arnaki], or encircled in a ring, and he recognizes the document,


  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 22-28 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn that anyone can write a Get, even if they don鈥檛 have the mental capacity. We...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 27: A Shaliach’s Worst Nightmare?

What happens if the shaliach for a get loses the get? It depends how much time passes before he finds...

Gittin 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 27

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 诪爪讗讜 讘讞驻讬住讛 讗讜 讘讚诇讜住拽诪讗 讗诐 诪讻讬专讜 讻砖专


MISHNA: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife鈥檚 name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a 岣fisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid.


讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐 讜砖讞专讜专讬 注讘讚讬诐 讚讬讬转讬拽讬 诪转谞讜转 讜砖讜讘专讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讬讜 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 砖诇讗 诇讬转谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a bill of divorce was lost before being received by the woman it is invalid unless it was found immediately. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Metzia 18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission, wills [dayetikei], deeds of gifts, or receipts, this finder should not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided that he would not give them. One could infer from this mishna as follows: But if the writer said: Give these found documents to the intended recipient, one gives them, and this is true even if a long time passed since they were lost, and there is no concern that perhaps this document belongs to someone else with the same name.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转


Rabba said: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna that rules that the bill of divorce cannot be used unless it was found immediately, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are frequently found, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. There, in the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are not frequently found, so one may return the document if he knows that the writer did not reconsider.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转


The Gemara comments: And even in a place where caravans are frequently found, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, but this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, in that one town.


讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘砖讜讬专讬 诪转讗 讚注诇 专讻讬住 谞讛专讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇砖谞讬 砖讜讬专讬


The Gemara continues: As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with the same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found, i.e., brought, in the court of Rav Huna, and the name of the place that was written in it was: In Sheviri the city, which is on the Rakhis River. And Rav Huna said: One is concerned about the possibility of the existence of two cities called Sheviri, and it is possible that this bill of divorce belongs to another man with an identical name.


讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘讛 驻讜拽 讜注讬讬谉 讘讛 讚诇讗讜专转讗 讘注讬 诇讛 诪讬谞讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞谉 讻诇 诪注砖讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专


The Gemara continues: And Rav 岣sda said to Rabba, who was then a student: Go out and examine this halakha, as Rav Huna will ask you about it at night. Rabba went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 20a): One should return all court enactments, i.e., promissory notes that have been authenticated by the court, to their owner, and there is no concern that perhaps there are two towns with the identical name and that the promissory note belongs to someone else.


讜讛讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讻诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讚诪讬 讜拽讗 驻砖讬讟 讬讞讝讬专 讗诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讞讝拽讜 砖谞讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘注讬专 讗讞转 讗讬谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗


The Gemara explains: But isn鈥檛 the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are frequently found, as there were always many people present there? And yet Rabba resolved the question and ruled that one should return the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. Apparently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in one town, then yes, there is a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.


注讘讚 专讘讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘讛讛讜讗 讙讬讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讬 讻讬转谞讗 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜 讻讬转谞讗 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讞讝拽讜 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞谉 砖讬讬专转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讚讜讻转讗 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讻讬转谞讗 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 讜砖讻讬讞谉 砖讬讬专讜转


The Gemara relates: Rabba performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in the flax house in the city of Pumbedita, in accordance with his ruling of halakha. As to the details of this incident, there are those who say that this was in the place where people soaked flax, and although it was established that there were two people with the same name living in the city mentioned in the bill of divorce, he ruled this way since it was a place where caravans are not frequently found. And there are those who say that this occurred in a place where people sold flax, and it was not established that two people with the same name lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written, and this occurred in a place where caravans are frequently found.


专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讜诪砖谞讬 转谞谉 讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 讜讗讘讚 讛讬诪谞讜 讗诐 诪爪讗讜 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讙讟 讗砖讛 讘砖讜拽 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗 诇讝讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讛 讛讗


Concerning this issue, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita and then answers it: We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. And if not, it is invalid. And he raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: If one found a woman鈥檚 bill of divorce in the marketplace, then when the husband admits that he wrote it and gave it, the finder should return it to the woman. If the husband does not admit to this, then he should not return it, not to this man and not to this woman. One can infer from here: But


讘讝诪谉 砖讛讘注诇 诪讜讚讛 诪讬讛转 讬讞讝讬专 诇讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讜诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛砖讬讬专讜转 诪爪讜讬讜转


when the husband admits that he wrote it, in any event he should return it to the woman, and by omission this appears to be the halakha even if a long time has passed since the bill of divorce was lost. And Rabbi Zeira answers: Here, in the mishna where it states that he should not return it, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are frequently found; there, in the baraita where it states that he should return it, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are not frequently found.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛讜讗 砖讛讜讞讝拽讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚专讘讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讛讜讞讝拽讜 诇讗 诇讬讛讚专 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讛


The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. There are those who say with regard to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement that he should not return it in a place where caravans are frequently found: And this is the case when it is established that there are two people in the town with the identical name. In that case, Rabbi Zeira holds that it should not be returned, and this is the same ruling as that of Rabba. And there are those who say: In a place where caravans are frequently found, even though it is not established that there are two people with identical names, it should not be returned, and he disagrees with the ruling of Rabba.


讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗拽砖讜讬讬 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讛


The Gemara clarifies: Granted that Rabba did not say a discourse like that of Rabbi Zeira and raise a contradiction from the baraita, as he holds that it is a stronger challenge to raise a difficulty from the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia because the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language than baraitot. But what is the reason that Rabbi Zeira did not say a discourse like that of Rabba and raise a contradiction from the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia?


讗诪专 诇讱 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 讚诇诪讗 讗诐 讗诪专 转谞讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 诇讗诇转专


The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have said to you: Does the mishna teach that if he said: Give the found document to the intended recipient, one gives it, and this is so even if a long time passed? This was only an inference from the mishna. Perhaps the mishna should be interpreted differently, so as to teach: If he said: Give it, then one gives it, but this is only as we maintain in the mishna, when it is found immediately, not if a long time has passed.


专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 诪注讜诇诐 诇讗 讞转诪谞讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讙讟 讗讞讚 砖诇 讬讜住祝 讘谉 砖诪注讜谉


The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here, on the one hand, and the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia and the baraita, on the other hand. Rabbi Yirmeya said: It is possible to resolve the contradiction in a different way: The latter permit one to return a lost bill of divorce only in a case where the witnesses who signed the bill of divorce say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of Yosef ben Shimon other than this one, in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讗讬转专诪讬 砖诪讗 讻砖诪讗 讜注讚讬诐 讻注讚讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating that one returns the bill of divorce? Since it clearly belongs to her, there is no question that it must be returned to her. The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that one should be concerned that perhaps it happened that another bill of divorce was written in which the names of the husband and the wife are identical to the names of the husband and wife of the second bill of divorce, and the names of the witnesses on that bill of divorce are identical to the names of the witnesses on this bill of divorce, when in fact they are different witnesses. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not a concern.


专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讜讚讜拽讗 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜讘讛拽 讗讘诇 谞拽讘 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗


The Gemara suggests an alternative resolution to the contradiction. Rav Ashi said: When do the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia and the baraita rule that one should return the bill of divorce? It is in a case where the one who lost it says: There is a hole in the bill of divorce, next to such and such a letter, as this is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him. The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi permits the returning of such a bill of divorce specifically when one says that the hole is next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him. But if he said only that it had a hole without mentioning its precise location, then one should not return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.


诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讬 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 讚专讘谞谉


The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi is uncertain with regard to whether the obligation to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law or if it is by rabbinic law. Therefore, in the case of a bill of divorce, he holds that one may rely only on a clear-cut distinguishing mark, as everyone agrees that the requirement to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark is by Torah law.


专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讗诪专 讗讬 住讬诪谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讬 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讘讙讜讬讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪谞讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 讜拽住讘专讬 住讬诪谞讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讜讚讜拽讗 爪讜专讘讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞砖 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗


Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates an incident: Rabba bar bar 岣na lost the bill of divorce that he was transmitting, when he was in the study hall. He said: If they request a distinguishing mark, I have one for it. If it depends on visual recognition, I have methods of recognition for it. They returned the bill of divorce to him. He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it due to the distinguishing mark that I supplied, and they hold that distinguishing marks are used to return lost items by Torah law, or if it was due to my visual recognition, and it is specifically Torah scholars [tzurva miderabbanan] like me who are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, but an ordinary man would not be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬讝讛讜 砖诇讗 诇讗诇转专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖砖讛讛 讻讚讬 砖转注讘讜专 砖讬讬专讗 讜转砖专讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛 砖诇讗 注讘专 砖诐 讗讚诐 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讛讛 讗讚诐 砖诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇讻转讜讘 讗转 讛讙讟 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 诇拽专讜转讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻讚讬 诇讻讜转讘讜 讜诇拽专讜转讜


搂 The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce immediately, it is valid, but if not, then it is invalid. The Sages taught: What is considered not immediately? Rabbi Natan says: It is when there was a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take for a caravan to pass by and camp there. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no fixed amount of time; rather, it is within the category of immediately as long as there will be a person that stands and sees that no other person passed there. And some say that he said: It is as long as no person stopped there. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is within the category of immediately if there was not a delay equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yitz岣k says: It is equivalent not to the amount of time needed write the bill of divorce, but equivalent to the amount of time it would take to read it. Others say: It is equivalent to the amount of time it would take to write it and to read it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讛讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪注讬讚讬诐 注诇讬讜 讚讗诪专讬 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讗讬谉 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讜祝 讚讗诪专讬 讗专讜讱 讜讙讜抓


The Gemara adds: And even if there was a delay and the bill of divorce has distinguishing marks on it, the marks attest to it and it is considered a valid bill of divorce. This is the halakha where the distinguishing marks are clear-cut, e.g., when they say: It has a hole next to such and such a letter. And one may not testify with regard to distinguishing marks of the physical description of the bill of divorce itself, e.g., where they say: This bill of divorce is long or short, as these are not considered distinguishing marks.


诪爪讗讜 拽砖讜专 讘讻讬住 讘讗专谞拽讬 讜讘讟讘注转


In a case where one found a bill of divorce tied up in a pouch or in a purse [arnaki], or encircled in a ring, and he recognizes the document,


Scroll To Top