גיטין כז

גיטין כז

מַתְנִי׳ הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ; מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. מְצָאוֹ בַּחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִּדְלוֹסְקָמָא, אִם מַכִּירוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.

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’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid.

גְּמָ׳ וּרְמִינְהוּ: מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנוֹת וְשׁוֹבָרִין, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר – שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבִין הָיוּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא לִיתְּנָן. הָא אָמַר ״תְּנו״ּ – נוֹתְנִין; וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה!

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.

אָמַר רַבָּה, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

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.

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת – וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעִיר אַחַת.

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.

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּה אַדְּרַבָּה: דְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, וַהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״בִּשְׁוִירֵי מָתָא דְּעַל רָכִיס נַהֲרָא״, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי;

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.

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה: פּוֹק וְעַיֵּין בָּהּ, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי לַהּ מִינָּךְ רַב הוּנָא. נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח – דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר.

The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥisda 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.

וְהָא בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּכִמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת דָּמֵי, וְקָא פָּשֵׁיט יַחְזִיר; אַלְמָא, אִי הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעִיר אַחַת – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.

The Gemara explains: But isn’t 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.

עֲבַד רַבָּה עוֹבָדָא בְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא, דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בֵּי כִיתָּנָא בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּדוּכְתָּא הֵיכָא דְּתָרוּ כִּיתָּנָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּחְזְקוּ – דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָן שְׁיָירָתָא; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּמְזַבְּנִי כִּיתָּנָא, וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ, וּשְׁכִיחָן שַׁיָּירוֹת.

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.

רַבִּי זֵירָא רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַבָּרַיְיתָא, וּמְשַׁנֵּי. תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ, אִם מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. וּרְמִינְהוּ: מָצָא גֵּט אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לְאִשָּׁה, אֵין הַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. הָא

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’s 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

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה מִיהַת – יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה! וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

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.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הוּא דְּלָא לַיהְדַּר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא לַיהְדַּר, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה.

The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. There are those who say with regard to Rabbi Zeira’s 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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּה לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי; אֶלָּא רַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה?

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?

אָמַר לָךְ, מִי קָתָנֵי: אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה? דִּלְמָא אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ נוֹתְנִין כִּדְקַיְימָא לַן – לְאַלְתַּר.

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.

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חָתַמְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גֵּט אֶחָד שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן.

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.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִיתְרְמִי שְׁמָא כִּשְׁמָא וְעֵדִים כְּעֵדִים קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק. וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק, אֲבָל: נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא, לָא;

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.

מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ סִימָנִין אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִירְכַס לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַר: אִי סִימָנָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, אִי טְבִיעוּת – עֵינָא אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ. אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ – וְקָסָבְרִי סִימָנִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא – וְדַוְקָא צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל אִינָשׁ בְּעָלְמָא לָא.

Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates an incident: Rabba bar bar Ḥana 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.

וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַלְתַּר? רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲבוֹר שְׁיָירָא וְתִשְׁרֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר שָׁם אָדָם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה אָדָם שָׁם. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַגֵּט. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְרוֹתוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי לְכוֹתְבוֹ וְלִקְרוֹתוֹ.

§ 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 Yitzḥak 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.

וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁהָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִין – מְעִידִים עָלָיו; דְּאָמְרִי: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית. וְאֵין מְעִידִין עַל סִימָנֵי הַגּוּף; דְּאָמְרִי: אָרוֹךְ וְגוּץ.

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.

מְצָאוֹ קָשׁוּר בְּכִיס, בְּאַרְנָקִי וּבְטַבַּעַת,

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,