Bava Metzia 18b — the Talmud in English

Rav Huna said:

Even when a man comes and claims that a man from the city of Shavrei sent the get through him, and it fell from him, and we know that in the city of Shavrei there are not two men bearing the same name, nevertheless

we are concerned about two Shavrei

[we are concerned that there may be two cities whose name is “Shavrei,” and in the other city of Shavrei there is a man whose name is the same as his, and it fell from him; therefore, we do not return it to him] .

And Rav Hisda said to Rabba: Go out and examine it, for in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it

[Go and examine the matter, for in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about this matter].

He went out

, examined, and found

[Rabba went out, examined the matter, and found] a proof for it.

As we learned: Every document of the court

[every matter that had been validated in court] that was found, in which case there is no concern that he reconsidered and did not give it

this one shall be returned.

And this get, which was found in Rav Huna’s court, had been validated, for that is why they had brought it there. If so, there is no concern at all, and therefore it should be returned to the agent who claims it.

And now the Gemara continues to explain the question from Rabba against Rabba:

But the court of Rav Huna, which

because everyone comes to litigate there,

is

[like]

considered a place where caravans are common, and

nevertheless

Rabba determines that it should be returned

to the one who claims that the get is his!

Evidently,

it is proven from here that only

if two Yosef ben Shimon have been established

in one city

yes,

then we are concerned about this.

If not

established

no,

we are not concerned. Therefore Rabba said that we are not concerned about two cities whose name is Shavrei, since two such cities have not been established.

Rabba carried out a ruling

with a get that was found in

the flax-house

[below it will be explained what this place is]

of Pumbedita, in accordance with his teaching

[in accordance with his tradition], like his words above, that we are concerned about two Yosef ben Shimon only when two conditions have been fulfilled:

a. The document was found in a place where caravans are common.

b. Two Yosef ben Shimon had been established in the city.

And since in that incident the two conditions were not fulfilled, as will be explained below, Rabba instructed that the get be returned.

Some say,

that “the flax-house” means

the place where they sell flax

[the place where flax is sold],

and it

specifically

was not established

that there were two Yosef ben Shimon, in which case

even though caravans are common

in that place, as they come to purchase flax there, it should be returned.

And some say,

that “the flax-house” means

the place where they soak flax

[the place where flax is soaked],

and

it should be returned

even though two

Yosef ben Shimon had been established in one city, because

caravans are not common

in that place.

Rabbi Zeira raised a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita

[he raised a question from the Mishna cited above against a beraita] —

and resolved it

[and answered his question]:

We learned: One who brings a get and it was lost from him, if he found it immediately —

it is valid. But if not —

it is invalid.

And we raise a contradiction: One who found a woman’s get in the marketplace, when the husband admits

that he gave the get to the woman, and it was lost from her —

he shall return it to the woman.

And if

the husband does not admit,

but claims that it fell from him and that he has not yet given it to her —

he shall return it neither to this one nor to that one

[neither to the husband nor to the woman].

He shall not return it to the husband, lest he already divorced her and it fell from the woman. And if he returns it to the husband, he may lie and say that he already paid her marriage settlement, and therefore she returned the get to him.

And he shall not return it to the woman, lest the husband wrote the get and ultimately reconsidered and did not divorce her. And if he returns the get to her, she may marry on its basis unlawfully.

In any event, it teaches

[in any event we learned]:

when the husband admits —

he shall return it to the woman,

and the tan­ n a y did not distinguish between a short time and a long time. It follows:

even

if the get was found

after a long time

it should be returned!

And he resolved it

[and Rabbi Zeira answered]:

Here,

in the Mishna, it is speaking

of a place where caravans are common.

Therefore, if a long time passed from the time it was lost, there is concern that it fell from someone else.

And

if

here,

in the beraita, it is speaking

of a place where caravans are not common,

there is therefore no concern.

Some say

concerning Rabbi Zeira’s view that what we learned, that it should not be returned, and we established that it is speaking of a place where caravans are common, is specifically

provided that two Yosef ben Shimon were established there, for

then

we shall not return it, and this is

in accordance with the view

of Rabba,

who holds this above.

And

some say

concerning Rabbi Zeira’s view that he establishes the Mishna

even though two

Yosef ben Shimon were not established, and even in such a case

we shall not return it

[we shall not return it],

and

it follows that Rabbi Zeira

disagrees

with

Rabba .

And we say:

Granted, Rabba,

who raised a question from the Mishna in tractate Gittin against our Mishna, it is understandable why he

did not state it in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

who raised a question from the Mishna in tractate Gittin against the beraita. For

the Mishna

against the Mishna

is a stronger question

[it is a preferable question], since the Mishna is primary, and it is perplexing when two Mishnayot contradict one another.

This is not so with a beraita that contradicts the words of the Mishna, for this is not such a great question, since it can be said that the beraita is not primary. For if Rabbi, who arranged the Mishnayot, did not teach what is stated in the beraita, from where did Rabbi Hiyya [who arranged the beraitot] derive this law?!

But Rabbi Zeira,

who raised a question against the beraita,

for what reason did he not state it in accordance with Rabba?

He can say

Rabbi Zeira: There is no contradiction at all between the Mishnayot. For

does it teach

in our Mishna:

If he said, “Give it,” —

they give it, even after a long time?

The Mishna did not explicitly teach this; rather, Rabba inferred it. And

perhaps

one can infer something else from the Mishna:

If he said, “Give it,” —

they give it, and it is always as we have established,

as was ruled as halakha [in the Mishna in tractate Gittin], that this applies specifically when it was found

immediately.

Therefore Rabbi Zeira preferred to raise the question from the beraita. Since the tan­ n a y explicitly taught that it should be returned to the woman, he should have distinguished between immediately and after a long time.

This is not so in our Mishna, where the tan­ n a y taught only that it should not be returned, and the law that if he said “Give it,” they give it is only an inference; therefore the tan­ n a y was not required to clarify whether it applies specifically immediately or also after a long time.

And we inquire:

According to the one who says

above that

according to Rabbi Zeira, in a place where caravans are common,

we are concerned that it fell from someone else,

even though two Yosef ben Shimon were not established, and he disagrees with Rabba

[and he disagrees with Rabba], who holds that we are concerned only when they have been established,

over what do they disagree

Rabbi Zeira and Rabba?

And we explain:

Rabba reasoned: For it teaches

[what we learned]

“Every document of the court, this one shall be returned”

to the one for whom the document was written, even in a case

where it was found in court

. And

behold,

the court —

is like a place where caravans are common,

as we said above, and nevertheless we learned that this one shall be returned. It is proven from here that specifically

provided that they were established

two Yosef ben Shimon; then there is concern that it fell from someone else, and

it shall not be returned.

But if

they were not established —

it shall be returned.

And Rabbi Zeira can say to you: Does it teach

[did we learn] in our Mishna:

“Every document of the court that was found in court”?

But

it teaches, “Every document of the court shall be returned,”

and the Mishna did not specify where the documents were found.

And it is always

possible to say that it is speaking specifically

where it was found outside

[that the documents were found outside the court]. But if they were found in court, which is a place where caravans are common, it should not be returned, even if two such people had not been established.

Rabbi Jeremiah said

to resolve the question above: What we learned, that it should be returned, is speaking

for example, where

the

witnesses

who signed the get say:

“We never signed —

except on one get of Yosef ben Shimon,”

and he is this man who is now claiming the get . Therefore, there is certainly no concern that it fell from another person.

And we ask:

If so, what does it teach us

[what is the novelty in this? It is obvious that it should be returned]?

And we explain:

Lest you say:

Even though the witnesses say this, nevertheless

let us be concerned

[let us be concerned]

perhaps

the document that was found is another get, and

it happened that the name was the same and the witnesses were the same

[and this happened: the names of the husband and wife were also identical to the names of those before us, and the names of the witnesses were also identical] —

it teaches us

that this is a remote concern, and we are not concerned about it.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the question above: What we learned, that the get is returned, is speaking

for example

where the claimant gives a distinguishing mark,

for he says: “There is a perforation in it”

in the get,

beside a certain letter,

and his words were found to correspond .

And

it is implied by Rav Ashi’s words that

specifically

when he said that there was a perforation

beside a certain letter,

which is a distinctive mark, do we return it to him.

But

if he said that it had

a perforation in general,

without specifying its location —

we do not

return it.

And the reason is that

Rav Ashi was uncertain to him

[he was uncertain] concerning what we will learn below: that a lost object is returned on the basis of

marks

[that are not distinctive],

whether

it is a law

from the Torah

and therefore it is possible to rely on marks even with regard to prohibitions, and to return a get on their basis,

or

[or perhaps] it is a regulation

of the Sages

and, if so, specifically with regard to returning a lost object, which is a monetary law, could the Sages institute this, since they have the power to expropriate a person’s property, for the renunciation of the court is renunciation. But with regard to a prohibition — no.

And since Rav Ashi was uncertain about the matter, he therefore said that a get is returned specifically on the basis of a distinctive mark.

An incident involving

Rabba bar bar Hana —

who was an agent to bring a get —