Gittin 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

We have learned:

What is this

exact page location

when the husband at least admits it, he must return it to the woman, even after a long time,

and this is unlike what we learned in our Mishna!?

And he answers:

Rabbi Zeira also follows Rabba: This is not difficult:

Here—

in our Mishna—

we are dealing with a place where caravans are common.

Here—

in the beraita—

we are dealing with a place where caravans are not common.

Some say

that according to Rabbi Zeira:

Even when caravans are common,

and this is when

it has been established that

[only when identical names have also been established is the document not returned],

and

Rabbi Zeira

is saying the same as Rabba.

And some say:

When caravans are common,

even though identical names have not been established, it is not returned

[it is not returned],

and this disagrees with

Rabbi Zeira and

Rabba,

who holds that it is not returned only when caravans are common and identical names have also been established.

The Gemara explains the reason for the views of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira: Rabba stated his principle in order to reconcile the contradiction between our Mishna and the Mishna in Bava Metzia, whereas Rabbi Zeira stated that same principle in order to reconcile the contradiction between our Mishna and the beraita:

Granted, Rabba did not state his view in accordance with Rabbi Zeira,

because

the Mishna is stronger grounds for raising a difficulty

[it is preferable to raise the difficulty from a Mishna rather than from a beraita, because the Mishnayot have greater primary authority than the beraitot].

But as for Rabbi Zeira, why did he not state his view in accordance with Rabba!?

He could say to you:

If we were to raise a difficulty from the Mishna in Bava Metzia, there would be no difficulty at all, for

does it teach

in that Mishna: “

If he said, ‘Give it,’ they give it, even after a long time,”

so that we could challenge our Mishna, which did not deem it fit after a long time!?

For

perhaps

the Mishna means only that

if he said “

Give it,”

they give it,

but

as we have established

in our Mishna,

only immediately

is it fit; after a long time, it is not.

Rabbi Yirmeya said

in order to resolve both Rabba’s difficulty from the Mishna in Bava Metzia against our Mishna and Rabbi Zeira’s difficulty from the beraita against our Mishna:

That Mishna and that beraita are dealing with a case

where witnesses say: “We have never signed except on one divorce document of Yosef ben Shimon”,

so there is no concern that there is another document.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

the beraita, which teaches: “When the husband admits it, it is returned to the woman,”

what is the point of stating this

[what novel point is there in this]? Since there is no concern that there is another document, and there is not even concern that perhaps they were written and he reconsidered and decided not to give them, since the husband admits it, what novel point did the beraita teach us!?

And we answer:

Lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps it happened

that a divorce document belonging to another couple fell here,

whose names are the same as the names

[their names are the same as those of the couple in this document],

and

that other document was signed by different witnesses whose names are the same as those of

witnesses like

these who signed this document—

It teaches us

that we are not concerned about this.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the difficulty from the Mishna in Bava Metzia and from the beraita:

For example, he says:

There is a perforation in it

in the divorce document

beside a particular letter

which makes it a distinctive identifying mark ,

and it is returned on the basis of this mark.

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi specifically said, “There is a perforation in it

beside a particular letter,”

because

it is—

this mark—

a distinctive identifying mark,

and there is no clearer testimony than this.

But an ordinary perforation,

where the loser did not say in what place the document was perforated,

is not

a mark by which to return the document.

Why did Rav Ashi require specifically a distinctive identifying mark? Because

it was uncertain to him

whether

identifying marks are of Torah origin

and one may rely on them even with regard to a divorce document, which comes to permit a Torah prohibition,

or

whether identifying marks are only

rabbinic,

and one relies on them only in monetary law, because “the waiver of the court is a waiver,” but they did not permit a Torah prohibition through a positive action—

And because Rav Ashi was uncertain about this, he permitted the document only on the basis of a distinctive identifying mark, which certainly suffices even by Torah law to permit the prohibition of a married woman.

Rabba bar bar Hana—

when he was an agent to bring a divorce document—

lost the divorce document in the house of study

[he lost the document in the beit-midrash].

Rabba bar bar Hana said

to the scholars who came to the house of study and found the document:

If I have an identifying mark in it

[if you want me to give you an identifying mark, I have one in it].

If I have visual recognition

in it

[and if you want visual recognition, I have that in it as well].

And

they returned it to him

[they returned the document to Rabba bar bar Hana].

Rabba bar bar Hana said:

I do not know:

Whether because of the identifying mark—

which was not distinctive—

they returned it

[did they return it to me because of the mark],

and they hold that identifying marks are of Torah origin,

so they relied even on a non-distinctive mark to return a divorce document and thereby permit the Torah prohibition of a married woman.

Or,

they hold that identifying marks are of Torah origin and would not rely on this non-distinctive mark, but

they returned it to me because of visual recognition,

and specifically

because I am

a Torah scholar

[a Torah scholar],

but not an ordinary person

would they have returned it to him, since the mark is not distinctive, and they do not rely on his visual recognition because he is suspected of lying.

but not to an ordinary person

We learned in the Mishna: “If it was found immediately, it is fit,”

but if not, it is unfit: The Sages taught:

What is considered not immediately,

such that it is not returned to him?

Rabbi Natan says: If enough time passed

for

a caravan to pass through and camp

[to stop],

there, even if it did not come.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no fixed measure for this, and the document is fit only

when a person can stand and see that no person passed there,

meaning: A person actually stood there and saw that no one other than the loser of the document passed there.

And some say:

A person must stand and see

that

no one passed and

that no other person stayed

there;

but if someone passed by without staying there, we are not concerned that the document may have fallen from him.

Rabbi Meir says:

The measure of time spent is

the time required to write the divorce document

—that is the measure of “not immediately.”

Rabbi Meir says:

Rabbi Yitzhak says:

The measure is

the time required to read it,

the divorce document, which is a shorter measure; beyond this, it is not considered “immediately.” Others say:

The measure is

the time required to write it and

also

to read it.

And

the document is returned to him

even if he stayed away, and it bears identifying marks

that are distinctive

and attest to it,

meaning: The document is returned on the basis of identifying marks. What identifying marks are these?

For example,

they say: “There is a perforation in it beside a particular letter.”

But

however,

one may not testify on the basis of the document’s physical features,

namely,

they say: “The document is long”,

and

the document is short, for these are not identifying marks at all, since there are many documents like that.

of the bill of divorce, meaning

that they say: “It is long”,

the bill of divorce,

or short,

the bill of divorce, because these are not identifying marks of any significance, as many bills of divorce are like that.