Commentary for Bava Metzia 35:13

דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא דרבה אדרבה דההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי דינא דרב הונא דהוה כתוב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא אמר רב הונא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE FINDS BILLS OF DIVORCEMENT OF WIVES, [DEEDS OF] LIBERATION OF SLAVES, WILLS, DEEDS OF GIFT, AND RECEIPTS, ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM, FOR I SAY, THEY WERE WRITTEN, BUT HE [WHO ORDERED THEM TO BE WRITTEN] CHANGED HIS MIND [AND DECIDED] NOT TO HAND THEM OVER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [If] the reason why [bills of divorcement are not returned] is that [we say], HE CHANGED HIS MIND [AND DECIDED] NOT TO HAND THEM OVER, then [we must assume] that if he [who lost the document] says [to those who found it], 'Give it [to the wife]', it is given [to her]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we do not apprehend that this is a different bill which another person has lost, and that the names in the document refer to other persons who happen to have had the same names as those given in the document which was lost and found. ');">¹³</span> even after a long time, but the following contradicts it: If one has brought a bill of divorcement [in order to deliver it on behalf of the husband] and has lost it, [the law is that] if it is found immediately<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no interval during which someone else may have lost a similar document in the same place. ');">¹⁴</span> it is valid, if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is not found immediately, but after an interval, during which a caravan may have passed through the place and halted there for a meal. ');">¹⁵</span> it is invalid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a member of the caravan may have lost it, and by some coincidence the names in the two documents may have been identical (Mishnah Git. 27a). ');">¹⁶</span> — Rabbah said: It is no contradiction: There [the reference is] to a place where caravans pass frequently;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference in Git. is to a place where caravans often pass through, and there is a likelihood of the bill having been dropped by a member of one of these travelling companies, but our Mishnah here deals with a case where there is no such likelihood. ');">¹⁷</span> here [in our Mishnah the reference is] to a place where caravans do not pass frequently. And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [What follows is a Talmudic comment on Rabbah's statement.] ');">¹⁸</span> even in a place where caravans pass frequently this [law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that a bill of divorcement is invalid if found after a long time. ');">¹⁹</span> only applies to a case] where two [persons called] 'Joseph ben Simeon'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A common name often given in the Talmud as one likely to be borne by two persons in the same town. ');">²⁰</span> are known to be in the same town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the town where the document was issued. ');">²¹</span> For if you did not maintain this, there would be a contradiction in Rabbah's own words, [as the following incident shows:] A bill of divorcement was once found in R. Huna's court-house, and in it was written, 'At Shawire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Near Sura, v. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian, p. 299.] ');">²²</span> a place [situate] by the canal Rakis.' R. Huna said:

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 35:13. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.