Commentary for Bava Metzia 36:20

רבה בר בר חנה

it deals with [a document] which was found in Court, and since a Court of law is like a place where caravans are frequent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MS.F. 'and yet it states " it="" shall="" be="" returned,"="" hence="" we="" must="" conclude="" that="" even="" where="" caravans="" are="" frequent="" is="" only="" if="" (two="" persons)="" known="" to="" be,="" etc.']="" ');"="">²⁰</span> [we must conclude that] only if [two persons of the same name] are known to be [in the place where the document was issued the law is that] the document shall not be returned, but that if [two persons of the same name] are not known to be there [the law is that] it shall be returned. And R. Zera?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he explain the reference in the Mishnah to a 'Court of law'? ');">²¹</span> — He will answer you: Does [the Mishnah] state: 'Every document endorsed by the Court, which has been found in Court, shall be returned'? It only states: Every document endorsed by the court shall be returned, — but, in reality, it has been found outside [the Court].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where 'caravans are not frequent.' [For where it was found in Court it would be returned having regard to the frequency of caravans there.] ');">²²</span> R. Jeremiah says: [The Baraitha deals with a case] where the witnesses say, 'We never signed more than one bill of divorcement [with the name] of Joseph ben Simeon.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only in such does the Baraitha say that the bill shall be returned. ');">²³</span> But if so — what need is there to tell us [that in such a case the document has to be returned]? — You might say that we ought to apprehend that by a peculiar coincidence the names [of the husband and wife] as well [as the names of] the witnesses were identical [in two bills of divorcement]; therefore we are told [that we do not apprehend such a coincidence]. R. Ashi says: [The Baraitha deals with a case] where [the husband]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who admits that the bill is genuine. ');">²⁴</span> says, 'There is a hole near a certain letter,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The letter is named by the husband. ');">²⁵</span> and provided [he states] definitely near which letter [the hole is to be found],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This constitutes a 'precise, distinguishing mark', upon which one may rely even as regards a Biblical law. V. infra 27a. ');">²⁶</span> but if [he just says, 'There is] a hole [in the document,' without indicating the exact place, the document is] not [returned to the wife]: R. Ashi was in doubt whether [the validity of a claim to lost property put forward by one who describes the lost article's] distinguishing marks is [derived from] Biblical law or rabbinical law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [If the validity of ordinary distinguishing marks is only of Rabbinic origin, such marks would not be relied upon in the case of a bill of divorcement in view of the grave implications involved.] ');">²⁷</span> Rabbah b. Bar Hanah

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 36:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.