Gittin 53

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המביא גט ואבד הימנו מצאו לאלתר כשר ואם לאו פסול מצאו בחפיסה או בדלוסקמא אם מכירו כשר:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE BEARER OF A GET LOSES IT. ON THE WAY, IF HE FINDS IT AGAIN IMMEDIATELY IT IS VALID, AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because perhaps it is not the same one but another with the same names. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ורמינהו מצא גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים דייתיקי מתנות ושוברין הרי זה לא יחזיר שאני אומר כתובין היו ונמלך עליהן שלא ליתנן הא אמר תנו נותנין ואפי' לזמן מרובה

IF HE FINDS IT IN A HAFISAH OR IN A DELUSKAMA<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Names of receptacles, explained infra 28a. ');">²</span>

אמר רבה לא קשיא כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות כאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות

OR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Rashi. ');">³</span>

ואפילו במקום שהשיירות מצויות והוא שהוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת

IF HE RECOGNISES IT, IT IS VALID.

דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא דרבה אדרבה דההוא גיטא דאישתכח בי דינא דרב הונא והוה כתיב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא ואמר רב הונא חוששין לשני שוירי

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Is there not a contradiction [between this Mishnah and the following]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 18a. For fuller notes on this whole section, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 110-115. ');">⁴</span>

ואמר ליה רב חסדא לרבה פוק ועיין בה דלאורתא בעי לה מינך רב הונא נפק דק ואשכח דתנן כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר

'If a man finds bills of divorcement of wives or of emancipation of slaves or wills or deeds of gift or receipts, he should not deliver them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either to the writer or the recipient. ');">⁵</span>

והא בי דינא דרב הונא דכמקום שהשיירו' מצויות דמי וקא פשיט יחזיר אלמא אי הוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת אין ואי לא לא

for I say that after they were written [the writer] changed his mind and decided not to give them'. I infer from this, do I not, that if he had said 'Give them,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of a Get sent by a bearer. ');">⁶</span>

עבד רבה עובדא בההוא גיטא דאישתכח בי כיתנא בפומבדיתא כשמעתיה איכא דאמרי בדוכתא היכא דתרו כיתנא ואף על גב דהוחזקו דלא שכיחן שיירתא ואיכא דאמרי בדוכתא דמזבני כיתנא והוא שלא הוחזקו ושכיחן שיירות

they are to be given, even if a long interval had elapsed? — Rabbah replied: There is no difficulty. Here [in our Mishnah the reference] is to a place where caravans pass frequently, there [the other] to a place where caravans do not frequently pass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore other documents containing the same names may also have been dropped. ');">⁷</span>

רבי זירא רמי מתני' אברייתא ומשני תנן המביא גט ואבד הימנו אם מצאו לאלתר כשר ואם לאו פסול ורמינהו מצא גט אשה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה הא

And even in a place where caravans frequently pass, [the Get is invalid] only if there are presumed to be two men named Simon ben Joseph in the same town. For if you do not [understand Rabbah thus], then there is a contradiction between this statement of Rabbah and another of his. For a Get was once found in the <i>Beth din</i> of R. Huna in which was written, 'In Shawire, a place by the canal Rakis', and R. Huna said: The fear that there may be two Shawires is to be taken into account;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the claimant may not be the person who dropped the Get and it is not to be delivered. ');">⁸</span> and R. Hisda said to Rabbah: Go and look it up carefully, because to-night R. Huna will ask you about it, and he went and looked up and found that we had learnt [in a Mishnah]: 'Any document which has passed through a <i>Beth din</i> is to be returned'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if the writer had not meant it to be delivered, he would not have brought it to the Beth din to be confirmed. ');">⁹</span> Now the <i>Beth din</i> of R. Huna was on a par with a place where caravans pass frequently, and Rabbah decided that the document should be delivered. From this we conclude that if there are known to be two men named Simon ben Joseph in the town it is [not to be returned], but otherwise it is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because two men of the same name were not known to be in that town. ');">¹⁰</span> In the case of a Get which was found 'among the flax' in Pumbeditha, Rabbah acted according to the rule just laid down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Get is to he delivered unless there are two reasons — of the place and of the name — to the contrary. ');">¹¹</span> Some say it was found in the place where flax was soaked, and although there were two persons of the same name known to be in the place, he ordered it to be returned because it was not a place where caravans passed frequently. Some again say that it was the place where flax was sold, and there were not two persons of the same name known to be there though caravans did pass frequently. R. Zera pointed to a contradiction between the Mishnah and the following Baraitha, and also resolved it. We learn here: IF THE BEARER OF A GET LOSES IT ON THE WAY AND FINDS IT AGAIN IMMEDIATELY, IT IS VALID, AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID. This seems to contradict the following: If a man finds a bill of divorce in the street, if the husband acknowledges it he should deliver it to the woman, but if the husband does not acknowledge it he should give it neither to one nor to the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 18b. ');">¹²</span> It says here at any rate