Gittin 54
בזמן שהבעל מודה מיהת יחזיר לאשה ואפי' לזמן מרובה ומשני כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות כאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות
that when the husband acknowledges it he should give it to the woman, even if a long time has elapsed? — R. Zera answered himself by saying that [in the Mishnah] here we speak of a place where caravans pass frequently and there [the other passage] of a place where caravans do not pass frequently. Some add [in quoting the answer of R. Zera]: And even [the Mishnah says] it should not be delivered only if there are presumed to be two men of the same name, which is the view of Rabbah. Some again report R. Zera as having said 'even though there are not presumed etc., he should not deliver,' and so as differing from Rabbah. We can understand why Rabbah did not raise the difficulty in the form in which it was raised by R. Zera: he thought there was more force in opposing one Mishnah to another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., our Mishnah and the Mishnah from Baba Mezi'a. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
איכא דאמרי והוא שהוחזקו הוא דלא ליהדר והיינו דרבה ואיכא דאמרי אע"ג דלא הוחזקו לא ליהדר ופליגא דרבה
But why did not R. Zera raise it in the form in which it was raised by Rabbah? — R. Zera might answer: Does the [other Mishnah] state, 'If the husband has said, Give, it is to be given even after the lapse of some time'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the assumption made above. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
בשלמא דרבה לא אמר כר' זירא מתני' אלימא ליה לאקשויי אלא רבי זירא מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבה
possibly what it means is that if he has said 'give' it is given only in the recognised way, i.e. immediately.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is no contradiction in the Mishnah from Baba Mezi'a, and therefore R. Zera raised the difficulty from a Baraitha. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר לך מי קתני אם אמר תנו נותנין ואפילו לזמן מרובה דלמא אם אמר תנו נותנין כדקי"ל לאלתר
R. Jeremiah said: [The Get is delivered after a lapse of time only] if, for instance, the witnesses say, 'We have never signed more than one Get in the name of Joseph ben Simeon.' If that is so, what does [the Mishnah] tell us? — You might think that we [still do not declare the Get valid] for fear that the name may happen to be the same and the witnesses may happen to be the same. Now we know [that we disregard this possibility]. R. Ashi said: [The Get is delivered after a lapse of time only] if the bearer can say, 'there is a hole at the side of such-and-such a letter,' which is a precise distinguishing mark. And that is, provided he says, 'at the side of such-and-such a letter', which is a precise distinguishing mark, and not simply 'a hole'. [R. Ashi ruled thus] because he was not certain if the rule about distinguishing marks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a claimant to a lost article could make good his claim by mentioning a sign, and had not necessarily to bring witnesses. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
רבי ירמיה אמר כגון דקאמרי עדים מעולם לא חתמנו אלא על גט אחד של יוסף בן שמעון
is derived from the Torah or was laid down by the Rabbis [on their own authority].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the Torah required witnesses and the Rabbis dispensed with this on their own authority, in the case of a Get, in view of the grave implications involved, a very clear mark would be required. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא ליחוש דלמא איתרמי שמא כשמא ועדים כעדים קמ"ל
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah lost a Get in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. He said [to the <i>Beth din</i>]: If you want a distinguishing mark, I can give one, and if you want me to recognise it by sight, I can do so. They gave it back to him. He said: I do not know if they gave it back because I was able to give a distinguishing mark,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it was not a precise mark. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
רב אשי אמר כגון דקאמר נקב יש בו בצד אות פלונית דהוה ליה סימן מובהק ודוקא בצד אות פלונית דהוה ליה סימן מובהק אבל נקב בעלמא לא
and they thought that the rule about such marks<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it was sufficient for a claimant to give a sign, and therefore even a Get should be restored. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
רבה בר בר חנה אירכס ליה גיטא בי מדרשא אמר אי סימנא אית לי בגויה אי טביעות עינא אית לי בגויה אהדרוה ניהליה אמר לא ידענא אי משום סימנא אהדרוה וקסברי סימנים דאורייתא אי משום טביעות עינא ודוקא צורבא מדרבנן אבל אינש בעלמא לא:
AND IF NOT IT IS NOT VALID. Our Rabbis have taught: What is it that we call 'not immediately'? R. Nathan says: If he has allowed an interval to elapse long enough for a caravan to pass by and encamp. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: [It is called 'immediately'] so long as someone stands there and sees that no-one passes there; some say, that no-one has stopped there. Rabbi says: [If he waits long enough] for the Get to be written. R. Isaac says: Long enough to read it. According to others, to write and to read it. Even if a considerable time did elapse, if there are [precise] distinguishing marks they are taken as evidence, e.g., if the bearer says that there is a hole at the side of such-and-such a letter. The general characteristics [of the Get], however, are no evidence, e.g., if he said that it was long or short. If the bearer found it tied up in a purse, a bag, or a ring,