POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 27
GITIN 27 - Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of New Jersey have dedicated
this Daf in memory of Marcia's mother, Esther Friedman (Esther
Chaya Raizel bat Gershom Eliezer) and father, Hyman Smulevitz
(Chaim Yisochar ben Yaakov).
1) A LOST GET
(a) A man was carrying a Get and lost it. If he finds it
immediately, we assume it is the same one, he may give
it; if not, it is invalid.
1. If he found it in a bag - if he recognizes it, it is
(b) (Gemara) Contradiction (Mishnah): If one finds Gitin of
divorce or freedom, documents of gifts, or receipts - he
should not return them to the recipient, perhaps the
giver reconsidered and never gave the document.
1. We infer, if the giver says we should return it, we
do - even if it was found long after it was lost!
(c) Answer #1 (Rabah): Our Mishnah speaks where caravans are
common; that Mishnah speaks where they are not common.
1. Even where caravans are common - we are only
concerned if we know that another person in the city
has the same name as the husband.
(d) A Get was found in the flax district of Pumbadisa; Rabah
ruled as he taught, that it should be returned.
2. If we would not say this, Rabah would contradict
3. A Get was found in Rav Huna's Beis Din; it said, in
the city of Shviri, on the Rachis River.
4. Question (Rav Huna): Are we concerned that there may
be another city Shviri (if so, we cannot return the
Get, perhaps it was lost by a man of the other
5. Answer (Rabah - Mishnah): Any document of Beis Din
(such as this Get, which was validated by Beis Din)
that is found, it should be returned.
i. There is much traffic in Rav Huna's Beis Din,
yet Rabah concluded that we return it!
ii. We must say, he said to return it when we do
not know that there is another husband (or
city) of the same name.
1. Version #1: It was found where they soak flax
(caravans are not common) - he said to return it,
even though it was established that another man in
the city had the same name.
(e) Contradiction (R. Zeira - Mishnah) A man was carrying a
Get and lost it. If he finds it immediately, we assume it
is the same one, he may give it; if not, it is invalid.
2. Version #2: It was found where they sell flax
(caravans are common) - he said to return it only
because it was not established that another man in
the city had the same name.
1. (Beraisa): A man found a Get of divorce in the
market. If the husband admits that he gave it, we
return it to the woman; if he does not admit, we do
not return it to either one.
2) OTHER ANSWERS
2. If the husband admits that he gave it, we return it
- even if it was found a long time later!
(f) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): The Mishnah is where caravans are
common; the Beraisa is where they are not.
(g) Version #1: R. Zeira only says not to return (when
caravans are common) when we know that another man has
the same name - he holds as Rabah.
(h) Version #2: R. Zeira says not to return (when caravans
are common) even when we do not know that another man has
the same name - he argues on Rabah.
(i) We understand why Rabah did not ask R. Zeira's question -
it is better to ask a contradiction between Mishnayos.
(j) Question: Why didn't R. Zeira ask as Rabah?
(k) Answer: The Mishnah from which Rabah asked does not say
that we return it, even after a long time. (It only says
that we do not return it because we are concerned that it
was never given. Rabah inferred that this is the only
concern, even if it was found much later). Perhaps that
Mishnah agrees with our Mishnah, we only return it if
1. The Beraisa explicitly says, if the husband admits,
we return it - if it meant, only if found
immediately, it would have said so.
(a) Answer #2 (To questions (b) and (e) - R. Yirmeyah): The
Get may be returned after a long time if the witnesses
say that they only signed on 1 Get for a man with this
3) A GET FOUND LATER
1. Question: If so, of course we return it - what do
the Mishnah and Beraisa teach?
(b) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): (The Get may be returned after a
long time if) the messenger that lost the Get tells us
that there is a hole near a certain letter in the Get.
2. Answer: One might have thought, perhaps we are
concerned that this was a different Get, and the
names of the couple and of the witnesses happened to
coincide - we hear, we are not concerned for this.
1. This only is true if he tells us a very convincing
sign, that the hole is near a particular letter. If
he just says that it has a hole, we do not return it
(if it was found later).
(c) Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis Medrash. He
said - I can give a sign; I can recognize the Get. They
returned it to him.
2. Rav Ashi is unsure if the Torah authorizes returning
a lost object based on an (average) sign, or if this
is only mid'Rabanan. (Therefore, to return a Get,
which will permit a married woman, he requires a
very convincing sign.)
1. (Rabah bar bar Chanah): I do not know if they
returned it to me because of my sign, and they hold
that signs work mid'Oraisa; or, because I recognized
i. Only a Chacham is believed to say that he
recognizes a lost object, not a commoner.
(a) (Mishnah): If the Get was not found immediately, it is
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is considered not immediately?
1. Answer #1 (R. Noson): Enough time passed for a
caravan to pass and to camp.
(c) Even if the Get was found later, we may testify that it
is the same Get if there are signs, e.g. there is a hole
next to a particular letter.
2. Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Elazar): The time for a
person to see that no one else passed.
3. Answer #3 (Some say): That no one delayed there.
4. Answer #4 (Rebbi): The time to write a Get.
5. Answer #5 (R. Yitzchak): The time to read a Get.
6. Answer #6 (Others say): In order to write it and
1. We cannot testify based on signs which apply to many
Gitin, e.g. it is long or short.
(d) If it was found tied to a wallet or ring, or if it was
found among his garments in his house, even after a long
time, it is valid.