Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

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 valid.

(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.
2. If we would not say this, Rabah would contradict himself!
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 Shviri)!
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.

(d) A Get was found in the flax district of Pumbadisa; Rabah ruled as he taught, that it should be returned.

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.
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.

(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.

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. 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 found immediately!

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 name.

1. Question: If so, of course we return it - what do the Mishnah and Beraisa teach?
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.

(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.

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).
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.)

(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.

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 it.

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 invalid.
(b) (Beraisa) Question: What is considered not immediately?

1. Answer #1 (R. Noson): Enough time passed for a caravan to pass and to camp.
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 read it.

(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.

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.