## Bava Metzia Daf 18b

###### Bava Metzia 18b:1
[Bava Metzia 18b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:1)

חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה: פּוֹק עַיֵּין בָּהּ, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי מִינָּךְ רַב הוּנָא. נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח. דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We are concerned about** the possibility that there are **two** cities named **Sheviri** and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. **And Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba** about this issue: **Go out** and **examine** this *halakha*, **as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you** about it. **He went out, examined** it, **and discovered** a relevant source, **as we learned** in a mishna (20a): **One must return any court enactment,** i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. Since the bill of divorce was found in the court, it is in this category and must be returned.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:2
[Bava Metzia 18b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:2)

וְהָא בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּכִי מְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת דָּמֵי, וְקָא פָּשֵׁיט רַבָּה דְּיַחְזִיר, אַלְמָא אִי הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its proof that even in a place where passing caravans are common, the concern that the bill of divorce belongs to another couple applies only if it is known that there is another couple in the same locale with the same names as those written in the bill of divorce: **And the court of Rav Huna is comparable to a place where** passing **caravans are common,** as many people from different places pass through for judgment. **And** yet, **Rabba resolved that** if one finds a bill of divorce there, **he should return** it. **Evidently** he holds that **if** it is **established** that there are **two** people named **Yosef ben Shimon** in the city, then there is **indeed** a concern and the document should not be returned, but **if not,** there is **no** concern.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:3
[Bava Metzia 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:3)

עֲבַד רַבָּה עוֹבָדָא בְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בֵּי כִיתָּנָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabba performed an action,** i.e., issued a practical ruling, **with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found** in **a flax house in** the city of **Pumbedita, in accordance with his *halakha*,** and he instructed that the bill of divorce should be returned.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:4
[Bava Metzia 18b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:4)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הֵיכָא דִּמְזַבְּנִי כִּיתָּנָא וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ, אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁכִיחָן שְׁיָירָתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is disagreement as to the exact details of the case. **There are** those **who say** that this occurred in the place **where** people **sell flax, and** it is **specifically** because it **was not established** that two couples with the same names lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written that Rabba ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned **despite** the fact **that** passing **caravans are common** there.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:5
[Bava Metzia 18b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הֵיכָא דְּתָרוּ כִּיתָּנָא וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּחְזְקוּ, דְּלָא (שְׁכִיחָא שְׁיָירוֹת).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say** that it occurred in the place **where** people **soak flax, and** he ruled that the bill of divorce should be returned **even though it was established** that there were two couples with the same names living in the city where the bill of divorce was written, **as** passing **caravans are uncommon** there.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:6
[Bava Metzia 18b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:6)

רַבִּי זֵירָא רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַבָּרַיְיתָא וּמְשַׁנֵּי. תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ, מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. וּרְמִינְהִי: מָצָא גֵּט אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לְאִשָּׁה. אֵין הַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a *baraita*, and he resolves** the contradiction employing the same distinction. **We learned** in the mishna: With regard to an agent **who was bringing a bill of divorce** to a woman **and he lost it,** if **he found it immediately,** the bill of divorce is still **valid, but if not, it is not valid. And** Rabbi Zeira **raises a contradiction** between this mishna and a *baraita* that states: If one **found a woman’s bill of divorce in the marketplace,** in a case **when the husband admits** that he wrote and gave it to the wife, the finder **must return** it **to the wife;** but if **the husband does not admit** to this, **he may return** it **neither to this one,** the husband, **nor to that one,** the wife.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:7
[Bava Metzia 18b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:7)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches** that in a case **when the husband admits** that he wrote it, the finder **must return** it **to the wife, and** this is the *halakha* **even** if it was found **after a long time.**


###### Bava Metzia 18b:8
[Bava Metzia 18b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:8)

וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְכָאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Zeira **answers** that **here,** in the case of the mishna, the bill of divorce is valid only if it is found immediately, as it is a case where it is found **in a place where** passing **caravans are common. And there,** in the *baraita*, the bill of divorce can be returned even if it was found after a long time, as it is a case where it is found **in a place where** passing **caravans are uncommon.**


###### Bava Metzia 18b:9
[Bava Metzia 18b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:9)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ דְּלָא נַהְדַּר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא נַהְדַּר, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara compares the rulings of Rabba and Rabbi Zeira. **There are** those **who say,** with regard to Rabbi Zeira’s statement that the finder should not return the bill of divorce in a place where passing caravans are common: **And** this applies **specifically** in a case **where** it is **established** that there are two couples in the town with the same names. In that case, Rabbi Zeira holds **that** the bill of divorce **should not be returned, and this is** the same ruling as that **of Rabba. And there are** those **who say:** In a place where passing caravans are common, **even if** it is **not established** that there are two couples with the same names, the bill of divorce **should not be returned, and** Rabbi Zeira **disagrees with** the ruling **of Rabba.**


###### Bava Metzia 18b:10
[Bava Metzia 18b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּה לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי. אֶלָּא רַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, Rabba does not state** his explanation **in accordance with** that of **Rabbi Zeira** and raise a contradiction from the *baraita*, as **he** holds that **a mishna** serves as **a stronger** basis **for raising a difficulty** than a *baraita*, as the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language; **but what is the reason** that **Rabbi Zeira does not state** his explanation **in accordance with** that of **Rabba** and raise a contradiction from the Mishna?


###### Bava Metzia 18b:11
[Bava Metzia 18b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:11)

אָמַר לָךְ, מִי קָא תָנֵי: הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה? דִּלְמָא הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וּלְעוֹלָם כִּדְקַיְימָא לַן לְאַלְתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have **said to you: Does** the mishna actually **teach that** if the one who wrote the document **says: Give** it to the intended recipient, the finder **must give** it to him, **and** that this is the *halakha* **even** if **a long time** passed since it was lost? This was only an inference from the mishna. **Perhaps** the mishna merely means to indicate **that** if the writer **says: Give** it to the intended recipient, the finder **must give** it to him, **but actually,** this is to be understood **as we maintain** in the mishna in *Gittin*, that this *halakha* applies only if the document was found **immediately.** Therefore, Rabbi Zeira posed his question from the *baraita*.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:12
[Bava Metzia 18b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:12)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְרַבִּי זֵירָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְאַף עַל גַּב שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to the one who says** that **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Zeira** a document may not be returned **in a place where** passing **caravans are common, and** this is the *halakha* **even if** it was **not established** that there are **two** people named **Yosef ben Shimon** in town, **and he disagrees with Rabba, with regard to what do** Rabbi Zeira and Rabba **disagree?** What is the foundation of their dispute?


###### Bava Metzia 18b:13
[Bava Metzia 18b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:13)

רַבָּה סָבַר דְּקָתָנֵי כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר, דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּבֵית דִּין עָסְקִינַן, וּבֵית דִּין כִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, לֹא הוּחְזְקוּ – יַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rabba maintains** his opinion based on the mishna (20a) **that teaches: One must return any court enactment.** He understands that **we are dealing with** a document **that was found in court, and a court is equivalent to a place where** passing **caravans are common. And** therefore, he maintains that it is **specifically** in a place **where** it is **established** that there are two people with the same name that the finder **should not return** the document to its presumed owner; but in a place where it is **not established** that there are two people with the same name, **he should return** it.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:14
[Bava Metzia 18b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:14)

וְרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר לָךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּבֵית דִּין״? ״כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין יַחְזִיר״ קָתָנֵי, וּלְעוֹלָם דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח אַבָּרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Zeira,** who disagrees with Rabba, could have **said to you: Does** the mishna **teach** that one must return **any court enactment that was found in court? It teaches** that **one must return any court enactment,** without specifying the location where the court enactment was found, **and** it is **actually** referring to a case **where** the documents **were found outside** the court. If it was found inside the court, it should not be returned. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira was not convinced by Rabba’s proof.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:15
[Bava Metzia 18b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:15)

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָמְרִי עֵדִים: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חָתַמְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גֵּט אֶחָד שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya states** an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here and the *baraita*, on the one hand, and the mishna in *Gittin* on the other: A found bill of divorce should be returned only in a case **where** the **witnesses** who signed the bill of divorce **say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of** a person named **Yosef ben Shimon other than** this **one,** in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:16
[Bava Metzia 18b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:16)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִתְרְמִי שְׁמָא כִּשְׁמָא, וְעֵדִים כְּעֵדִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, what** is the purpose **of stating** that one returns the bill of divorce? Since it clearly belongs to him, there is no question that it must be returned to him. The Gemara answers that it is necessary **lest you say** that **one should be concerned** that **perhaps it happened** that another bill of divorce was written in which **the names** of the husband and the wife **are identical to the names** of the husband and wife of the second bill of divorce, **and** the names of the **witnesses** on that bill of divorce **are identical to** the names of the **witnesses** on this bill of divorce, when in fact they are different witnesses. To counter this, the mishna **teaches us** that this is not a concern.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:17
[Bava Metzia 18b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:17)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi stated** another resolution to the contradiction: The bill of divorce should be returned only in a case **where** the person claiming to have lost it provides a clear-cut distinguishing mark, e.g., **he says: There is a hole in** the bill of divorce **next to such and such a letter.**


###### Bava Metzia 18b:18
[Bava Metzia 18b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:18)

וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, אֲבָל נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Rav Ashi permits one to return such a bill of divorce **specifically** when the one claiming to have lost it says that the hole is **next to such and such a letter,** as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark. **But** if he said **only** that it had **a hole** without mentioning its precise location, one should **not** return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:19
[Bava Metzia 18b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:19)

רַב אָשֵׁי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ סִימָנִים אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rav Ashi is uncertain whether** a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of **distinguishing marks by Torah law** or **whether** it is **by rabbinic law.** Therefore, in the case of a bill of divorce, he holds that one may rely only on a clear-cut distinguishing mark, as everyone agrees that a lost item is returned to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark by Torah law.


###### Bava Metzia 18b:20
[Bava Metzia 18b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/18b:20)

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rabba bar bar Ḥana**