## Gittin Daf 27a

###### Gittin 27a:1
[Gittin 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ; מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. מְצָאוֹ בַּחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִּדְלוֹסְקָמָא, אִם מַכִּירוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce and it** was **lost from him,** if he **finds it immediately** then the bill of divorce is **valid. But if not,** then it is **invalid,** as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if **he found it in a *ḥafisa* or in a *deluskema*** that he knows is his, or **if he recognizes** the actual bill of divorce, then it is **valid.**


###### Gittin 27a:2
[Gittin 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ: מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנוֹת וְשׁוֹבָרִין, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר – שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר כְּתוּבִין הָיוּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא לִיתְּנָן. הָא אָמַר ״תְּנו״ּ – נוֹתְנִין; וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if a bill of divorce was lost before being received by the woman it is invalid unless it was found immediately. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 18a): If **one found bills of divorce, or** bills **of manumission, wills [*dayetikei*],** deeds of **gifts, or receipts, this** finder **should not return** these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, **as I say** it is possible that **they were written and** then the writer **reconsidered about them** and decided **that he would not give them.** One could infer from this mishna as follows: **But** if the writer **said: Give** these found documents to the intended recipient, **one gives** them, **and** this is true **even** if **a long time** passed since they were lost, and there is no concern that perhaps this document belongs to someone else with the same name.


###### Gittin 27a:3
[Gittin 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** This is **not difficult. Here,** in the mishna that rules that the bill of divorce cannot be used unless it was found immediately, it is stated **with regard to a place where caravans are** frequently **found,** and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. **There,** in the mishna in tractate *Bava Metzia*, it is stated **with regard to a place where caravans are not** frequently **found,** so one may return the document if he knows that the writer did not reconsider.


###### Gittin 27a:4
[Gittin 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:4)

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת – וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעִיר אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And even in a place where caravans are** frequently **found,** there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, **but** this concern **is** only **where it has been established** that there are **two** men named, e.g., **Yosef ben Shimon, in** that **one town.**


###### Gittin 27a:5
[Gittin 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:5)

דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּה אַדְּרַבָּה: דְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, וַהֲוָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״בִּשְׁוִירֵי מָתָא דְּעַל רָכִיס נַהֲרָא״, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **As, if you do not say so,** that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with the same name, then there is a **difficulty** presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement **of Rabba and** another statement **of Rabba. As** there was **a certain bill of divorce that was found,** i.e., brought, in **the court of Rav Huna, and** the name of the place that **was written in it** was: **In Sheviri the city, which is on the Rakhis River. And Rav Huna said: One is concerned about** the possibility of the existence of **two** cities called **Sheviri,** and it is possible that this bill of divorce belongs to another man with an identical name.


###### Gittin 27a:6
[Gittin 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:6)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה: פּוֹק וְעַיֵּין בָּהּ, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי לַהּ מִינָּךְ רַב הוּנָא. נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח – דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba,** who was then a student: **Go out and examine this** *halakha*, **as Rav Huna** will **ask you about it at night.** Rabba **went out, examined** it, **and discovered** a relevant source. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Metzia* 20a): **One should return all court enactments,** i.e., promissory notes that have been authenticated by the court, to their owner, and there is no concern that perhaps there are two towns with the identical name and that the promissory note belongs to someone else.


###### Gittin 27a:7
[Gittin 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:7)

וְהָא בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּכִמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת דָּמֵי, וְקָא פָּשֵׁיט יַחְזִיר; אַלְמָא, אִי הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעִיר אַחַת – אִין, וְאִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **But isn’t the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are** frequently **found,** as there were always many people present there? **And** yet Rabba **resolved** the question and ruled that **one should return** the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. **Apparently** he holds that **if it is established** that there are **two** people named **Yosef ben Shimon in one town,** then **yes,** there is a concern and the document should not be returned, **but if not,** there is **no** concern.


###### Gittin 27a:8
[Gittin 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:8)

עֲבַד רַבָּה עוֹבָדָא בְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא, דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בֵּי כִיתָּנָא בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּדוּכְתָּא הֵיכָא דְּתָרוּ כִּיתָּנָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּחְזְקוּ – דְּלָא שְׁכִיחָן שְׁיָירָתָא; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי בְּדוּכְתָּא דִּמְזַבְּנִי כִּיתָּנָא, וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ, וּשְׁכִיחָן שַׁיָּירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabba performed an action,** i.e., issued a practical ruling, **with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in the flax house in** the city of **Pumbedita, in accordance with his** ruling of ***halakha*.** As to the details of this incident, **there are** those **who say** that this was **in the place where** people **soaked flax, and although it was established** that there were two people with the same name living in the city mentioned in the bill of divorce, he ruled this way since it was a place **where caravans are not** frequently **found. And there are** those **who say** that this occurred **in a place where** people **sold flax, and it was not established** that two people with the same name lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written, **and** this occurred in a place where **caravans are** frequently **found.**


###### Gittin 27a:9
[Gittin 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning this issue, the Gemara relates that **Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction** between **the mishna and a *baraita* and** then **answers** it: **We learned** in the mishna: With regard to an agent **who brings a bill of divorce and it** was **lost from him, if he finds it immediately** then the bill of divorce is **valid. And if not,** it is **invalid. And** he **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita* that states: If one **found a woman’s bill of divorce in the marketplace,** then **when the husband admits** that he wrote it and gave it, the finder should **return** it **to the woman.** If **the husband does not admit** to this, then he should **not return** it, **not to this** man **and not to this** woman. One can infer from here: **But**