## Gittin Daf 27b

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

בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה מִיהַת – יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה! וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**when the husband admits** that he wrote it, **in any event** he should **return** it **to the woman, and** by omission this appears to be the *halakha* **even if a long time** has passed since the bill of divorce was lost. **And** Rabbi Zeira **answers: Here,** in the mishna where it states that he should not return it, it is stated **with regard to a place where caravans are** frequently **found; there,** in the *baraita* where it states that he should return it, it is stated **with regard to a place where caravans are not** frequently **found.**


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הוּא דְּלָא לַיהְדַּר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא לַיהְדַּר, 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 he should not return it in a place where caravans are frequently found: **And this is** the case **when it is established** that there are two people in the town with the identical name. In **that** case, Rabbi Zeira holds **that it should not be returned, and this is** the same ruling as that **of Rabba. And there are** those **who say:** In a place where caravans are frequently found, **even though it is not established** that there are two people with identical names, **it should not be returned, and** he **disagrees with** the ruling **of Rabba.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **Granted that Rabba did not say** a discourse **like** that of **Rabbi Zeira** and raise a contradiction from the *baraita*, as **he** holds that it is **a stronger** challenge **to raise a difficulty** from **the mishna** in tractate *Bava Metzia* because the Mishna, redacted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, employs more precise language than *baraitot*. **But what is the reason** that **Rabbi Zeira did not say** a discourse **like** that of **Rabba** and raise a contradiction from the mishna in tractate *Bava Metzia*?


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

אָמַר לָךְ, מִי קָתָנֵי: אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה? דִּלְמָא אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ נוֹתְנִין כִּדְקַיְימָא לַן – לְאַלְתַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could have **said to you: Does** the mishna **teach** that **if he said: Give** the found document to the intended recipient, **one gives** it, **and** this is so **even** if **a long time** passed? This was only an inference from the mishna. **Perhaps** the mishna should be interpreted differently, so as to teach: **If he said: Give** it, then **one gives** it, but this is only **as we maintain** in the mishna, when it is found **immediately,** not if a long time has passed.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the mishna here, on the one hand, and the mishna in tractate *Bava Metzia* and the *baraita*, on the other hand. **Rabbi Yirmeya said:** It is possible to resolve the contradiction in a different way: The latter permit one to return a lost bill of divorce only in a case **where** the **witnesses** who signed the bill of divorce **say: We have never signed a bill of divorce of Yosef ben Shimon other than** this **one,** in which case there is no concern that the bill of divorce belongs to someone else.


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

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִיתְרְמִי 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 her, there is no question that it must be returned to her. The Gemara answers: 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. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that this is not a concern.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק. וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק, אֲבָל: נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא, לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests an alternative resolution to the contradiction. **Rav Ashi said:** When do the mishna in tractate *Bava Metzia* and the *baraita* rule that one should return the bill of divorce? It is in a case **where** the one who lost it **says: There is a hole in** the bill of divorce, **next to such and such a letter, as this is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him.** The Gemara comments: **And** Rav Ashi permits the returning of such a bill of divorce **specifically** when one says that the hole is **next to such and such a letter, as that is a clear-cut distinguishing mark for him. But** if he said **only** that it had **a hole** without mentioning its precise location, then one should **not** return the bill of divorce, as that is not considered a clear-cut distinguishing mark.


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

מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ סִימָנִין אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi **is uncertain** with regard to **whether** the obligation to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of **distinguishing marks** is **by Torah law** or **if** 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 the requirement to return a lost item to its owner on the basis of a clear-cut distinguishing mark is by Torah law.


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

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִירְכַס לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַר: אִי סִימָנָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, אִי טְבִיעוּת – עֵינָא אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ. אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ – וְקָסָבְרִי סִימָנִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא – וְדַוְקָא צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל אִינָשׁ בְּעָלְמָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos this discussion the Gemara relates an incident: **Rabba bar bar Ḥana lost the bill of divorce** that he was transmitting, when he was **in the study hall. He said: If** they request **a distinguishing mark, I have** one **for it. If** it depends on **visual recognition, I have** methods of recognition **for it. They returned** the bill of divorce **to him. He said** afterward: **I do not know if they returned it due to the distinguishing mark** that I supplied, **and they hold that distinguishing marks** are used to return lost items **by Torah law,** or **if it was due to** my **visual recognition, and** it is **specifically Torah scholars [*tzurva miderabbanan*]** like me who are relied upon when they say that they recognize an item, **but an ordinary man** would **not** be relied upon to recognize the item and have it returned to him.


###### Gittin 27b:10
[Gittin 27b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27b:10)

וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַלְתַּר? רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲבוֹר שְׁיָירָא וְתִשְׁרֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר שָׁם אָדָם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה אָדָם שָׁם. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַגֵּט. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְרוֹתוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי לְכוֹתְבוֹ וְלִקְרוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one found the bill of divorce immediately, it is valid, **but if not,** then it is **invalid. The Sages taught: What is** considered **not immediately? Rabbi Natan says:** It is **when** there was **a delay equivalent** to the amount of time it would take **for a caravan to pass** by **and camp** there. **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:** There is no fixed amount of time; rather, it is within the category of immediately **as** long as **there will be a person** that **stands and sees that no** other **person passed there. And some say** that he said: It is as long **as no person stopped there. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It is within the category of immediately if there was not a delay **equivalent** to the amount of time it would take **to write the bill of divorce. Rabbi Yitzḥak says:** It is equivalent not to the amount of time needed write the bill of divorce, but **equivalent** to the amount of time it would take **to read it. Others say:** It is **equivalent** to the amount of time it would take **to write it and to read it.**


###### Gittin 27b:11
[Gittin 27b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27b:11)

וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁהָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִין – מְעִידִים עָלָיו; דְּאָמְרִי: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית. וְאֵין מְעִידִין עַל סִימָנֵי הַגּוּף; דְּאָמְרִי: אָרוֹךְ וְגוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And even** if there was **a delay and** the bill of divorce **has distinguishing marks on it,** the marks **attest to it** and it is considered a valid bill of divorce. This is the *halakha* where the distinguishing marks are clear-cut, e.g., **when they say: It has a hole next to such and such a letter. And one may not testify with regard to distinguishing marks of the** physical description of the bill of divorce **itself,** e.g., **where they say:** This bill of divorce is **long or short,** as these are not considered distinguishing marks.


###### Gittin 27b:12
[Gittin 27b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/27b:12)

מְצָאוֹ קָשׁוּר בְּכִיס, בְּאַרְנָקִי וּבְטַבַּעַת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where one found a bill of divorce **tied** up **in a pouch** or **in a purse [*arnaki*], or** encircled **in a ring,** and he recognizes the document,