בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה מִיהַת יַחֲזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וְאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה! וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

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.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הוּא דְּלָא לִיהֲדַר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה; וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא לִיהֲדַר, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּה לָא אֲמַר כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ לְאַקְשׁוּיֵי, אֶלָּא רַבִּי זֵירָא מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא אֲמַר כְּרַבָּה?

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִיתְרְמִי שְׁמָא כִּשְׁמָא וְעֵדִים כְּעֵדִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן.

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.

רַב אַשִׁי אֲמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק. וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק, אֲבָל נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא – לָא,

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.

מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ: סִימָנִין, אִי דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

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.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִירְכַּס לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא בֵּי מִדְרָשָׁא, אֲמַר: אִי סִימָנָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, אִי טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ; אֲהַדְרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. אֲמַר: לָא יָדַעֲנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנָא אֲהַדְרוּהּ, וְקָסָבְרִי סִימָנִים דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא, וְדַוְקָא צוּרְבָא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל אֱינָשׁ בְּעָלְמָא לָא.

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.

״וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַלְתַּר? רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲבוֹר שַׁיָּירָא 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.

§ 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.

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

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.

מְצָאוֹ קָשׁוּר בְּכִיס, בְּאַרְנָקִי, וּבְטַבַּעַת,

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,