Bava Metzia — Daf 18b

חיישינן לשני שוירי וא"ל רב חסדא לרבה פוק עיין בה דלאורתא בעי מינך רב הונא נפק דק ואשכח דתנן כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר

והא בי דינא דרב הונא דכי מקום שהשיירות מצויות דמי וקא פשיט רבה דיחזיר אלמא אי הוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון אין אי לא לא

עבד רבה עובדא (בההוא גיטא דאשתכח) בי כיתנא דפומבדיתא כשמעתיה

איכא דאמרי היכא דמזבני כיתנא והוא שלא הוחזקו אע"ג דשכיחין שיירתא

ואיכא דאמרי היכא דתרו כיתנא ואע"ג דהוחזקו דלא שכיחא שיירות

רבי זירא רמי מתניתין אברייתא ומשני תנן המביא גט ואבד הימנו מצאו לאלתר כשר ואם לאו פסול ורמינהי מצא גט אשה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה

קתני מיהת בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה ואפילו לזמן מרובה

ומשני כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות וכאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות

איכא דאמרי והוא שהוחזקו דלא נהדר והיינו דרבה איכא דאמרי אע"ג דלא הוחזקו לא נהדר ופליגא דרבה

בשלמא רבה לא אמר כר' זירא מתניתין אלימא ליה לאקשויי אלא רבי זירא מ"ט לא אמר כרבה

אמר לך מי קא תני הא אמר תנו נותנין ואפי' לזמן מרובה דלמא הא אמר תנו נותנין ולעולם כדקיימא לן לאלתר

למ"ד לר' זירא במקום שהשיירות מצויות ואע"ג שלא הוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון ופליגא דרבה במאי קא מיפלגי

רבה סבר דקתני כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר דאשתכח בב"ד עסקינן וב"ד כמקום שהשיירות מצויות והוא שהוחזקו לא יחזיר לא הוחזקו יחזיר

ורבי זירא אמר לך מי קתני כל מעשה ב"ד שנמצאו בב"ד כל מעשה ב"ד יחזיר קתני ולעולם דאשתכח אבראי

ר' ירמיה אמר כגון דקא אמרי עדים מעולם לא חתמנו אלא על גט אחד של יוסף בן שמעון

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא ליחוש דלמא אתרמי שמא כשמא ועדים כעדים קא משמע לן

רב אשי אמר כגון דקא אמר נקב יש בו בצד אות פלונית

ודוקא בצד אות פלונית אבל נקב בעלמא לא

רב אשי מספקא ליה סימנים אי דאורייתא אי דרבנן

רבה בר בר חנה

We apprehend that there may be two places called Shawire.  R. Hisda then said to Rabbah: Go and consider it carefully, for in the evening R. Huna will ask you about it. So he went and examined it thoroughly, and he found that we had learnt [in a Mishnah]: Every document endorsed by the Court shall be returned.  Now, R. Huna's court-house is surely like a place where caravans pass frequently,  and yet Rabbah decided that [the document] should be returned. We must therefore say that '[only] if two persons called 'Joseph ben Simeon' are known to be there it is so,  [but] if not, [it is] not [so]'.  Rabbah decided an actual case where a bill of divorcement was found among the flax in pumbeditha in accordance with his teaching.  Some say where flax was sold,  and it was [a case where two bearing the same name] were not known to be [in the place], although caravans were frequent there; others say [it was the place] where flax was steeped, and even though [two persons bearing the same name] were known to be [in the place, the bill had to be returned] because caravans were not frequent there. R. Zera pointed out a contradiction between our Mishnah and a Baraitha, and then explained it: We learnt [in the Mishnah]: If one has brought a bill of divorcement [in order to deliver it on behalf of the husband] and has lost it, [the law is that] if it is found immediately, it is valid, if not, it is invalid. This contradicts [the following Baraitha]: If one finds in the street a bill of divorcement it shall be returned to the woman when the [former] husband admits [its genuineness], but if the husband does not admit [its genuineness] it shall not be returned to either of them.  At all events it says, 'When the husband admits [its genuineness] it shall be returned to the woman' — [obviously] even after a long time! — And [R. Zera] explained it [by saying]: There  [the reference is] to a place where caravans pass frequently, but here  [the reference is] to a place where caravans do not pass frequently. Some say that it is only when [two persons bearing the same name] are known to be [in the place]  that we do not return [the bill],  and this is [in accordance with] the view of Rabbah. Others say that even if [two persons bearing the same name] are not known to be in the place we do not return [the bill] — contrary to the view of Rabbah. Now, we can well understand why Rabbah did not argue like R. Zera,  as he [Rabbah] deemed it more important to point out the [apparent] contradiction between our Mishnah [and the other Mishnah],  but why did not R. Zera argue like Rabbah?  — He will answer you: Does our Mishnah teach [expressly], 'But if he says, Give it [to the wife], it is given to her, even after a long time'? It may be that the meaning is: If he says, 'Give it [to the wife]' it is given to her, but only immediately,  as we have assumed all along.  According to the version of him who says that the view of R. Zera is that in a place where caravans are frequent [the document shall not be returned] even if there are no [two persons] known to be [in the place where the document was issued], and that [R. Zera thus] differs with Rabbah — wherein do they differ? — Rabbah holds that when the Mishnah states that 'Every document endorsed by the Court shall be returned',  it deals with [a document] which was found in Court, and since a Court of law is like a place where caravans are frequent,  [we must conclude that] only if [two persons of the same name] are known to be [in the place where the document was issued the law is that] the document shall not be returned, but that if [two persons of the same name] are not known to be there [the law is that] it shall be returned. And R. Zera?  — He will answer you: Does [the Mishnah] state: 'Every document endorsed by the Court, which has been found in Court, shall be returned'? It only states: Every document endorsed by the court shall be returned, — but, in reality, it has been found outside [the Court]. R. Jeremiah says: [The Baraitha deals with a case] where the witnesses say, 'We never signed more than one bill of divorcement [with the name] of Joseph ben Simeon.'  But if so — what need is there to tell us [that in such a case the document has to be returned]? — You might say that we ought to apprehend that by a peculiar coincidence the names [of the husband and wife] as well [as the names of] the witnesses were identical [in two bills of divorcement]; therefore we are told [that we do not apprehend such a coincidence]. R. Ashi says: [The Baraitha deals with a case] where [the husband]  says, 'There is a hole near a certain letter,'  and provided [he states] definitely near which letter [the hole is to be found],  but if [he just says, 'There is] a hole [in the document,' without indicating the exact place, the document is] not [returned to the wife]: R. Ashi was in doubt whether [the validity of a claim to lost property put forward by one who describes the lost article's] distinguishing marks is [derived from] Biblical law or rabbinical law. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah