Bava Metzia

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