Bava Metzia

lost a bill of divorcement in the Beth Hamidrash.  [When it was found] he said [to the finders]: If you [attach importance to] a distinguishing mark, I have one on it; if, [however, you attach importance to] recognition by sight,  I am able to recognise it. [Whereupon the bill] was returned to him. He then said: I do not know whether it was returned to me because of the distinguishing mark  [I indicated], and the view was held that [the indication of] distinguishing marks [entitles the loser to recover his property] in accordance with Biblical law, or whether it was returned to me because of my ability to recognise it by sight, and [such recognition would be accepted from] a Rabbinic scholar only  but not from an ordinary person. The above text [states]: 'If one finds in the street a bill of divorcement, [the law is that] when the [former] husband admits [its validity] it shall be returned to the woman, but if the husband does not admit [its validity] it shall not be returned to either of them.' At all events [we are taught that] when the husband admits, [the bill of divorcement] is to be returned to the woman — ought we not to apprehend that [the husband] may have written it with the intention of giving it [to the wife] in Nisan but [in reality] did not give it to her till Tishri  and the husband may have gone and sold the fruit [of his wife's property]  between Nisan and Tishri, and she may then come, produce the bill of divorcement that was written in Nisan, and take away [the fruit] from the buyers unlawfully?  This would be right according to him who says that as soon as the husband has made up his mind to divorce her he is no more entitled to the fruit [of her property],  [and] it would be in order [for her to reclaim the sold fruit],  but according to him who says that the husband is entitled to the fruit [of her property] until the date on which he hands her [the bill of divorcement] — how is it to be explained? — When she comes to take away [the sold fruit] from the buyers we say to her: Bring proof when the bill of divorcement came to your hand. But why is [a bill of divorcement] different from notes of indebtedness, regarding which we have learnt: 'If one finds notes of indebtedness [the law is that] if they contain a clause pledging [the debtor's] property one shall not return them',  and this is interpreted [as applying to a case] where the debtor admits [the debt], and the reason [why the notes are not returned] is that they may have been written in Nisan and the loan may not have been granted till Tishri, so that [the creditor] may take away [the debtor's sold property]  from the buyers unlawfully — [why do we not say] there also [that the documents] should be returned, and that when [the creditor] will come to take away [the debtor's sold property] from the buyers we shall tell him: Bring proof when the note of indebtedness came to your hand?  — The answer is: In the case of a bill of divorcement the person who bought [from the husband the fruit of the wife's property] will come and demand of her [the proof],  saying: The reason why the Rabbis gave her back the bill of divorcement is that she may not be condemned to permanent widowhood,  but now that she has come [with the bill] to take away [the fruit of her property which I bought from her husband] let her go and bring proof when the bill of divorcement came to her hand! But in the case of a note of indebtedness the buyer will not come to demand [proof]. He will say [to himself]: As the Rabbis gave him back the note of indebtedness it is obvious that the purpose for which they gave it to him was [to enable him] to take away [the debtor's sold property from the buyer, and] this shows that the Rabbis made sure of the matter,  and that the note of indebtedness came to the hand [of the creditor] before my [purchase]. [DEEDS OF] LIBERATION OF SLAVES, etc. Our Rabbis taught: If one finds a deed of liberation in the street, [the law is that] when the master admits [its validity] one shall return it to the slave, [but when] the master does not admit [its validity] one shall not return it to either of them. Thus [we are taught that] when the master admits, [the deed of liberation] is to be returned to the slave — why [is this so]? Ought we not to apprehend that [the master] may have written it with the intention of giving it [to the slave] in Nisan but [in reality] did not give it to him till Tishri, and the slave may have gone and bought property between Nisan and Tishri,  and the master may have gone and sold it, and [the slave] may then produce the [deed of] liberation which was written in Nisan, and take away [the property] from the buyers unlawfully? This would be right according to him who says  that it is an advantage to a slave to be liberated from his master,  regard being had to Abaye who says, 'the witnesses acquire it for him by affixing their signatures';  [and] it would be in order [for him to buy property as soon as the deed of liberation is signed]; but according to him who says that it is a disadvantage to a slave to be liberated from his master  — how is it to be explained?  — When [the slave] comes to take away [the property sold by the master] we say to him: 'Bring proof when the [deed of] liberation came to your hand.' WILLS, DEEDS OF GIFT, etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by WILLS?  — [Documents which contain the words:] 'This shall be established and executed,'  so that when [the author of the document] dies, his property becomes the possession of the person named [in the document].  [What are] DEEDS OF GIFT?  — All [documents conferring a gift] which contain [the words]: 'From to-day — but after my death.'  But does this mean that only if it is written [in the document] 'From to-day — but after my death,' the person acquires [the gift], but if not, he does not acquire it!  — Abaye answered: The meaning is this: 'Which gift of a healthy person is like the gift of a dying person in that [the person named] does not acquire it until after the death [of the donor]'? Every [gift regarding which] it is written [in the document conferring it]: 'From to-day — but after my death.' The reason why [the documents named in the Mishnah are not returned] is that [ — as indicated in the Mishnah — the persons who lost them] did not say, 'Give them [to the persons named in the documents],' but if they said, 'Give them,' they would have to be given. Does not this contradict [the following Baraitha]: 'If one finds wills, mortgage deeds,  and deeds of gift, even if both [parties concerned] admit [their validity], one shall not return [the documents] to either of them'?  — R. Abba b. Memel answered: It is no contradiction: