מתני׳ המביא גט ואבד הימנו מצאו לאלתר כשר ואם לאו פסול מצאו בחפיסה או בדלוסקמא אם מכירו כשר:
MISHNA: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. But if not, then it is invalid, as it is possible that the bill of divorce that he found is not the same one that he lost, and this second bill of divorce belongs to someone else whose name and wife’s name are identical to the names of the husband and wife in the lost bill of divorce. However, if he found it in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema that he knows is his, or if he recognizes the actual bill of divorce, then it is valid.
גמ׳ ורמינהו מצא גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים דייתיקי מתנות ושוברין הרי זה לא יחזיר שאני אומר כתובין היו ונמלך עליהן שלא ליתנן הא אמר תנו נותנין ואפי' לזמן מרובה
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a bill of divorce was lost before being received by the woman it is invalid unless it was found immediately. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Bava Metzia 18a): If one found bills of divorce, or bills of manumission, wills [dayetikei], deeds of gifts, or receipts, this finder should not return these items to the one who is presumed to have lost them, as I say it is possible that they were written and then the writer reconsidered about them and decided that he would not give them. One could infer from this mishna as follows: But if the writer said: Give these found documents to the intended recipient, one gives them, and this is true even if a long time passed since they were lost, and there is no concern that perhaps this document belongs to someone else with the same name.
אמר רבה לא קשיא כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות כאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות
Rabba said: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna that rules that the bill of divorce cannot be used unless it was found immediately, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are frequently found, and there is a concern that the found bill of divorce belongs to someone else with the identical name. There, in the mishna in tractate Bava Metzia, it is stated with regard to a place where caravans are not frequently found, so one may return the document if he knows that the writer did not reconsider.
ואפילו במקום שהשיירות מצויות והוא שהוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת
The Gemara comments: And even in a place where caravans are frequently found, there is not always a concern that the bill of divorce may belong to another man with an identical name, but this concern is only where it has been established that there are two men named, e.g., Yosef ben Shimon, in that one town.
דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא דרבה אדרבה דההוא גיטא דאישתכח בי דינא דרב הונא והוה כתיב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא ואמר רב הונא חוששין לשני שוירי
The Gemara continues: As, if you do not say so, that this concern is taken into account only in a place where it is known that there are two people with the same name, then there is a difficulty presented in the form of a contradiction between this statement of Rabba and another statement of Rabba. As there was a certain bill of divorce that was found, i.e., brought, in the court of Rav Huna, and the name of the place that was written in it was: In Sheviri the city, which is on the Rakhis River. And Rav Huna said: One is concerned about the possibility of the existence of two cities called Sheviri, and it is possible that this bill of divorce belongs to another man with an identical name.
ואמר ליה רב חסדא לרבה פוק ועיין בה דלאורתא בעי לה מינך רב הונא נפק דק ואשכח דתנן כל מעשה ב"ד הרי זה יחזיר
The Gemara continues: And Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba, who was then a student: Go out and examine this halakha, as Rav Huna will ask you about it at night. Rabba went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 20a): One should return all court enactments, i.e., promissory notes that have been authenticated by the court, to their owner, and there is no concern that perhaps there are two towns with the identical name and that the promissory note belongs to someone else.
והא בי דינא דרב הונא דכמקום שהשיירו' מצויות דמי וקא פשיט יחזיר אלמא אי הוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת אין ואי לא לא
The Gemara explains: But isn’t the court of Rav Huna comparable to a place where caravans are frequently found, as there were always many people present there? And yet Rabba resolved the question and ruled that one should return the document to the owner, which appears to contradict his earlier ruling that one should not return a document found in a place where caravans are frequently found. Apparently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in one town, then yes, there is a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.
עבד רבה עובדא בההוא גיטא דאישתכח בי כיתנא בפומבדיתא כשמעתיה איכא דאמרי בדוכתא היכא דתרו כיתנא ואף על גב דהוחזקו דלא שכיחן שיירתא ואיכא דאמרי בדוכתא דמזבני כיתנא והוא שלא הוחזקו ושכיחן שיירות
The Gemara relates: Rabba performed an action, i.e., issued a practical ruling, with regard to a certain bill of divorce that was found in the flax house in the city of Pumbedita, in accordance with his ruling of halakha. As to the details of this incident, there are those who say that this was in the place where people soaked flax, and although it was established that there were two people with the same name living in the city mentioned in the bill of divorce, he ruled this way since it was a place where caravans are not frequently found. And there are those who say that this occurred in a place where people sold flax, and it was not established that two people with the same name lived in the city where the bill of divorce was written, and this occurred in a place where caravans are frequently found.
רבי זירא רמי מתני' אברייתא ומשני תנן המביא גט ואבד הימנו אם מצאו לאלתר כשר ואם לאו פסול ורמינהו מצא גט אשה בשוק בזמן שהבעל מודה יחזיר לאשה אין הבעל מודה לא יחזיר לא לזה ולא לזה הא
Concerning this issue, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Zeira raises a contradiction between the mishna and a baraita and then answers it: We learned in the mishna: With regard to an agent who brings a bill of divorce and it was lost from him, if he finds it immediately then the bill of divorce is valid. And if not, it is invalid. And he raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: If one found a woman’s bill of divorce in the marketplace, then when the husband admits that he wrote it and gave it, the finder should return it to the woman. If the husband does not admit to this, then he should not return it, not to this man and not to this woman. One can infer from here: But