משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ מְצָאוֹ עַל אָתָר כָּשֵׁר וְאִם לָאו פָּסוּל. מְצָאוֹ בַּחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִדְלוֹסֳּקֳמָא אִם מַכִּירוֹ כָּשֵׁר. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְהִנִּיחוֹ זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַייָם. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנְּשׂוּאָה לְכֹהֵן וְהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם אוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַייָם. הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ חַטָּאתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָה בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַייָם. MISHNAH: If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it, if he finds it on the spot it is valid77One does not fear that the bill might be written for another couple with identical names from identical places., otherwise it is invalid. If he finds it in a small bag or in a box78Greek γλωσσόκομον “case, box, chest”., if he recognizes it, it is valid. If somebody transports a bill of divorce from an old or sick man, he delivers it to her under the presumption that the man is alive79If the husband died childless, the widow is freed from ḥalîṣa or levirate marriage as long as the husband’s death was not known at the moment of delivery of the bill.. The daughter of an Israel who is married to a Cohen80And who is childless at the moment of her husband’s departure. At the moment of her husband’s death she loses her right to priestly food. and whose husband went overseas, may eat heave under the presumption that he is alive. If somebody sends his purification offering from overseas, it is sacrificed under the presumption that he is alive81A dead person’s purification offering cannot be sacrificed since “the dead are free” (from obligations) (Ps. 88:6). The last two statements are included to illustrate the principle that in matters of ritual law one may always act on the assumption of the permanence of the status quo ante..
הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ כול׳. אֵי זֶהוּ עַל אָתָר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר שָׁם בִּרְייָה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר אַבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא עָֽבְרוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה בְנֵי אָדָם. עָבַר גּוֹי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. אַבָּא בַּר בַּר חָנָה אַייתֵי גִיטָּא וָבַד מִינֵּיהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ חַד סִירְקַיי. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְאַכְשְׁרוּן. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. עָבַר גּוֹי כָּשֵר. נֵימַר. סֵימָן הֲוָו לֵיהּ בֵּיהּ. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. אֵין סֵימָן בַּגִּיטִּין. וְהוּא דָּמַר תְּרֵין תְּלַת שׁוּרִין. הְּרַם הָכָא הֵ׳א שֶׁבּוֹ הָיָה נָקוּד. רִבִּי עֶזְרָא בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. הָכָא לָמָּה הוּא פָסוּל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. אַחֵר הָיָה שָׁם וְהָיָה שְׁמוֹ כִשְׁמוֹ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁבָּֽדְקוּ כָּל־אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ אָדָם שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ כִשְׁמוֹ. אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם חוֹמֶר הוּא בָּעֲרָיוֹת. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. הָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא מָֽצְאוּ שָׁם אָדָם וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. הָֽלְכוּ וְלֹא הִכִּירוּהוּ וְהִשִּׁיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אָחָא. הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה שְׁנֵי גִיטִּין הָיוּ בְיָדוֹ. אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר וְאֶחָד פָּסוּל. אִיבֵּד אֶת הַכָּשֵׁר וְהִשְׁלִיךְ אֶת הַפָּסוּל. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמָּצָא אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. הַפָּסוּל מָצָא. HALAKHAH: “If somebody transports a bill of divorce and loses it,” etc. 82The paragraph also appears as Halakhah 16:6 in Yebamot, explained there in Notes 133–144. The readings from there are notedי . What means “on the spot”? Rebbi Joḥanan said, as long as nobody passed by there83This statement is missing in Yebamot. In the Babli, it is attributed to the Tanna R. Simeon ben Eleazar and the Amora R. Abba bar bar Ḥana (27b,28a); there it is declared as practice. It is also the only explanation offered in Tosephta 2:11.. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: as long as three people did not pass by there. If a Gentile passed by there? Let us hear from the following: Abba bar bar Ḥana transported a bill of divorce; he lost it and a Saracen found it. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan84The reading of Yebamot, “before the rabbis” is preferable since the verb is in the plural.; they declared [the bill] valid. This means that if a Gentile passed by it is valid. Could we say that he had a mark to identify it? But was it not stated: There are no marks for bills of divorce. That is, if he said, two or three lines. But here, the ה in it had a spot. Rebbi Ezra asked before Rebbi Mana: Why is it invalid here? I say, it was another [husband] whose name was like his name. Think of it, if they checked out that entire place and did not find another man whose name was like his name! But it is because of the severity of adultery. But did we not state85Mishnah Yebamot 16:6: “They went and found nobody but let his wife remarry; they went there, did not recognize him, and let his wife remarry”? Rebbi Mana told him: This man had two bills of divorce in his hand, one valid, the other invalid. He lost the valid one and threw away the invalid. When he found it, I say that what he found was the invalid bill86The Mishnah is explained away, as referring to a most unlikely hypothetical case. In the Babli, the Mishnah is accepted practice; the contrast between the two Talmudim is noted in Sefer Ha‘iṭṭur 36a..
תַּנֵּי בַּר קַפָּרָא. אֲפִילוּ הִינִּיחוֹ בֶּן מֵאָה שָׁנָה וְעָשָׂה בַדֶּרֶךְ עוֹד מֵאָה שָׁנָה נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַייָם. Bar Qappara stated: Even if he left [the man] when he was 100 years old and spent another 100 years on the way, he delivers it to her under the presumption that he is alive87The Babli, 28a, explains this baraita away, that a person who has reached 100 years of age might go on to live much longer, and implies that a person between the ages of 81 and 99 can be presumed to die soon. Since the Yerushalmi quotes the statement without commentary, it appears that it endorses an unrestricted application of the permanence of the status quo ante until further notice..
וְלֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. מְנַיִין הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ לִפְנֵי מִיתָתִי שָׁעָה אַחַת. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר לְשִׁפְחוֹתוֹ. הֲרֵי שְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּרֵיךְ לִפְנֵי מִיתָתִי שָׁעָה אַחַת. שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹכַל בַּתְּרוּמָה מִיַּד. תַּמָּן מִשָּׁעָה רִאשׁוֹנָה נִתְקַלְקְלָה. בְּרַם הָכָא לִכְשֶׁיָּמוֹת הִיא מִתְקַלְקֶלֶת. But did we not state88A similar text is in Tosephta 4:12, quoted in the Babli 28a, Yebamot 69b.: From where that “if somebody says to his wife90She is childless., this is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, or he says to his slave girl, this is the document of your manumission one hour before my death, each would be immediately forbidden to eat heave?” There, she is disabled immediately91Since the bills were executed in the expectation of his death, whose time is unknown, it has to be expected immediately., but here she will only be disabled when he has died92Since the husband expects to return from his trip overseas, the wife does not have to expect his death and can apply the principle of permanence of the status quo ante. The Tosephta does not contradict the principle.
The explanations of the Babli in Giṭṭin and Yebamot are inconsistent with one another and the Yerushalmi..