In this daf, we are zocheh to delve deeper into the sugya of returning a lost get to a woman when the husband admits he wrote it. The Gemara continues to reconcile our Mishnah, which forbids returning a lost get after a delay, with other sources that seem to permit it. We will learn the yesodos of Rabbi Zeira, who distinguishes between places where caravans are frequently found and where they are not, and we will see how the Gemara compares his approach with Rabba's shitta.
בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה מִיהַת – יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה!
The Gemara objects: But when the husband admits that he wrote the get, at any rate, he should return it to the woman, and this implies even after a long time has passed! Why then does our Mishnah rule that if it was not found immediately, it may not be returned?
וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.
And Rabbi Zeira answers: Here, in our Mishnah which forbids returning it, we are dealing with a place where caravans are frequently found, so we must worry that another caravan traveler lost it; whereas there, in the Baraisa which permits returning it, we are dealing with a place where caravans are not frequently found.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ הוּא דְּלָא לַיהְדַּר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה;
There are those who say that Rabbi Zeira meant: And this is specifically when it was established that there are two people with the same name in town, it is in such a case that he should not return it, and this is identical to the view of Rabba.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא לַיהְדַּר, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה.
And there are those who say that Rabbi Zeira meant: Even though they were not established to have the same name, in a place of caravans he should not return it, and thus Rabbi Zeira disagrees with the view of Rabba.
בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבָּה לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי;
The Gemara asks: Granted that Rabba did not say a resolution like Rabbi Zeira, because the Mishnah in Bava Metzia was stronger to him to ask a contradiction from, as a Mishnah is more authoritative than a Baraisa;
אֶלָּא רַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה?
but Rabbi Zeira, what is the reason he did not say a resolution like Rabba by raising the contradiction from the Mishnah in Bava Metzia?
אָמַר לָךְ, מִי קָתָנֵי: אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה?
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Zeira could say to you: Does that Mishnah teach: If he said "Give it," we give it, and even after a long time?
דִּלְמָא אִם אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ נוֹתְנִין כִּדְקַיְימָא לַן – לְאַלְתַּר.
Perhaps the Mishnah means: If he said "Give it," we give it, but only as we established elsewhere—namely, when it was found immediately, but not after a long time.
רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמְרִי עֵדִים: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חָתַמְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גֵּט אֶחָד שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן.
Rabbi Yirmeyah said another resolution: The cases where we return the get are, for example, where the witnesses say: We never signed any get except for one get of Yosef ben Shimon, so there is no concern of another get.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?
The Gemara asks: If so, what is the need to say this? It is obvious that we return it!
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִיתְרְמִי שְׁמָא כִּשְׁמָא וְעֵדִים כְּעֵדִים קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: Lest you say we should worry that perhaps it happened that another husband and wife had the same names, and other witnesses with the same names as these witnesses signed it, therefore it teaches us that we do not worry about such a rare coincidence.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָאָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק.
Rav Ashi said another resolution: It is, for example, where the claimant says: There is a hole in it next to such-and-such a letter, which is a clear distinguishing mark.
וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ סִימָן מוּבְהָק, אֲבָל: נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא, לָא;
And this is specifically if he says the hole is next to such-and-such a letter, which is a clear distinguishing mark; but if he gives a mere hole as a sign, we do not return it,
מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ סִימָנִין אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.
because Rav Ashi is in doubt regarding ordinary distinguishing marks, whether returning lost items based on them is by Torah law or by Rabbinic law, and we cannot release a married woman based on a Rabbinic law.
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אִירְכַס לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַר: אִי סִימָנָא – אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, אִי טְבִיעוּת – עֵינָא אִית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ.
The Gemara relates: Rabba bar bar Chana lost a get in the Beis Medrash. He said to the finders: If you require a distinguishing mark, I have one for it; if you require visual recognition, I have visual recognition for it.
אַהְדְּרוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ.
They returned it to him.
אֲמַר: לָא יָדַעְנָא אִי מִשּׁוּם סִימָנָא אַהְדְּרוּהּ – וְקָסָבְרִי סִימָנִים דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אִי מִשּׁוּם טְבִיעוּת עֵינָא – וְדַוְקָא צוּרְבָּא מִדְּרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל אִינָשׁ בְּעָלְמָא לָא.
He said afterward: I do not know if they returned it because of the distinguishing mark, and thus they hold that returning items by distinguishing marks is by Torah law; or if they returned it because of visual recognition, and that is specifically for a Torah scholar whom we trust, but an ordinary person would not be trusted with visual recognition.
וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל:
We learned in the Mishnah: And if not—if it was not found immediately—it is invalid.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְאַלְתַּר?
The Rabbis taught in a Baraisa: What is considered not immediately?
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: שֶׁשָּׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּעֲבוֹר שְׁיָירָא וְתִשְׁרֶה.
Rabbi Natan says: That it delayed long enough for a caravan to pass by and encamp.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר שָׁם אָדָם.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: It is considered immediate as long as a person is standing and seeing that no other person passed there.
וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה אָדָם שָׁם.
And some say that he said: As long as no person stopped there.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַגֵּט.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not immediately means a delay long enough to write the get.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי לִקְרוֹתוֹ.
Rabbi Yitzchak says: A delay long enough to read it.
אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי לְכוֹתְבוֹ וְלִקְרוֹתוֹ.
Others say: A delay long enough to write it and to read it.
וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׁהָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנִין – מְעִידִים עָלָיו;
And even if it delayed, and there are distinguishing marks on it, we may testify on it and return it;
דְּאָמְרִי: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית.
such as when they say: There is a hole in it next to such-and-such a letter.
וְאֵין מְעִידִין עַל סִימָנֵי הַגּוּף;
But we do not testify based on physical descriptions of the body of the document,
דְּאָמְרִי: אָרוֹךְ וְגוּץ.
such as when they say: It is long or short.
מְצָאוֹ קָשׁוּר בְּכִיס, בְּאַרְנָקִי וּבְטַבַּעַת,
If one found it tied in a pouch, in a purse, or with a ring,
The Gemara explores several ways to resolve the apparent contradictions regarding returning a lost get. Rabbi Yirmeya suggests that we may return the get if the witnesses testify that they never signed another get for a couple with these exact names, while Rav Ashi establishes that we return it based on a clear-cut distinguishing mark (siman muvhak), such as a hole next to a specific letter. This leads into a discussion of whether returning lost items based on simanim is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabbanan, highlighted by a beautiful ma'aseh where Rabba bar bar Chana lost a get in the beis medrash and had it returned to him. Finally, the Gemara begins defining the precise shiur of what is considered finding a get "immediately" versus after a delay, bringing the tannaitic opinions of Rabbi Natan, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
The Gemara on Daf 27b discusses how we return a lost get based on a "siman muvhak", a highly specific, unmistakable mark, or through "tevi'as eina," the deep, intuitive visual recognition of a talmid chacham. When Rabba bar bar Chana lost his document in the Beis Medrash, he knew it so intimately that he could recognize its very essence, beyond just a list of external signs.
This teaches us a profound lesson about our relationship with our own spiritual lives. Sometimes we try to connect to Hashem or our learning through external checklists and general signs. But the real goal of our avodah is to develop "tevi'as eina", an intimate, unmistakable recognition of the truth. When you learn Torah and perform mitzvos with deep focus and heart, they become so familiar to your neshama that you recognize them instantly as your own, even when you feel lost in the confusion of the world.
Today, when you do a mitzvah or sit down to learn, don't just go through the motions. Look at it deeply, connect to it with your heart, and make it so uniquely yours that your neshama will recognize its light instantly.