ARE WE CONCERNED FOR SOMEONE ELSE WITH THE SAME NAME?
Yitzchak Reish Galusa, the nephew of Rav Bivi, was going from Korteva to Aspamya; he died. They relayed this information back to Korteva.
Question: Are we concerned lest a different man with this name died (and forbid R. Yitzchak's widow to remarry, even though we do not know that there was another man with this name)?
Answer #1 (Abaye): We are concerned.
Answer #2 (Rava): We are not concerned.
Support (Abaye, for himself): A Get was found in Nehardai. It said, next to Kalonya (a city), I, Androlinai of Nehardai, divorce my wife. Shmuel's father asked R. Yehudah Nesi'ah, who answered that all of Nehardai must be checked (for another Androlinai).
Rejection (Rava): If we were truly concerned, we would have to check the whole world! Rather, R. Yehudah Nesi'ah said to check only to spare Shmuel's father embarrassment for having asked the question.
Support (Rava, for himself): There were two documents in Mechuza in which the borrowers were Chavi bar Nanai and Nanai bar Chavi. Rabah bar Avuha authorized collection of both of them. These are frequent names in Mechuza (nevertheless we are not concerned for others of the same name!)
Rejection (Abaye): Even if we were concerned that others have the same name, there is no concern (why the bearer should not collect)!
We are not concerned lest the lender dropped it, for people are careful with documents! Surely the lender would not deposit it with the current bearer, since they have the same name. If he gave it to the current bearer, he is entitled to collect, for handing over a document is a proper acquisition!
A Get was found in Sura. It said 'In Sura, I, Anan bar Chiya of Nehardai, divorce my wife Plonis.' Chachamim checked from Sura to Nehardai. The only other Anan bar Chiya they found was from Chigra and lived in Neharda'a. Witnesses said that he was in Nehardai the day that the Get was written.
Abaye: Even though normally I say that we must be concerned, here there is no concern. Since he was in Nehardai, he could not have written a Get in Sura.
Rava: Even though normally I say that we are not concerned, here we are concerned. Perhaps he went on a fast camel, or by use of a name of Hash-m, or he had previously authorized the Get to be written.
Rav Safra and Rav Huna (to scribes): When you are in Shili, write Shili on the document, even though you were in Hini when asked to write it.
Gitin 27a (Mishnah #1): If a man (a Shali'ach) was carrying a Get and lost it and found it much later, it is Pasul (perhaps it is a different Get).
Contradiction (Mishnah #2): If one found a Get...he does not return it to the recipient. Perhaps the giver reconsidered and never gave it.
Inference: If the giver says to return it, we do, even if it was found long after it was lost!
Answer #1 (Rabah): Mishnah #1 discusses where caravans are frequent and the husband is Muchzak (established) to have a namesake (someone else with the same name) in the city. Mishnah #2 discusses where caravans are not frequent.
Contradiction (R. Zeira - Beraisa): If one finds a Get in the market and the husband admits that he gave it, we return it to the woman.
Inference: This is even if it was found much later (unlike Mishnah #1)!
Answer #1 (R. Zeira): The Mishnah says not to return in a place where caravans are frequent. The Beraisa discusses a place where caravans are not frequent.
Some say that R. Zeira holds that in the Mishnah the husband is Muchzak to have a namesake. He holds like Rabah. Some say that R. Zeira discusses when the husband is not Muchzak to have a namesake. This is unlike Rabah.
Answer #2 (to questions 13 and 15 - R. Yirmeyah): The case (when we return a Get after a long time) is when the witnesses say that they signed on only one Get for a man with this name.
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he (the Shali'ach) gives an exceptional Siman in the Get.
Rif: The Halachah follows Rava regarding the report of the death of Yitzchak Reish Galusa, the nephew of Rav Bivi, who was going from Korteva to Aspamya. We are not concerned lest a different man with this name died. The Halachah follows Rava also regarding the Get found in Sura that said 'In Sura, I, Anan bar Chiya of Nehardai, divorce my wife Plonis.' Even though Chachamim checked from Sura to Nehardai, and witnesses testified that the only other Anan bar Chiya (who was from Chigra and lived in Neharda'a) was in Nehardai the day that the Get was written, we are concerned. Perhaps he went on a fast camel, or used Shem Hash-m, or he had previously authorized the Get to be written.
Question (Rosh Gitin 3:3): We must say that in the report of the death of Yitzchak Reish Galusa, we did not know of another man of that name, and caravans were frequent. If we did not know of a namesake, and caravans were not frequent, Abaye would not be concerned. A Mishnah (Bava Metzi'a 20a) says that we return Ma'asei Beis Din; we are not concerned lest it fell from someone else. Abaye and Rava argue like Rabah and R. Zeira. The Rif rules like Rava, and like R. Zeira, who is like Abaye!
Answer (Rosh): Presumably the Rif is stringent like R. Zeira because the husband can write another Get. If we would be stringent like Abaye regarding one who died, his widow would be an Agunah. Chachamim gave many leniencies in Edus Ishah, e.g. to accept Ed mi'Pi Ed and mi'Pi Shifchah. Because of the stringencies if her husband returns after she remarried, she checks well first.
Question (Milchamos Hash-m): I am uneasy with the way others explain the Rif. Why does our Sugya, the concern for another Yitzchak, come amidst the previous Sugya (the concern lest the old sesame was removed and something else replaced it) and the Pesak Halachah about sesame?! Also, our Sugya does not mention the frequency of caravans and whether or not we knew about another Yitzchak. How can Rava bring a proof from a Get? Perhaps there is less concern about a Get than death!
Answer (Milchamos Hash-m): There was only one Yitzchak Reish Galusa in Korteva. Abaye was concerned lest a Yitzchak from another place (where they appoint a Reish Galusa) came to Korteva and went to Aspamya, and Rav Bivi's nephew went elsewhere. Also the cases of Gitin depend on whether or not we assume that this is the same Get that was lost. We rule like Rava. However, it is common to remove and replace sesame, so we do not make the Shomer pay due to a flimsy supposition. In Gitin we are stringent like R. Zeira. R. Yirmeyah and Rav Ashi answered unlike Rabah because they disagree with him. The most stringent opinion is R. Zeira, who is concerned where caravans are frequent even if there is no Chazakah of a namesake. He is likewise concerned where caravans are not frequent if we know of a namesake. He mentioned only one of the two concerns.
Rambam (13:24): If one comes and says that Beis Din or people told him that when he gets to this place he should tell them that Yitzchak ben Micha'el died, his wife is permitted. This is even if the man does not know Yitzchak, since we know him. We are not concerned lest it was another man of the same name.
Ra'avad: This is only if we do not know that he has a namesake.
Shulchan Aruch (EH 17:18): If one comes and says that Beis Din or people told him that when he gets to this place he should tell them that Yitzchak ben Micha'el died, his wife is permitted. This is even if the man does not know Yitzchak, since we know him. We are not concerned lest it was another man of the same name. This is if there was no Chazakah of another Yitzchak ben Micha'el, of if we know that the other one is alive.
Beis Yosef (DH Bo): If Yitzchak's wife remarried and we do not know that the other Yitzchak is alive, she must leave, for she is a Safek Eshes Ish.
Gra (72): The Ramban explains that normally, even Rava is concerned when caravans are frequent and he is not Muchzak to have a namesake. In the case of Yitzchak, Rava was lenient only because we know that there was a Yitzchak here, so we are not concerned lest someone else came and went with the witnesses. In a similar case of a Get lost where it was written he would not be concerned.
Rema: Some say that this is only if the witness mentioned the name of his city. If not, even if the person the witness named is missing it does not help. Some are lenient. Some say that the witness must mention the name of his city only if he gave only name of the Mes, but not if he gave also the name of the Mes' father.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosav ha'Rosh and DH v'Chasuv Sham): The Rosh (Teshuvah 51:1,2) says that in the episode with Yitzchak they gave only his full name; the Rosh permitted a similar case. A Chacham argued and said that regarding Yitzchak we knew that no one else was going from Korteva to Aspamya. The Rosh rejects this. Did they lock the gates of the city and forbid people to leave?!
Chelkas Mechokek (38): There is no argument at all. If we merely heard that Yosef ben Shimon died, surely we are concerned lest he is from another city! The Rosh permitted a case in which Machlof ben Malul was going to Pas, and we heard that Machlof ben Malul died near Pas. We are not concerned lest another Machlof came to Pas and died. Likewise, even if we know of another Machlof ben Malul in our city, we are not concerned lest it was he who went to Pas and died there.
Rema: When there is supporting evidence that he is the one who died, one may rely on the opinion that does not require the witness to say which city.
Source (Beis Yosef DH u'Mahari and DH Kosav bi'Teshuvos): The Maharik (184 and 175) is unsure whether or not the Rambam requires the witness to say which city. However, other evidence that he is the one who died suffices. If they told the witness to tell the people in a certain city, this shows that the Mes was from there.