RETURNING A GET THROUGH RECOGNITION OR WITNESSES [Get:lost]
115b: Yitzchak Reish Galusa, the nephew of Rav Bivi, was going from Korteva to Aspamya; he died. They relayed this information back to Korteva.
Abaye: We are concerned lest a different man with this name died. (His widow may not remarry, even if we do not know of another man with this name.)
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 would suspect that others have the same name, there is no concern! The lender would not drop it, for people are careful with documents. He would not deposit it with the current bearer, since they have the same name. If he gave it to the current bearer, this is a proper acquisition, so he is entitled to collect!
116a: 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 on the day that the Get was written.
Abaye: Normally I say that we must be concerned, but here there is no concern. Since the other Anan 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 used a name of Hash-m, or he had previously authorized the Get to be written.
Gitin 27a (Mishnah #1): If a Shali'ach was carrying a Get and lost it and found it immediately, it is Kosher (we assume that it is the same one). If not, it is invalid.
If he found it in a bag, if he recognizes it, it is Kosher.
Contradiction (Mishnah #2): If one found a Get or gift document... he should 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. Mishnah #2 discusses where they are not common. Even where caravans are frequent, we are concerned only if the husband is Muchzak (established) to have a namesake (someone else with the same name) in the city.
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 the Mishnah)!
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 (like Rabah) that in the Mishnah we know that the husband has a namesake. Others say that R. Zeira argues with Rabah, and establishes the Mishnah to be even if we do not know of a namesake.
Answer #2 (to both questions - R. Yirmeyah): A Get found later may be returned if the witnesses say that they signed on only one Get for a man with this name.
Question: If so, obviously we return it! What do the Mishnah and Beraisa teach?
Answer: One might have thought that we are concerned that this was a different Get, and the names of the couple and of the witnesses happened to coincide. They teach that we are not concerned for this.
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): (We return it much later if) he (the Shali'ach) tells us that there is a hole near a certain letter in the Get (an exceptional Siman).
27b: Rabah bar bar Chanah lost a Get in the Beis Medrash. He said 'I can give a Siman. Also, I can recognize the Get.' They returned it to him.
Rabah bar bar Chanah: I do not know if they returned it to me because of my Siman, and they hold that Simanim work mid'Oraisa, or because I recognized it.
Only a Chacham is believed to say that he recognizes his Aveidah. A commoner is not believed.
(Beraisa): If it was found tied to a wallet or ring, or if it was found among his garments in his house, even after a long time, it is valid.
Rif: The Halachah follows Rav Ashi, who is Basra. Therefore, where caravans are frequent we return a Get found much later only if the if the witnesses say that they signed on only one Get for a man with this name, for then there is no doubt. We return also if the Shali'ach gives an exceptional Siman.
Ba'al ha'Ma'or: In the report of the death of Yitzchak, we did not know of another man of that name. Rava brought a proof from documents against Chavi bar Nanai. Even though we know that others have this name, since he holds the document it is as if there is no Chazakah of a namesake. If we knew of another Yitzchak, surely Rava would be concerned. They must check 'the entire world' means around Neharda'a. Abaye was not concerned about the Get after they checked from Sura to Neharda'a. In Bava Metzi'a, the Rif rules like R. Zeira who is not concerned for similar names on a Get, unlike Rava! Perhaps death is different. Since she cannot refute her husband (if she returns), she checks well before remarrying. Since we are stringent if he returns, we are lenient to let her remarry. In Gitin the Rif is not concerned even where caravans are frequent and someone passed by, unless we know that the husband has a namesake.
Rebuttal (Milchamos Hash-m, b'Sof): How can we distinguish Get from death, when Abaye and Rava did not? If we must check around Neharda'a, we must check the entire world, for caravans are frequent. Perhaps someone else wrote the Get and went away!
Question (Hasagos ha'Ra'avad Gitin 13b): In Gitin the Rif says that where caravans are frequent we do not return a Get after much time without a proof that it is the same, like R. Yirmeyah or Rav Ashi. In Yevamos the Rif rules like Rava, who is not concerned where caravans were frequent unless we know of a namesake!
Answer (Ra'avad): R. Yirmeyah and Rav Ashi require a great proof only where caravans were frequent and we know of a namesake.
Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 3:9): If a Get was lost in a place where caravans are frequent, if it was found in the Keli in which he left it and he recognizes its length and width when it is rolled up, it is Muchzak to be the lost Get. It may be used.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Chosvu): The Ran believes the Shali'ach due to the Migo. The Magid Mishneh says that we rely on recognition of one witness for Isurim. If so, this is even if witnesses know that he lost the Get. If others found the Get we do not return it through recognition, for perhaps he lies in order to be paid (for his mission). Even if will not be paid, perhaps he seeks to avoid the husband's anger.
Rambam (11): If the witnesses had an exceptional Siman on the Get, or they say that they signed on only one Get with these names, it is Muchzak to be the lost Get. It may be used, even if it was lost in a place where caravans are frequent and we know that there are two whose names are the same.
Rosh (3:3): The case is, the Shali'ach himself found the Get. Even though he is not a Chacham, we rely on his recognition.
Rosh (ibid.): Rashi says that R. Yochanan requires the witnesses to say that the only time they signed on a Get with these names was for this man. If so, the Gemara should have said so! Rather, they just say that they signed on only one Get with these names, but they are unsure whether or not it was for this man. Nevertheless, we return it to the husband. We are not concerned that he lies and the Get was for a namesake. He is not suspected to intentionally cause his wife to transgress by giving her another man's Get, just to save the meager cost of a Get. A husband is believed to say that he divorced his wife (Gitin 64a). We are not concerned that he seeks to save money. However, if the witnesses are quiet perhaps the husband assumes that it is his. He does not know that he has a namesake, and he reasons that it is very unlikely that the witnesses signed also for others with the same names.
Rosh (ibid.): Rashi's text says that the Shali'ach gives the Siman before seeing the found Get. If the text says that witnesses give the Siman, it is even if they do so after seeing the Get. This is the Halachah. If a Get was found much later in a place where caravans are frequent, even if we do not know of a namesake, we return it only like R. Yirmeyah or with a superb Siman. All the more so this applies to if we know of a namesake, even if caravans are not frequent.
Tosfos (Gitin 28a DH Motz'o): Some say that 'if he recognizes it' refers to the Get. Even if it was found in someone else's pouch, it is Kosher if he recognizes it. Alternatively, even if he knows that it was in his pouch it is Kosher only if he recognizes the Get.
Shulchan Aruch (132:4): If one lost a Get it in a place where caravans are frequent or the city is Muchzak to have two couples whose names are exactly those on the Get, even if it was found much later it is Kosher if he has an exceptional Siman on the Get or recognizes it. Alternatively, it is Kosher if he has a Siman on the Keli in which he left it or recognizes the Keli and knows that he did not lend it, or it was a Keli that he would not lend. If we do not know whether or not someone else passed by, and he does not have a Siman on the Get or recognize it, we are concerned lest it is a different Get, even if witnesses testify that his namesake was not in the city when it was written. Similarly, if someone passed by, even a Nochri, even if caravans are not frequent and he is not Muchzak to have a namesake, we are concerned. If the witnesses testify that they never signed on another Get with his name, it is Kosher. This is even if they do not testify that these are their signatures, e.g. the Get is not in front of us now, unless we know that the witnesses have namesakes.
Source (Beis Yosef DH u'Mah she'Chosav b'Shem): The Tur brings this from the Ramah. It is logical.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): If the witnesses have namesakes, they must testify that these are their signatures or give an exceptional Siman on the Get. If the one claiming that he lost the Get gives the Siman, it helps only if this was before he sees the found Get. His recognition helps only if he himself found the Get he lost.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Af): The Gemara says that we return to a Chacham through recognition. The Magid Mishneh says that the Rambam and Tur omit this because Chachamim (whose recognition we rely on) are scarce nowadays.