Daf 18b: Identifying a Found Get, Duplicate Identities, and Identifying Marks

Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.

1. 01·RayaBava Metzia 18b

   חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה: פּוֹק עַיֵּין בָּהּ, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי מִינָּךְ רַב הוּנָא. נְפַק, דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח. דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזִיר.

   The page opens in the middle of a discussion: perhaps there are two places named Sheviri, so the place-name alone does not identify the get. Rav Ḥisda sends Rabbah to investigate before Rav Huna questions him that evening. Rabbah finds a basis in the Mishnah: every document recording a judicial act is to be returned. He seeks to infer that concern about duplicate identities is not extended without limit. This supplies the foundation of his proof, but the Gemara will now clarify its conditions.

2. 02·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 18b

   וְהָא בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דְּכִי מְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת דָּמֵי, וְקָא פָּשֵׁיט רַבָּה דְּיַחְזִיר, אַלְמָא אִי הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

   Rav Huna's court resembles a place frequented by travelers because many people come there. Nevertheless, Rabbah concludes that the document in the case under discussion should be returned. Frequent traffic alone therefore does not suffice, in his view, to raise concern about another get. In such a place, the concern applies when duplicate relevant names are established, not when duplication is merely possible. His reasoning combines a risk arising from the location with concrete evidence of duplicate identities.

3. 03·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 18b

   עֲבַד רַבָּה עוֹבָדָא בְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בֵּי כִיתָּנָא דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הֵיכָא דִּמְזַבְּנִי כִּיתָּנָא וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ, אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁכִיחָן שְׁיָירָתָא. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הֵיכָא דְּתָרוּ כִּיתָּנָא וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּחְזְקוּ, דְּלָא (שְׁכִיחָא שְׁיָירוֹת).

   Rabbah applies his position to a get found at the flax establishment in Pumbedita. In one version, it was a flax market frequented by travelers, but duplicate names had not been established. In the other version, it was a flax-soaking site without frequent travelers, although duplicate names were established. Both versions illustrate the same principle through a different missing factor: the two grounds for concern are not combined. The incident provides a practical test of his position, not an exception to it.

4. 04·KushyaBava Metzia 18b

   רַבִּי זֵירָא רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַבָּרַיְיתָא וּמְשַׁנֵּי. תְּנַן: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ, מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר – כָּשֵׁר, וְאִם לָאו – פָּסוּל. וּרְמִינְהִי: מָצָא גֵּט אִשָּׁה בַּשּׁוּק, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לְאִשָּׁה. אֵין הַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – לֹא יַחְזִיר לֹא לָזֶה וְלֹא לָזֶה. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַבַּעַל מוֹדֶה – יַחְזִיר לָאִשָּׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה!

   Rabbi Zeira sets a Mishnah against a baraita. The Mishnah disqualifies a get lost by its messenger and not found promptly, while the baraita directs that a get found in the market be returned when the husband acknowledges it. If the husband does not acknowledge it, the baraita forbids returning it to either party. The objection focuses on the baraita's permission, which is not limited to a short interval. The husband's acknowledgment does not by itself prove that the paper found is his paper, so mistaken identity still needs to be addressed. This separates two questions familiar from Bava Metzia's discussions of found documents: entitlement to receive the document and identification of the document itself.

5. 05·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

   וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְכָאן בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

   Rabbi Zeira distinguishes locations by their traffic. The restrictive Mishnah concerns a place frequented by travelers. The permissive baraita concerns a place without frequent travelers. In a busy location, the passage of time supports concern that the discovered get came from someone else. In a quieter location, that concern is weaker, so the two sources need not address the same circumstances.

6. 06·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 18b

   אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ דְּלָא נַהְדַּר, וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבָּה. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא הוּחְזְקוּ לָא נַהְדַּר, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה.

   The Gemara gives two versions of the scope of Rabbi Zeira's stringency. In the first, even in a place frequented by travelers, return is withheld only when duplicate names are established. On this version, Rabbi Zeira agrees with Rabbah. In the second, the document is not returned in such a place even without established duplicate names. Here he disagrees with Rabbah: the traffic itself raises sufficient concern, even without a known duplicate identity.

7. 07·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 18b

   בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּה לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, מַתְנִיתִין אַלִּימָא לֵיהּ לְאַקְשׁוֹיֵי. אֶלָּא רַבִּי זֵירָא, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבָּה?

   The Gemara asks why Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira constructed their objections from different sources. In the preceding discussion, Rabbah preferred to challenge from a Mishnah because it is a stronger source for presenting the contradiction. That explains why he did not choose Rabbi Zeira's baraita. But why did Rabbi Zeira not use the same Mishnah as Rabbah? The question examines the foundations of the proof, not merely the legal outcome of the discussion.

8. 08·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

   אָמַר לָךְ, מִי קָא תָנֵי: הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה? דִּלְמָא הָא אָמַר ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וּלְעוֹלָם כִּדְקַיְימָא לַן לְאַלְתַּר.

   Rabbi Zeira can answer that the Mishnah does not explicitly permit return after a long interval. The earlier Mishnah allows the inference that if the husband says, “Give it,” it is given. But that permission could apply specifically to a prompt discovery. It would then create no contradiction with the Mishnah about the messenger who lost a get. The answer removes a hidden assumption: permission to return does not necessarily mean permission after any length of time.

9. 09·The Gemara asksBava Metzia 18b

   לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְרַבִּי זֵירָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְאַף עַל גַּב שֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן, וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבָּה, בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי?

   The Gemara returns specifically to the version in which Rabbi Zeira disagrees with Rabbah. On that version, Rabbi Zeira is concerned in a place frequented by travelers even without known duplicate names. It now asks for the foundation of their disagreement. Saying that one is stricter and the other more lenient is not enough. We must examine how each reads the source on which Rabbah built his proof.

10. 10·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

    רַבָּה סָבַר דְּקָתָנֵי כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר, דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּבֵית דִּין עָסְקִינַן, וּבֵית דִּין כִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, לֹא הוּחְזְקוּ – יַחְזִיר. וְרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר לָךְ: מִי קָתָנֵי ״כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְּבֵית דִּין״? ״כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין יַחְזִיר״ קָתָנֵי, וּלְעוֹלָם דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח אַבָּרַאי.

    Rabbah reads the rule about judicial documents as addressing a document found in the court itself. A court receives many visitors, so permission to return proves that heavy traffic alone does not prohibit return. In his view, established duplicate names are also needed to withhold return there. Rabbi Zeira rejects the assumption about location: the Mishnah describes the document's type, not a discovery inside a court. It can concern a document found outside, in a place without frequent travelers. This removes the proof against him without changing the Mishnah's wording.

11. 11·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

    רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָמְרִי עֵדִים: מֵעוֹלָם לֹא חָתַמְנוּ אֶלָּא עַל גֵּט אֶחָד שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן.

    Rabbi Yirmeya offers another way to reconcile permission to return the get with concern about another get. The witnesses say that they have signed only one get for Yosef ben Shimon. Identification therefore does not rest solely on traffic patterns or the absence of duplicate names. Their statement rules out another get with those names signed by them. The resolution shifts the focus from surrounding circumstances to the document's uniqueness.

12. 12·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

    אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אִתְרְמִי שְׁמָא כִּשְׁמָא, וְעֵדִים כְּעֵדִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

    The segment first challenges Rabbi Yirmeya: if so, what does the permission teach? The Gemara answers that a double coincidence of identities could still be imagined. Perhaps there is another person with the same name and other witnesses whose names match these witnesses. The original witnesses' statement does not logically eliminate that possibility. The novelty is that this coincidence is not treated as a concern, so their testimony is effective within this resolution.

13. 13·TerutzBava Metzia 18b

    רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, כְּגוֹן דְּקָא אָמַר: נֶקֶב יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית. וְדַוְקָא בְּצַד אוֹת פְּלוֹנִית, אֲבָל נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא – לָא. רַב אָשֵׁי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ סִימָנִים אִי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אִי דְּרַבָּנַן.

    Rav Ashi locates the permission to return in a case where a precise mark is supplied: a hole beside a particular letter. The Gemara stresses that merely saying the get has a hole is insufficient. Locating the hole relative to a letter provides especially focused identification, rather than a feature that many documents might share. Rav Ashi is uncertain whether ordinary identifying marks have Torah or rabbinic authority. The get's identification therefore cannot rest here on an ordinary mark when permission to marry involves Torah law. This connects directly to Bava Metzia's laws of lost property: we must distinguish levels of identification and the legal authority required in each area.

14. 14·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 18b

    רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה

    The supplied text ends with the name “Rabbah bar bar Ḥana” alone. This introduces the next unit rather than forming a complete legal statement. We have not yet been told what he did or said. We therefore mark the boundary of the lesson without attaching content absent from the segment. At this point, the name supplies no further evidence about identifying marks.

1. 1According to Rabbah, what is needed to raise a mistaken-identity concern in a place frequented by travelers, within this discussion? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2Why need Rabbi Zeira not raise his objection from the Mishnah used by Rabbah? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3How does Rabbi Zeira answer Rabbah's proof from “every judicial document”? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4What is the novelty of Rabbi Yirmeya's resolution? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5Why does Rav Ashi require a hole beside a particular letter rather than an unspecified hole? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.