This page builds a framework of evidence for returning documents: names, identifying marks, document groupings, and where they were found. At each stage, we examine not only what a document says, but also which account explains how it arrived here.
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.
חָיְישִׁינַן לִשְׁנֵי שְׁוִירֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּה: פּוֹק עַיֵּין, דִּלְאוּרְתָּא בָּעֵי לַהּ רַב הוּנָא מִינָּךְ. נְפַק דַּק וְאַשְׁכַּח, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין הֲרֵי זֶה יַחְזִיר.
This passage continues a discussion of a found get and the concern that two places may be named Shviri. Matching names might therefore fail to identify the requested get. Rav Chisda sends Rabbah to investigate before Rav Huna questions him. Rabbah finds evidence in the Mishnah’s rule that court documents are returned, seeking to show that the mere possibility of duplicate names need not create concern here. This evidence addresses the case under discussion, not every possible risk of mistaken identification.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב עַמְרָם לְרַבָּה: הֵיכִי פָּשֵׁיט מָר אִיסּוּרָא מִמָּמוֹנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּרָדָא, ״שְׁטָרֵי חֲלִיצָה וּמֵיאוּנִין״ תְּנַן.
Rav Amram challenges the proof: how can a rule of monetary law establish a result in a matter of prohibition? He assumes that permitting marriage may require a different level of caution from returning a monetary document. Rabbah answers that the Mishnah includes documents of chalitzah and refusal, which also affect a woman’s personal status. The source is therefore not exclusively monetary, so that distinction does not defeat the proof. Rabbah’s sharp wording belongs to the account of the dispute, not to its legal reasoning.
פְּקַע אַרְזָא דְּבֵי רַב. מָר אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם לַתַּאי דִּידִי פְּקַע. וּמָר אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם לַתַּאי דִּידִי פְּקַע.
A cedar in the study hall splits in the aftermath of the exchange. Each sage attributes the event to the matter affecting his own honor or injury. The narrative emphasizes the intensity of their encounter. It adds no legal proof about returning the get and does not decide whose interpretation of the event was correct.
מָצָא בַּחֲפִיסָה אוֹ בִדְלוֹסְקָמָא. מַאי חֲפִיסָה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: חֵמֶת קְטַנָּה. מַאי דְּלוֹסְקָמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: טְלִיקָא דְסָבֵי.
The Gemara now clarifies the containers mentioned in the Mishnah as places where a document was found. A chafisah is a small skin container. A deluskema is a case used by elders. These definitions establish the physical setting: the document was found inside another object. In the framework of returning lost property, that container may supply identifying information beyond the document’s contents.
תַּכְרִיךְ שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת אוֹ אֲגוּדָּה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כַּמָּה הוּא תַּכְרִיךְ שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת? שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּרוּכִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וְכַמָּה הִיא אֲגוּדָּה שֶׁל שְׁטָרוֹת? שְׁלֹשָׁה קְשׁוּרִין זֶה בָּזֶה.
The baraita defines a roll and a bundle of documents. A roll consists of three documents rolled into one another, while a bundle is described as three tied together. Their number and their physical arrangement are distinct features. The discussion will determine which feature supports identification. This establishes the blueprint of the case before testing its evidentiary force.
שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ קֶשֶׁר סִימָן.
The Gemara proposes inferring that a knot qualifies as an identifying mark. The assumption is that tying was mentioned because it enables the owner to identify the lost property. On that reading, describing the knot could support the claim. This is only a proposed proof, and the Gemara immediately tests whether the source requires it. The issue connects to Bava Metzia’s broader inquiry into which details count as identifying marks.
הָא תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּרוּכִין זֶה בָּזֶה.
The Gemara cites Rabbi Chiyya’s version: three documents rolled together. On this wording, the bundle need not involve a knot. Returning it therefore does not prove that a knot is an identifying mark. The answer removes this proof without establishing that a knot can never serve as a mark.
אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ תַּכְרִיךְ? תַּכְרִיךְ כֹּל חַד וְחַד בְּרֵאשֵׁהּ דְּחַבְרֵיהּ, אֲגוּדָּה דִּרְמוּ אַהֲדָדֵי (וּכְרוּכוֹת).
A new objection arises: if a bundle is also rolled, how does it differ from a roll? The Gemara answers that the documents are arranged differently. In a roll, each document is rolled into the end of the next. In a bundle, the documents are placed upon one another and rolled together. Both terms retain distinct meanings without making a knot the defining difference.
מַאי מַכְרִיז, מִנְיָן?
The Gemara asks what the finder announces. It considers the possibility that the number of documents is announced. If so, that number is public knowledge and cannot function as information supplied independently by the owner. Identification would then need to rest on another feature, such as the arrangement of the roll. The question separates published information from information reserved for testing a claimant.
מַאי אִרְיָא תְּלָתָא אֲפִילּוּ תְּרֵין נָמֵי!
If the number is announced, why does the baraita require three documents? Two documents can also have an arrangement that a claimant can describe. The threshold of three therefore remains unexplained on the preceding proposal. The objection demands an interpretation that accounts for the source’s numerical requirement.
אֶלָּא כִּדְאָמַר רָבִינָא: טִבְעָא מַכְרֵיז, הָכָא נָמֵי ״שְׁטָרֵי״ מַכְרֵיז.
The Gemara answers that the finder announces documents without revealing their number. This parallels Ravina’s statement about an announcement identifying the type of object found. The owner can now supply the number as an identifying mark. Two do not provide the same evidence, because the plural documents already indicates at least two. Three therefore supplies information not contained in the announcement.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד הַלֹּוֶה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יַחְזִיר לַלֹּוֶה וְכוּ׳. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּמַלְוִין נִינְהוּ, מַאי בָּעוּ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי?
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that documents recording one borrower’s debts to three lenders are returned to the borrower. The Gemara explains that the borrower is their natural common point. If the documents still belong to different lenders, their presence together needs explaining. Repayment and return of the documents to the borrower account for the grouping. This is evidence from the collection as a whole, and the Gemara will test competing explanations.
דִּלְמָא לְקַיּוֹמִינְהוּ אָזְלִי? דִּמְקַיְּימִי.
The Gemara suggests that the lenders brought the documents together for authentication. That would bring them together without repayment. The answer establishes that these documents have already been authenticated. There is therefore no current need to assemble them for verification of their signatures. The resolution narrows the case to strengthen the inference from their grouping.
דִּלְמָא מִידָא דְסָפְרָא נְפֻל? לָא מְשַׁהֵי אִינִישׁ קִיּוּמֵיהּ בִּידָא דְסָפְרָא.
The documents might still have fallen from the scribe after authentication but before collection. On this account, authentication is complete, yet the grouping arose in professional custody. The Gemara answers that a person does not leave an authenticated document with the scribe. It assumes that a lender collects the evidence needed for recovery once processing is complete. Another explanation is thus excluded through the ordinary behavior on which the discussion relies.
שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁלָּווּ מֵאֶחָד יַחְזִיר לַמַּלְוֶה וְכוּ׳. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּלֹוִין נִינְהוּ, מַאי בָּעוּ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי?
In the reverse case, three borrowers owe one lender, and the documents are returned to the lender. Here the lender is the natural common point. If the documents belong to the borrowers after repayment, their presence together requires explanation. Their grouping therefore supports the lender’s possession. The structure parallels the previous case, but the shared party changes.
דִּלְמָא לְמִכְתְּבִנְהוּ אֲזֻל? דִּכְתִיבִי בִּתְלָת יְדֵי סָפְרֵי.
The Gemara suggests that the borrowers went together to have their documents written. The documents could then have been lost at the scribe’s before delivery to the lender. The answer establishes that they were written in the hands of three different scribes. This excludes the straightforward account of their being prepared together by one scribe. The investigation considers not just the names, but also the documents’ production history.
וְדִלְמָא לְקַיּוֹמִינְהוּ אֲזֻל? מַלְוֶה מְקַיֵּים שְׁטָרֵיהּ, לֹוֶה לָא מְקַיֵּים שְׁטָרֵיהּ.
Another possibility is that the borrowers brought the documents together for authentication. The Gemara answers that authentication serves the lender’s interest, not the borrower’s. Verifying the signatures strengthens the lender’s ability to collect if the document is challenged. The grouping is therefore not explained by borrowers ordinarily arranging authentication of their own debt documents. The answer rests on each party’s incentive, not merely on the documents’ appearance.
אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן סִמְפּוֹנוֹת – יַעֲשֶׂה מָה שֶׁבַּסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: סִמְפּוֹן הַיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי מַלְוֶה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כִּמְשַׂחֵק, וּפָסוּל. לָא מִבַּעְיָא כָּתוּב בִּכְתַב יַד סוֹפֵר, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר סָפְרָא אִתְרְמִי לֵיהּ וּכְתַב, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כָּתוּב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ פָּסוּל. סָבַר דִּלְמָא מִתְרְמֵי וְאָתֵי בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְקָא פָרַע לִי, דְּאִי לָא יָהֵיבְנָא לֵיהּ לָא יָהֵיב לִי זוּזֵי, אֶכְתּוֹב אֲנָא דְּכִי (אַיְיתַי) [מַיְיתֵי] לִי זוּזַי אֶתֵּן לֵיהּ.
The Mishnah directs us to follow accompanying receipts, but Rav rules that a receipt remaining with the lender is not valid proof of payment. Even the lender’s own handwriting is insufficient, because writing need not record a payment already made. If a scribe wrote it, the lender may have used the scribe’s availability to prepare a receipt in advance. The lender may likewise write one personally in case the borrower arrives near Shabbat and refuses to pay without receiving a receipt. Preparing it allows delivery at the moment of payment. As with earlier concerns in the chapter about documents written before a transaction is completed, preparation must be distinguished from the event itself.
תְּנַן: אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן סִמְפּוֹנוֹת, יַעֲשֶׂה מָה שֶׁבְּסִמְפּוֹנוֹת.
The Gemara challenges Rav from the Mishnah cited at the start of the discussion. The Mishnah directs action according to the receipts accompanying the documents. It apparently gives them force without evidence that they were delivered to the borrower. If advance preparation is a sufficient concern, why not raise it here as well? The contradiction requires distinguishing the circumstances in which a receipt is found.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת קְרוּעִין, הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁמְּצָאוֹ בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת קְרוּעִין.
The Gemara applies Rav Safra’s explanation: the item was found among torn documents. That setting points to documents removed from active collection. The receipt therefore does not stand alone as something that may merely have been prepared in advance. Its location strengthens the indication of payment expressed in its wording. The Mishnah can thus recognize the receipt without contradicting Rav’s ordinary case of a receipt held by the lender.
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שְׁטָרוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרוּעַ – שְׁטָרוֹת שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּרוּעִין!
Another source concerns a lender holding documents against two people both named Yosef ben Shimon. A record among his papers states that Yosef ben Shimon’s document is paid, without identifying which one. The source treats both documents as paid, since the record cannot be assigned and collection cannot proceed on that uncertainty. For our discussion, relying on a record held by the lender challenges Rav. Before addressing the ambiguous name, we must ask why the record proves any payment at all.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת קְרוּעִין, הָכָא נָמֵי שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת קְרוּעִין.
This source too is established as a case of discovery among torn documents. That setting supports reading the record as evidence of actual payment rather than preparation for future payment. Once that foundation is established, uncertainty remains about which document was paid. The identification problem explains the result for both. The answer thus separates the credibility of the payment record from the ability to assign it to a particular debt.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדַנוּ אַבָּא, וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצָאנוּ בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ״.
The Gemara cites the oath taken by heirs seeking to collect their father’s debt. They swear that he neither instructed nor told them that it was paid, and that they found no record among his documents stating that this debt was paid. Including such a record in the oath apparently means that finding it would obstruct collection. Yet the record remained in the father’s possession as lender. This source therefore also challenges Rav’s concern that it might be a receipt prepared in advance.
אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: שֶׁנִּמְצָא בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת קְרוּעִין.
Rav Safra answers that the record was found among torn documents. This is the explanation already applied to the two earlier sources. The archival setting supports understanding the debt as no longer outstanding for collection. Such a discovery therefore matters to the heirs’ oath even though an ordinary receipt held by the lender is insufficient. Repeating the answer builds a consistent distinction between writing alone and writing supported by its storage context.
תָּא שְׁמַע: סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. אֵימָא ״יִתְקַיֵּים מֵחוֹתְמָיו״!
The Gemara challenges Rav from a source saying that a witnessed receipt is established through its signatures. The initial reading makes authentication of the signatures sufficient, even though the receipt might have been prepared in advance. The answer changes the reading: it is established from its signatories. The matter must be clarified through the signing witnesses, rather than merely by identifying their signatures. Their testimony about payment can exclude advance preparation. This preserves the distinction between proving that a document is authentic and proving that payment occurred.
Build a table for three topics: a bundle of documents, documents involving several parties, and a receipt held by the lender. For each, record the initial evidence, one alternative explanation, and the fact that weakens or excludes that explanation.
The page teaches us to distinguish a document’s contents from evidence about its identity and history. The grouping and storage of documents may decide a case where the writing alone is insufficient. The result is a layered investigation, not a conclusion resting on one isolated detail.
Test yourself before marking the lesson complete.
How does Rabbah answer the objection that monetary law cannot establish a rule in a matter of prohibition?
Original explanations and translations: Bonei Atalmud. Excerpts were checked against the site’s Gemara text. Explanations and exercises have not undergone rabbinic review and are not halakhic rulings.
