Gemara

(Mishnah #1): If a man (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.

Contradiction (Mishnah #2): If one finds a Get or a gift document... 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 much later!

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 we know that the husband has a namesake (someone else with the same name) in the city.

Support: If we would not say this, Rabah would contradict himself!

A Get was found in Rav Huna's Beis Din. It said 'in the city of Shviri, on the Rachis River...'

Question (Rav Huna): Are we concerned lest there is another city called Shviri (and this Get is from there)?

Answer (Rabah - Mishnah #3): If one finds any document of Beis Din (e.g. a Get validated by Beis Din), he returns it.

Conclusion: There is much traffic in Rav Huna's Beis Din, yet Rabah answered that we return it! We must say this is only when we do not know that the husband (or city) has a namesake.

A Get was found in the flax district of Pumbadisa. Rabah ruled like he taught, that we return it.

Some say that it was found where they soak flax (caravans are not frequent). He said to return it, even though it he was Muchzak (established) to have a namesake in the city. Others say that it was found where they sell flax (caravans are frequent). He said to return it only because he was not Muchzak to have a namesake in the city.

Question (R. Zeira - Mishnah #1): If a man was carrying a Get and lost it, it is Kosher only if he finds it immediately;

Contradiction (Beraisa): If one finds a Get in the market and the husband admits that he gave it, we return it to the woman. If he does not admit, we do not return it to either one.

Inference: When he admits we return it, even if it was found much later!

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): The Mishnah discusses a place where caravans are frequent. The Beraisa discusses a place where they are not.

Some say that R. Zeira says not to return (where caravans are frequent) only when we know that he has a namesake. He holds like Rabah. Others say that R. Zeira says not to return (where caravans are frequent) even if we do not know that another man has the same name. He argues with Rabah.

Question: (We assume that Rabah, who answered Question (2), also asked Question 2.) We understand why Rabah preferred to ask a contradiction between Mishnayos to R. Zeira's question, a contradiction between a Mishnah and a Beraisa. But why didn't R. Zeira ask Rabah's question?

Answer: Mishnah #2 does not say that we return it even after a long time. (It says only that we do not return it lest it was never given. Rabah inferred that this is the only concern, even if it was found much later). Perhaps really, even when the giver says to return it, we return it only if it was found immediately!

The Beraisa says explicitly that if the husband admits, we return it. If it meant only if it was found immediately, it would have said so.

Answer #2 (to Questions 2 and 6 - R. Yirmeyah): We return a Get found much later only if the witnesses say that they signed on only one Get for a man with this name.

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): It may be returned much later if he tells us that there is a hole near a certain letter in the Get, which is an exceptional Siman.

(Beraisa) Question: What is considered not immediately?

Answers: R. Noson says, it is enough time passed for a caravan to pass and to camp. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, immediately is when one was watching to see that no one else passed. Some say, it is when one was watching to see that no one delayed there...

28a (Shmuel): The Halachah is, it is if no one delayed where the Get was lost.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Halachah is, it is if no one passed there.

Rishonim

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. Alternatively, if the Shali'ach tells us that there is a hole near a certain letter, which is an exceptional Siman.

Question (Ba'al ha'Ma'or): In Bava Metzi'a, the Rif himself rules like the second version of R. Zeira, and we do not return Ma'asei Beis Din even if we do not know about a namesake!

Answer (Milchamos Hash-m): R. Zeira was stringent only where caravans are frequent. Even if a person passed, since caravans are not frequent we are not concerned.

Ran (DH Gemara): It is possible that R. Zeira agrees that if he has a namesake and caravans are not frequent we return. BaHaG and R. Chananel rule like Rabah, for he acted according to ruling. A ruling acted upon bears more weight. Also, it seems that Rav Huna and Rav Chisda accepted Rabah's answer. Perhaps Rav Ashi and R. Yirmeyah do not take sides in the argument of R. Zeira and Rabah; they merely say that in any case one may rely on witnesses or an exceptional Siman.

Rif and Rosh (3:3): A Gaon permits if no person delayed where the Get was lost. Presumably, we should be stringent about an Isur and forbid if one passed there and has a namesake.

Ran (DH Kedei): Even though the Rif normally forbids when caravans are frequent even if the husband is not Muchzak to have a namesake, he does not apply two stringencies, the latter version of R. Zeira and the concern for passing without delaying. Or, perhaps he applies two stringencies, and discusses when caravans are not frequent, for he holds that R. Zeira is stringent also when has a namesake and caravans are not frequent.

Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 3:9): If one was bringing a Get and lost it in a place where caravans are not frequent, even if it was found much later it is Muchzak to be the Get that was lost, and it may be used. If it was lost in a place where caravans are frequent, if it was found immediately before anyone else delayed there, it is Muchzak to be the Get that was lost, and it may be used.

Rambam (10): If it is Muchzak that the husband has a namesake in the area, if someone else passed, even though he did not delay there, we are concerned lest the Get is from the namesake. If the Get was used, she is Safek Megureshes. If no one else passed by the Get is Kosher, even though we know that there is another man with the same name.

Rebuttal (Ra'avad): In Halachah 9, the Rambam is concerned only if someone delayed there! The Gemara does not say that the definition of 'immediately' depends on whether or not he has a namesake! We are concerned for a namesake in the hometown of the husband (not where the Get was lost). It seems that the Rambam disagrees.

Magid Mishneh: Also the Rambam discusses a namesake in his hometown.

Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rav): The Magid Mishneh says that the Rambam discusses when has a namesake and caravans are frequent. The Rashba explains that the Rambam discusses when he has a namesake even if caravans are not frequent.

Rosh (3:3): According to the second version, R. Zeira is concerned where caravans are frequent even if we do not know about another person of the same name. All the more so he is concerned where caravans are not frequent and we know about someone else of the same name. There is more concern lest his namesake passed by where the Get was lost, even if caravans are not frequent, than there is lest someone from elsewhere (with a Get for the same name) passed by, even if caravans are frequent.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (132:4): If one was bringing a Get and lost it in a place where caravans are frequent, or even where they are infrequent but the city is Muchzak to have two couples whose names are exactly those on the Get, if it was found immediately before anyone else passed there, it is Kosher. If we do not know whether or not someone else passed by, we are concerned lest it is a different Get. We are concerned even if a Nochri passed by, even if caravans are not frequent and the husband is not Muchzak to have a namesake. If there is no Chazakah of a namesake and caravans are not frequent we return it even if there was a delay for someone to pass by.

Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Some say that if it was lost in a place where caravans are not frequent, even if he found it much later we are not concerned, even if the area is Muchzak to have another couple with the same names. If it was lost in a place where caravans are frequent, if he found it immediately before anyone delayed there, it may be used to divorce. If the area is Muchzak to have another couple with the same names and caravans are frequent we are concerned lest it is from his namesake if someone passed by, even if he did not delay. If no one passed by, it keeps its Chazakah.

Taz (14): This is the Rambam's opinion. He says, that R. Zeira is not concerned for a namesake of the husband unless caravans are frequent.

Gra (14): It seems that also the Rif is stringent only in this case. However, the Ra'avad explains that the Rif is stringent whenever there is namesake, even if caravans are not frequent, like the Rosh.

Rema: Some say that if the name of the city is mentioned in the Get we are not concerned for the frequency of caravans, for we are not concerned for two cities of the same name.

Rebuttal (Gra 15 and Beis Shmuel 4): The Gemara is concerned for a city of the same name (when caravans are frequent)! The Ran (Teshuvah 42) says that we are concerned only when we know that there is another Shviri, but this is only because the Get named the adjacent river.

Defense #1 (Beis Meir): R. Zeira is not concerned for another Get in which the names of the witnesses and the couple are all the same. The Rema holds that this is as unlikely as a Get from another Shviri on the Rachis river and the names of the couple are the same. We must say that Rav Huna argues with R. Zeira. Alternatively, the Rema teaches that we are not concerned for caravans only when the people are from nearby cities and we know that no neighboring city has the same name as the city on the Get.

Defense #2 (Chasam Sofer Teshuvah EH 1:45 DH Ach): The fact that we have never heard of another Shviri suggests that if there is another Shviri it is very far away. The closeness of the Shviri we know is convincing evidence that the Get is from there