(Mishnah): If a man (a Shali'ach) was carrying a Get and lost it:

If he finds it immediately, it is Kosher (we assume that it is the same one ). If not, it is Pasul.

If he found it in a Chafisah or Deluskema (kinds of pouches) and recognizes it (Rashi – or he recognizes the Get), it is Kosher.

(Gemara) Contradiction (Mishnah #1): If one finds Gitei Nashim or freedom, gift documents or receipts, he should not return them to the recipient. Perhaps the giver reconsidered and never gave the document.

Inference: If the giver says to return it, we do, even if it was found long after it was lost!

Answer #1 (Rabah): Our Mishnah discusses where caravans are common. Mishnah #1 discusses where they are not common;

Even where caravans are common, we are concerned only if we know that another person in the city has the same name like the husband.

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? (If we are, we cannot return the Get, lest a man from the other Shviri lost it!)

Answer (Rabah - Mishnah #2): If one finds any document of Beis Din (such as this Get, which was Mekuyam by Beis Din), he returns it.

Conclusion: There is much traffic in Rav Huna's Beis Din, yet Rabah concluded that we return it! We must say that he says to return it only when we do not know that there is another husband (or city) of the same name.

A Get was found in the flax district of Pumbadisa. Rabah ruled like he taught, that it should be returned.

Version #1: It was found where they soak flax (caravans are not common). He said to return it, even though it was established that another man in the city had the same name.

Version #2: It was found where they sell flax (caravans are common). He said to return it only because it was not established that another man had the same name.

Question (R. Zeira - Mishnah): 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:

If 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 .

If the husband admits that he gave it, we return it, even if it was found a long time later!

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

Version #1: R. Zeira says not to return (when caravans are common) only when we know that another man has the same name. He holds like Rabah.

Version #2: R. Zeira says not to return (when caravans are common) 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 (b), also asked the question.) We understand why Rabah prefered to ask a contradiction between Mishnayos to R. Zeira's question, a contradiction between a Mishnah and a Beraisa;

Why didn't R. Zeira ask Rabah's question?

Answer: Mishnah #1 does not say that we return it even after a long time. (It says only that we do not return it because we are concerned lest it was never given. Rabah inferred that this is the only concern, even if it was found much later). Perhaps really, even if 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 (b) and (e) - R. Yirmeyah): A Get may be returned after a long time 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): (The Get may be returned after a long time if) the Shali'ach who lost the Get tells us that there is a hole near a certain letter in the Get, which is an exceptional Siman (sign that it is his).

Inference: Had he said only that it has a hole, which is a mediocre Siman, we would not return it (if it was found later).

Rav Ashi is unsure if the Torah authorizes returning an Aveidah based on a (mediocre) Siman, or if this is only (a monetary enactment) mid'Rabanan. (Therefore, to return a Get, which permits an Eshes Ish, he requires an exceptional Siman, which surely the Torah accepts.)

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.

(Mishnah): If the Get was not found immediately, it is Pasul.

(Beraisa) Question: What is considered not immediately?

Answer #1 (R. Nasan): It is enough time passed for a caravan to pass and to camp.

Answer #2 (R. Shimon ben Elazar): Immediately is when one was watching to see that no one else passed.

Answer #3 (Some say): Immediately is when one was watching to see that no one delayed there.

Answer #4 (Rebbi): Not immediately is the time to write a Get.

Answer #5 (R. Yitzchak): It is the time to read a Get.

Answer #6 (Others say): It is the time to write it and read it.

Even if the Get was found later, we may testify that it is the same Get if there are Simanim, e.g. there is a hole next to a particular letter.

We cannot testify based on Simanim that apply to many Gitin, e.g. it is long or short.

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.