Question: How can he deduce that if he said, "give," then we would give it? Perhaps, even if he said "give" we would not give it, as we would suspect that this is not the Get that was written for him. Rather, it fell from someone else with the same name as him.

This would be the explanation. The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (18a) means that he might have changed his mind and not given them. If he wouldn't suspect that he changed his mind, they would return the Get to her even if it is not hers, as she only needs it for proof. (Note: She is already divorced anyway because she received her real Get, and this is only proof of that fact.)

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara made this deduction from the fact that the Mishnah said "and he changed his mind," not merely "because I say that they were written and not given." This implies that he changed his mind, retracted, and does not want to divorce her anymore. However, if he wanted he would divorce her with a Get, and we do not suspect that it might have fallen from someone else. We clearly have the text in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (18a) that "the reason is because he changed his mind etc." (Note: This clearly shows that the deduction hinges on the inclusion of the word "v'Nimlach" -- "and he changed his mind.")

Question: How do we know that this is even for a long time? Perhaps it is only immediately, as Rebbi Zeira asks later on. It is also hard to understand why the Beraisa makes it obvious to Rebbi Zeira that he should give it back to the woman even after awhile, more than the Mishnah itself.

Answer#1: The Ri answers that the deduction is from the fact that "v'Nimlach" had to be said to tell us that if he said "give," we would have given the Get, and we would not have suspected that it was another Get. This implies that this would even be true if it was a long time. If it was right away, it would be obvious that we should suspect it was a different Get!

Rebbi Zeira holds that when it says "and he changed his mind," it is part of a normal case (where the Get would not end up being given). The reason he did not give is probably because he changed his mind. It did not mean to imply that if he would say, "give" we would give it. However, from the Beraisa it is a proper deduction to say that it is even if it was for a long time. If it would be only dealing about right away, this would be obvious!

Answer#2: Additionally, the Ri answers that the deduction is even for a long time, because the Gemara understands it is similar to documents of Chalitzah and Miun (see Bava Metzia 20a) which is for a long time.

It must be that the Mishnah there does not have to tell us that he should give back these documents unless it is not known whether or not she really had Chalitzah or had done Miun. If we knew that she had Chalitzah or done Miun, it is obvious that we should give it back, even if it is not hers, as she only needs it for proof.

Being that it is not known (if she had Chalitzah or did Miun), the fact that it was found right away doesn't tell us that it is hers. This is in light of the fact that we do not know that she ever had a Chalitzah document written for her. (Note: We therefore have no right to assume such a document is hers.)

Rebbi Zeira does not understand that the first part of the Mishnah (regarding documents on 18a) is like the second part (regarding Miun and Chalitzah on 20a). However, he can deduce from the Beraisa that we return it after a long time if the husband admits. The Beraisa implies that he admits that it fell from her, and that he already used it to divorce her. If it would only be talking about being recovered immediately, this would mean we had seen the Get in her hand. If not, there is no difference between it being found immediately (and a long time), as we have explained.

Being that we saw it in her hand, it is obvious that he should return it, even if it is not hers, and even if the husband does not admit. Rather, it must certainly be that the case is when we did not see the Get in her hand. Therefore, even if it was lost for a long time it should be returned.

Question: Why didn't the Gemara ask on this Mishnah that we should suspect that perhaps he wrote it to give in Nisan, as the Gemara indeed asks in Bava Metzia (19a) on the Beraisa quoted later?

Answer: The Ri says that the Gemara's deduction, "if he said "give" it must be that we would give it," implies that he is now coming to divorce her with this Get. Therefore, there is no suspicion, as we explained earlier that any Get that is not given on the day it is written has rumors attached to it (that the Get was not given immediately). Accordingly, potential buyers make sure they demand proof from the woman regarding exactly when she received the Get.

However, in the Beraisa that states that when the husband admits, meaning that the Get fell from his hand, the buyers think that Beis Din believes that she got the Get right after it was written. They will be more likely to make a mistake and will not ask for proof.

Question: How can Rebbi Zeira ask from a Beraisa that this is even for a long time, according to the first version? It must also tell us that this is the law even if was found immediately, according to the opinion that the husband can still use the "fruits" (see 17a) of the marriage until the Get is given. This is because we do not suspect that it was written in Nisan etc.

Answer: When it is found right away this cannot be asked, as perhaps it was on the day that it was written. However, if it is talking about finding it after a long time, even though when the caravan passes and it stays there it is called a long time, "a long time" implies whether it is a day or after many days.

When the Gemara later asks on Rebbi Yirmiyah that this is obvious, it could have answered that we do not suspect that he wrote it in Nisan etc. Rather, it gave a better answer that is even according to the opinion that a husband can no longer use the "fruits" of the marriage from the time the Get was signed.

Question: Why doesn't the Gemara give the opposite (more simple) answer that both Mishnayos are discussing places where there are caravans passing through all the time? The difference is that in one Mishnah it was established (that there were two people called Yosef ben Shimon), and in the other Mishnah it had not been established.

It would be good to establish the Mishnah regarding finding Gitin in a case where there are caravans passing by frequently, just like the case of an act of Beis Din which is also where caravans are frequent and there are not two Yosef ben Shimons, as is clear in the Gemara below.

Answer: The incident quoted later (in the Gemara) was related to the beginning of the Mishnah (in Bava Metzia 20a). (Note: The Gemara concluded that the Mishnah teaches us regarding this incident) that if it was not established that there are two Yosef ben Shimons in the city, he should give it back even if there are caravans passing through. Here the Mishnah is teaching that if there are two Yosef ben Shimons, he should only give it back if there are no caravans passing through.

Question: In a place where it is established that there are two Yosef ben Shimons, even though the caravans are not commonly passing through, how can we return it? How do we know that it belongs to this person?

Answer: The case is where we know that it fell from a specific Yosef ben Shimon, and we do not suspect that it was a different Yosef ben Shimon. There is no reason to suspect someone else lost it, as there are no caravans that commonly pass through.

Our Gemara is according to Rebbi Eliezer. According to Rebbi Meir, being that it is established (that there are two Yosef ben Shimons) he cannot divorce with it even if it is his, being that it is not clear from the text of the document that he is the one divorcing his wife (and not the other Yosef ben Shimon). This is as I explained earlier (see Tosfos on 24b, DH "b'Eidei").

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that it was brought there to be verified in Beis Din. (Note: The verification was lost afterwards.)

Now it is clear how we can understand what the law should be from the Mishnah that states that any action of Beis Din can be returned (as the verification is an act of Beis Din). We do not suspect that it is anyone else's even if there are caravans passing through, being that it has not been established that there are two Yosef ben Shimons.

Alternatively, the case could be when it is not verified and the document falls from the hands of a messenger. We do not suspect that the husband changed his mind, as the husband cannot nullify the Get unless he is in the presence of the messenger, as is stated later (33a). If it is talking about a verified document, even if we don't know who it fell from we should give it back to the woman, as we say that a borrower does not get verification of the document (accordingly, it certainly belongs to the woman).

Explanation#2: However, in Bava Metzia (20a, DH "di'Ishtakach"), Rashi explains that the case is that it fell from the hands of the messenger. He explained there as well that it must have been verified, as we extrapolate from the Mishnah regarding an act of Beis Din that was verified.

Question#1: This is difficult. If we should normally suspect that he changed his mind when it fell from the hands of a messenger, why does verification help to take away that suspicion? In any event, it never got to the woman!

Question#2: Additionally, it is uncommon that a husband should uphold a Get, as is explained here in Rashi and in Bava Metzia (20b) that a borrower (i.e. the one who has to pay) does not verify a document.

Implied Question: We do not say in this case that we suspect there are two Yosef ben Shimon's in one city.

Answer: Perhaps they knew that in that city of Shviri there was only one.

Question: We should ask a question from this Mishnah on Rebbi Zeira who says later that according to one version of the Gemara, whenever there are caravans passing through we suspect for two Yosef ben Shimons even though it is not established that there are two such people in the area. It should also ask on Rav Huna here, and on Abaye who suspects for two Yitzchaks in Yevamos (115b).

Answer: The Ri says that he understands that the Mishnah is referring to a case where the document was found outside of Beis Din where there are not caravans passing through.

This is clearly stated in Bava Metzia (18b), where the Gemara says that according to Rebbi Zeira, does it say "All acts of Beis Din found in Beis Din?" It merely says "All acts of Beis Din should be returned." The case (where we don't suspect) is where it was found outside of Beis Din.

Implied Question: She is not believed to claim, "You divorced me." (Note: Why not? The Gemara in Kesuvos (22b) says she is believed to make a claim, as if she was not telling the truth she would not be so brazen to claim that he divorced her.)

Answer: Being that there is a Get that supports her claim, she indeed would be brazen enough to lie.

Question: Being that a husband that says, "I divorced my wife," is believed, and he admits that he divorced her, even if the Get is hers we should give it to her! What is the Gemara's question?

Answer: He is only believed from now on, since he has a Migu that he can divorce her now. However, she can only seize fruits of the marriage that he sells from now on, not retroactively, even when he says that he divorced her from the time that it says in the Get, as stated in Bava Basra (134b).

In our case, where it is known to us that this Get did not reach her now as a Get taking effect now, he is not believed now any more than he was retroactively.

When the Beraisa says that he should return it to the woman, it means with witnesses, and she should be considered divorced when she receives the Get, even if she did not yet get divorced. We do not suspect that it fell from someone else, even if it was only found after a long time.

Explanation: The Gemara implies that they know that they only signed on one such Get, but they do not recognize the Yosef ben Shimon mentioned in the Get.

Question: This is difficult. If so, why should we believe him that it is his Get more than in a case where the witnesses did not say anything? In such a case he would not be believed that it is his, and we would not give it back to him just because he says that he recognizes that it is his, as we suspect that he is lying.

Answer: The Ri says that we do not suspect that he is going to purposely lie and say that it is his in order to mess up his wife. The motive of gaining the cost of writing the Get (by claiming that this is his Get he will not have to pay anyone to write a Get) is insufficient reason for him to put his wife in such a predicament. This is apparent from the fact that we say that a husband is believed to say that he divorced his wife, and we do not suspect that he is just saying so in order that he should not have to pay for the writing of the Get.

Therefore, when the witnesses say that they only signed on one such Get, and he says that they signed on his Get, he is believed. However, when the witnesses do not say anything (about only having signed on one such Get), we suspect that perhaps he thinks that it is his because he does not know that there is another Yosef ben Shimon in the city. Alternatively, he knows there is another Yosef ben Shimon, but does not think that he should suspect that the other Yosef ben Shimon also lost a Get. This is why he says that he recognizes the Get, even though he really doesn't.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the witnesses signed on the Get say that they only signed on one such Get with these names, and that Get was for this person.

According to this, it must be that the witnesses did not see the signatures on the Get in question. If they did see the signatures and they say that it is their signature, and they signed for this person, it is obvious that the Get should be given back. This should not even have to be said! We certainly would not suspect that perhaps his name, the names of the witnesses, and the signatures are all similar (to another Get that took place). The answer of the Gemara also does not mention that the signatures are the same (see Maharam).

Text#1: Rashi explains that this was said by the messenger.

Text#2: Some Gemaros have the text that this was said by witnesses.

Explanation: (Note: The difference between the two texts is as follows.) Witnesses are believed even when they already saw that the Get has this hole, while a messenger is only believed when he says this before he sees the hole.

Explanation: If Simanim are Rabbinic in nature, we only return a lost object with witnesses that it belongs to the claimant. The Rabbanan decreed that we should return a lost object with Simanim.

Question: The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (27a) states that if something has a Siman, one must announce that he has found it. If it does not have a Siman, he may keep it, even according to Rabbinic law. Why should we say that it is his? Let him announce the lost object, and someone will bring witnesses. According to Torah law, there is no difference between the two cases. Just as witnesses are required for an item with a Siman he will similarly find witnesses for an item without a Siman!

Answer#1: The witnesses that he will bring will recognize that it is his through Simanim that are on the object.

Answer#2: Additionally, due to the Simanim people ask if someone recognizes an item that has certain Simanim. This way he can find witnesses (that it is his). However, when there are no Simanim, he doesn't know how to ask (around for witnesses), and therefore loses hope.

Explanation: An Am ha'Aretz can also recognize things. This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Basra (168a) that states that if a Rabbinical student goes to be Mekadesh a woman, he should have an Am ha'Aretz go with him. (Note: He will recognize the woman the Rabbinical student is Mekadesh, and will make sure they do not end up giving him a different woman.) In Chulin (96a), as well, it is clear that everyone has the ability to recognize (and it is not a special power of Rabbinical students and Talmidei Chachamim.)

Implied Question: We do not give back lost objects to an Am ha'Aretz based on his recognizing an article. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: He is simply not believed.

Text: Some have the text "What is immediate?"

We can understand the (subsequent) words of the Tannaim according to both texts.

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that "v'Tishreh" is a term used to indicate eating a meal, like the term "Sheirusa" in Tanis (11b). Being that the people take out their vessels in order to eat a meal, we suspect that the Get fell from them.

Observation: In the last chapter of Yevamos (120a), the Gemara deduces from here that the concept of Simanim is a Torah concept.

Question: This is difficult. In Bava Metzia (27a), the Gemara asks whether Simanim are based in Torah law or Rabbinic law, and it does not bring this as a proof.

Answer: The Ri answers that in the conclusion of the Gemara in Yevamos (ibid.), after the Gemara quotes various Tannaim and concludes that everyone holds Simanim are Rabbinic nature, we can also understand that this Beraisa holds that Simanim are Rabbinic in nature. The case would be when there are witnesses that the purse and ring belongs to him. Alternatively, it could be that he found them himself and knows that they are his. He therefore has a Migu that he could have said that he never lost them.

Originally, when we wanted to deduce from here that Simanim are a Torah concept, the Gemara understood that the case was when someone else found it, and we return it based on this Siman.