Bava Metzia Daf 18
- Why a get is not like an ordinary שטר for collecting a kesubah
On the previous Daf, Abaye had suggested that the fact that a woman can collect her kesubah by presenting only her get does not prove that one cannot claim payment about a "מעשה בית דין" – an obligation imposed by an act of Beis Din. Abaye retracted, and the Gemara concludes that he retracted because the kesubah amount is not written into the שטר. Although the amount is standard, the husband should be able to claim he paid the kesubah!? Although one normally cannot claim payment against a שטר (which he should have destroyed), here the husband can say that he could not rip her get, since she needed it as proof of divorce in order to remarry. Although Beis Din could have ripped the get, and written on the reverse side, “This get was ripped, not because it is invalid, but so that she does not collect with it again,” the Gemara responds: אטו כל דמגבי בבי דינא מגבי – does everyone who collects an obligation collect it in Beis Din, that they could perform this procedure?
- Using a lost get which was found
The next Mishnah states that if someone found gittin, gifts documents, or receipts, they are not returned to the written recipient, because the author may have reconsidered and never given the שטר. The Gemara infers: הא אמר תנו נותנין – if [the author] said to give the documents, we would give them. This contradicts a Mishnah which teaches that if a get was sent and lost, then if it was found immediately, it may be used, but if not, it cannot be used (because it may be someone else’s get). Rabbah answers: כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות – [That Mishnah] is where caravans are common, increasing the likelihood that it fell from someone else. כאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות – [Our Mishnah] is where caravans are uncommon, so we are not concerned the get was someone else’s, even after a long time. The Gemara further qualifies Rabbah’s position: והוא שהוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת – this concern is only where it has been established that two people named Yosef ben Shimon live in a single city where the get was written. Otherwise, we are not concerned for the possibility of another person, nor another city, of the same name. Rav Huna was concerned about another possible city with the same name.
- Using simanim to identify gittin
Rebbe Yirmiyah answers that a get found after a long time can be returned where the witnesses testify: מעולם לא חתמנו אלא על גט אחד של יוסף בן שמעון – We never signed on more than one get for someone named Yosef ben Shimon. The Gemara explains the novelty is that one need not be concerned that there are other witnesses with the same names, who signed a different get for a different Yosef ben Shimon.
Rav Ashi says: כגון דקאמר נקב יש בו בצד אות פלונית – A get found after a long time could be used where he says, “There is a hole next to a particular letter in the get,” דהוה ליה סימן מובהק – because it is a uniquely identifying mark and may be relied on even with regard to gittin. The Gemara clarifies that Rav Ashi is only willing to rely on a truly distinctive mark such as identifying the spot of the hole, but if he merely says it has a hole somewhere, it is insufficient. The reason is: מספקא ליה סימנים אי דאורייתא אי דרבנן – [Rav Ashi] is uncertain if ordinary simanim, upon which we rely to return lost objects, are sufficient evidence on the Biblical level, or only Rabbinically, and cannot be used for gittin.
