Study Gittin folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
when the husband admits that he wrote it, in any event he should return it to the woman, and by omission this appears to be the halakha even if a long time has passed since the bill of divorce was lost. And R' Zeira answers: Here, in the Mishnah where it states that he should not return it, it is s
The Talmud compares the rulings of Rabba and R' Zeira. There are those who say with regard to R' Zeira’s statement that he should not return it in a place where caravans are frequently found: And this is the case when it is established that there are two people in the town with the identical name. I
The Talmud clarifies: Granted that Rabba did not say a discourse like that of R' Zeira and raise a contradiction from the baraita, as he holds that it is a stronger challenge to raise a difficulty from the Mishnah in tractate Bava Metzia because the Mishnah, redacted by R' Yehuda HaNasi, employs mor
The Talmud answers: R' Zeira could have said to you: Does the Mishnah teach that if he said: Give the found document to the intended recipient, one gives it, and this is so even if a long time passed? This was only an inference from the Mishnah. Perhaps the Mishnah should be interpreted differently,
The Talmud offers an alternative resolution to the contradiction between the Mishnah here, on the one hand, and the Mishnah in tractate Bava Metzia and the baraita, on the other hand. R' Yirmeya said: It is possible to resolve the contradiction in a different way: The latter permit one to return a