we are concerned

<<for two

<<Shvireis.

<<And Rav Chisda said to Rabbah:

<<go out

<<and look

<<into it,

<<for this evening

<<will ask

<<of you

<<Rav Huna.

<<He went out,

<<examined

<<and found:

<<for we learned:

<<every

<<act of

<<a court —

<<he

<<must return.

But

<<the court

<<of Rav Huna,

<<which is like

<<a place

<<where caravans

<<are common

<<it is deemed —

<<and ruled

<<Rabbah

<<that he must return;

<<apparently

<<if

<<where there were established

<<two

<<Yosef

<<son of

<<Shimon —

<<yes;

<<if

<<not —

<<no.

Acted

<<Rabbah

<<in a case

<<with that

<<get

<<that was found

<<in the place of

<<flax

<<of Pumbedisa

<<according to his teaching.

There are who say:

<<where

<<they sell

<<flax —

<<and that is

<<where there were not

<<established —

<<even though

<<caravans are

<<common.

And there are who say:

<<where

<<they soak

<<flax —

<<and even though

<<there were established —

<<for not

<<(are caravans common).

Rabbi Zeira

<<contrasts

<<the Mishnah

<<with a baraisa

<<and resolves it.

<<We learned:

<<one who brings

<<a get

<<and it was lost

<<from him —

<<if he found it

<<immediately

<<it is valid,

<<and if

<<not

<<it is invalid.

<<And they contrast it:

<<if he found

<<a get of

<<a woman

<<in the market —

<<at a time

<<when the husband

<<admits

<<he must return it

<<to the woman;

<<if does not

<<the husband

<<admit

<<he may not

<<return it,

<<neither

<<to this one

<<nor

<<to that one.

It teaches

<<at any rate:

<<at a time

<<when the husband

<<admits

<<he must return it

<<to the woman —

<<and even

<<after a time

<<long!

And he resolves it:

<<here

<<in a place

<<where caravans

<<are common,

<<and here

<<in a place

<<where are not

<<the caravans

<<common.

There are who say:

<<and that is

<<where there were established

<<that we do not

<<return it,

<<and that is

<<Rabbah's view.

<<There are who say:

<<even though

<<there were not

<<established

<<we do not

<<return it,

<<and this disagrees with

<<Rabbah.

It is well

<<Rabbah

<<did not

<<say

<<like Rabbi Zeira:

<<a Mishnah

<<is stronger

<<for him

<<to raise an objection from.

<<But

<<Rabbi Zeira —

<<what is the reason

<<he did not

<<say

<<like Rabbah?

He says to you:

<<does

<<it teach

<<that if

<<he said

<<“give them”

<<they give them

<<and even

<<after a time

<<long?

<<Perhaps

<<if

<<he said

<<“give them”

<<they give them,

<<but always

<<as we hold —

<<for us —

<<immediately.

According to the one

<<who says

<<for Rabbi Zeira

<<in a place

<<where caravans

<<are common,

<<and even though

<<there were not

<<established

<<two

<<Yosef

<<son of

<<Shimon,

<<and this disagrees with

<<Rabbah —

<<in what

<<do they disagree?

Rabbah

<<holds

<<that what it teaches

<<“every

<<act of

<<a court —

<<he

<<must return” —

<<with one found

<<in a court

<<we are dealing,

<<and a court

<<is like a place

<<where caravans

<<are common;

<<and that is

<<where there were established

<<he may not

<<return it;

<<if there were not

<<established

<<he must return it.

And Rabbi Zeira

<<says to you:

<<does

<<it teach

<<“every

<<act of

<<a court

<<that were found

<<in a court”?

<<“Every

<<act of

<<a court

<<he must return”

<<it teaches,

<<and always

<<where it was found

<<outside.

Rabbi Yirmeya

<<said:

<<such as

<<where say

<<the witnesses:

<<never

<<did we

<<sign

<<except

<<on

<<get

<<one

<<of

<<Yosef

<<son of

<<Shimon.

If so,

<<what

<<is there to say?

<<What

<<might you say?

<<Let us be concerned

<<perhaps

<<it happened

<<that a name

<<is like a name

<<and witnesses

<<like witnesses —

<<it teaches us.

Rav Ashi

<<said:

<<such as

<<where he says:

<<a hole

<<there is

<<in it

<<beside

<<letter

<<such-and-such.

And specifically

<<beside

<<letter

<<such-and-such;

<<but

<<a hole

<<in general

<<no.

Rav Ashi

<<was in doubt

<<whether marks

<<are

<<by Torah law

<<or

<<by rabbinic law.

Rabbah bar bar Chanah