Study Bava Metzia folio 18B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
חיישינן לשני שוירי, ואמר ליה רב חסדא לרבה: פוק עיין בה, דלאורתא בעי מינך רב הונא. נפק, דק ואשכח. דתנן: כל מעשה בית דין – הרי זה יחזיר.
We are concerned about the possibility that there are two cities named Sheviri and that this bill of divorce may belong to someone else who lives in the other Sheviri, and therefore it should not be returned. And Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba about this issue: Go out and examine this halakha, as in the evening Rav Huna will ask you about it. He went out, examined it, and discovered a relevant source, as we learned in a Mishnah (20a): One must return any court enactment, i.e., a promissory note that has been authenticated by the court, to its owner. Since the bill of divorce was found in the court, it is in this category and must be returned.
והא בי דינא דרב הונא, דכי מקום שהשיירות מצויות דמי, וקא פשיט רבה דיחזיר, אלמא אי הוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון – אין, אי לא – לא.
The Talmud concludes its proof that even in a place where passing caravans are common, the concern that the bill of divorce belongs to another couple applies only if it is known that there is another couple in the same locale with the same names as those written in the bill of divorce: And the court of Rav Huna is comparable to a place where passing caravans are common, as many people from different places pass through for judgment. And yet, Rabba resolved that if one finds a bill of divorce there, he should return it. Evidently he holds that if it is established that there are two people named Yosef ben Shimon in the city, then there is indeed a concern and the document should not be returned, but if not, there is no concern.