Study Bava Metzia folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
לאהדורי גט אשה בסימנים. אי אמרת דאורייתא – מהדרינן, ואי אמרת דרבנן – כי עבוד רבנן תקנתא בממונא, אבל באיסורא – לא עבוד רבנן תקנתא.
The Talmud answers: The practical difference is with regard to returning the bill of divorce of a woman that was lost by an agent before its delivery, on the basis of distinguishing marks. If you say that the identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, we return the document and allow the agent to transmit it to the woman. But if you say that it is by rabbinic law, we do not return the document, because when the rabbis institute an ordinance, it is only with regard to monetary matters they have the authority to declare property ownerless; but with regard to ritual matters, the rabbis do not institute an ordinance. They lack the authority to abrogate the prohibitions by Torah law that are associated with a woman’s marital status.
תא שמע: אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו, ולמה יצאת להקיש אליה? ולומר לך: מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש לה סימנין ויש לה תובעין חייב להכריז, אף כל דבר שיש לו סימנין ויש לו תובעין חייב להכריז. תנא: תובעין אצטריכא ליה, סימנין כדי נסבה.
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear proof from the Mishnah: The garment was also included in the generalization that one must return all of these items. And why did it emerge from the generalization that is should be specified? To draw an analogy to it and to say to you: What is notable about a garment? It is notable in that there are distinguishing marks concerning it and it has claimants asserting ownership, and its finder is obligated to proclaim his find. So too with regard to any item concerning which there are distinguishing marks and it has claimants asserting ownership, its finder is obligated to proclaim his find. Clearly, the identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law. The Talmud rejects the proof: Perhaps it was necessary for the tanna to mention only the criterion of claimants, and the tanna cited the criterion of distinguishing marks for no reason, as by Torah law distinguishing marks are not a relevant factor.