We are concerned for 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. Rav Ḥisda said to Rabba: 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 the mishna: With regard to any court enactment, the one who found it must return it to its presumed owner. Since this bill of divorce was found in court, it belongs to this category and should be returned.

Rav Amram said to Rabba: How can the Master resolve the halakha in the case of a bill of divorce, which is a ritual matter, from the mishna, which discusses monetary matters? Rabba said to him: Fool, we learned in the mishna that this halakha applies in the case of documents of ḥalitza and documents of refusal as well, which are ritual matters.

At that point, the supporting cedar beam of the study hall dislodged. One Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as you spoke to me offensively, and the other Sage said: It was due to my fortune that it dislodged, as it was you who spoke to me offensively.

§ The mishna teaches: If one found documents in a ḥafisa or in a deluskema, he must return them. The Gemara asks: What is a ḥafisa? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: It is a small flask. What is a deluskema? Rabba bar Shmuel says: It is a container [telika] used by the elderly.

The mishna teaches: If one found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he must return them. The Sages taught in a baraita: How many documents constitute a roll of documents? A roll is three documents rolled together. And how many constitute a bundle of documents? A bundle is three documents tied together.

The Gemara infers: Conclude from it that if one lost an item that has a knot, the type of knot can serve as a distinguishing mark by means of which the owner can describe the item, and it therefore must be returned to him.

The Gemara rejects this inference: Doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach that the reference is to three documents that are rolled together? The fact that they are rolled together is what serves as a distinguishing mark, rather than the knots.

The Gemara asks: If so, this case is identical to the case of a roll of documents, which is also mentioned in the mishna. What is the difference between a roll and a bundle? The Gemara answers: A roll is referring to a case where each and every one of the documents is located at the top of another one, i.e., they are rolled together such that the top of each page is near the bottom of the previous page. A bundle, by contrast, is referring to a case where they are located one on top of the other and rolled together.

The Gemara asks: What does the person who found the documents proclaim so that the owner can claim it? The Gemara answers: He proclaims the number of documents that he found, and the owner can describe them by saying that they were rolled together.

The Gemara asks: If so, why does the tanna teach specifically a case of three documents? Even if two documents are found, they can also be returned in this manner.

Rather, the finder proclaims his find in a manner similar to that which Ravina said: If one finds coins, he simply proclaims that he found coins, without specifying the number. Here too, the finder proclaims that he found documents, and the owner describes them by both their exact number and the fact that they were rolled together. Therefore, if there are only two documents the description is deficient, as the number two is already implicit in the finder’s proclamation that he found documents, which is plural.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If one finds three promissory notes that make reference to the loans of one person who borrowed from three people, he must return them to the debtor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the creditors, what are they doing together in one place?

The Gemara suggests: Perhaps the three creditors all went to court in order to ratify their promissory notes, and the notes were lost together there. The Gemara responds that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are ratified.

The Gemara asks: Perhaps they fell from the hand of the scribe of the court after he ratified them. The Gemara answers: A person does not leave his ratified promissory note in the possession of the scribe. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that the promissory notes were lost by the debtor.

§ The mishna teaches: If the promissory notes make reference to the loans of three people who borrowed from one person, the one who found them must return them to the creditor. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that if it enters your mind that these promissory notes belong to the debtors, what are they doing together?

The Gemara asks: Perhaps the three went to one scribe to write the promissory notes, and the notes were then lost together. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a case where the promissory notes are written in the handwriting of three different scribes.

The Gemara suggests: And perhaps the three debtors went to the court in order to ratify the promissory notes, and they lost them there. The Gemara answers: It is the creditor who ratifies his promissory note; the debtor does not ratify his promissory note.

§ The mishna teaches: If there are cancellations of contracts [simponot] among one’s documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. The Gemara cites that which Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: With regard to a simpon that emerges from the possession of a creditor, even if it is written in his own handwriting and is clearly not forged, it is considered as though he were merely jesting and the simpon is invalid.

The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state this halakha in a case where it is written in the handwriting of a scribe, as it can be said that he happened to have an opportunity to have the scribe write the simpon, and therefore he had him write it before the debt was repaid. But even in a case where it is written in the handwriting of the creditor it is invalid. The creditor may have written the simpon himself before the debt was repaid, thinking: Perhaps the debtor will happen to come at twilight on the eve of Shabbat and wish to repay me. I should prepare a document of cancellation, as, if I do not give him one, he will not give me the money. I will therefore write the document now, so that when he brings me the money, I will give it to him.

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rav based on that which we learned in the mishna: If there are simponot among one’s documents, he should do what is stated in the simponot. This is apparently referring to simponot that are in the possession of the creditor.

The Gemara answers that the mishna is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. This indicates that the simpon is valid, as had the debt not been repaid, the creditor would not have put the simpon note among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

Come and hear another challenge to Rav’s statement from a mishna (Bava Batra 172a): If one found among his documents a simpon that says: The debt mentioned in the promissory note of Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and there are two people by that name who owe him money, the debts mentioned in the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as each can claim that the cancellation is referring to his debt, and the burden of proof rests upon the creditor. Apparently, a simpon that is found in the possession of the creditor is valid.

The Gemara answers that this mishna, too, is to be understood in accordance with that which Rav Safra said in response to another difficulty: It is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents. Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

Come and hear another challenge to Rav’s statement from a mishna (Shevuot 45a): If orphans who inherited their father’s property demand repayment of a debt owed to their father from the orphans of the debtor, they are required to take an oath stating: We take an oath that our father did not instruct us on his deathbed that the debt mentioned in this promissory note was repaid and it should be returned to the debtor, nor did our father say to us on an earlier date that it was repaid, nor did we find among the documents of our father a simpon stating that this promissory note was repaid. This too, seems to indicate that a simpon is valid even if it is found in the possession of the creditor.

The Gemara answers by citing the statement of Rav Safra, who said in this context that this reference is to a case where the simpon was found among torn documents.

Come and hear another challenge from a baraita: A simpon upon which witnesses are signed is ratified by means of its signatories. The court verifies the validity of the witnesses’ signatures and thereby ratifies the document. This too seems to include a simpon that is in the possession of the creditor. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita reads: Is ratified by obtaining confirmation from its signatories,