# dafyomi

lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW TO DESPAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Abaye):</font></b> If one would despair from something if he knew
          that he dropped it, but he does not know that he dropped
          it, it is not considered as if he despaired;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> It is as if he despaired.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If something has a Siman, no one considers it as if he
          despaired;
          1.	Even if we heard him despair later, the finder
               may not keep it, since when he picked it up it was
               forbidden (to keep it. He was obligated to announce
               it to try to return it to the owner, for normally,
               one who something with a Siman expects to get it
               back by telling the Siman.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	If something was taken by a high tide or an overflowing
          river, all agree that even if it has a Siman, the Torah
          lets the finder keep it (like we will explain later).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	They argue about something that has no Siman.
          1.	Abaye does not consider it as if the owner
               despaired, because he does not know yet;
          2.	Rava considers it as if the owner despaired, for
               when he finds out, he will despair.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ATTEMPTED PROOFS FOR RAVA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	(We try to bring supports for Rava (which are questions
          against Abaye) from our Mishnah and other sources that
          permit keeping things, even though the owner might not
          know that he dropped them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Mishnah):</font></b> If one found scattered Peros, he may
          keep them (even though the owner might not know that he
          lost them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Rav Ukva bar Chama established the case to
          be leftover Peros at the time (or place) of gathering.
          The owner knows that he lost them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Or scattered coins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> R. Yitzchak explained that this is because
          people constantly check their wallets. (Surely, the owner
          realized that he dropped them before the finder found
          them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Rings of figs or baker's loaves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Since they are heavy, surely the owner
          realized that he dropped them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Strips of purple wool.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Since they are valuable, people constantly
          feel (to check that they still have them), just like they
          check their wallets (according to R. Yitzchak).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one finds coins in a Beis
          ha'Keneses, Beis Medrash or any place where many people
          go, he may keep them, because the owner despairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> This is because people
          constantly check their wallets.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Mishnah):</font></b> Everyone (i.e. even rich people) may
          take Leket (grain that is dropped during harvesting, and
          must be left for the poor) after the Nemushos passed
          through.
          1.	Question: What are Nemushos?
          2.	Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): They are elderly people
               who walk on canes (they go slowly, and do not miss
               anything).
          3.	Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): They are the second 
               wave of collectors.
          4.	Even if poor people here know that they have
               passed through, Aniyim elsewhere do not and have not
               despaired (yet the Leket is permitted to all)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Since there are Aniyim here, Aniyim
          elsewhere (assume that the Aniyim here will take all the
          Leket, and) despair from the outset.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one finds fried figs on the road, even
          next to a field of drying figs, or figs found under a
          tree whose foliage leans over the Reshus ha'Rabim, he may
          keep them. They are exempt from Ma'aser;
          1.	Regarding olives and carobs, they are forbidden.
          2.	The Reisha is not difficult for Abaye. Since figs
               are valuable, the owner (constantly checks and) is
               aware once they fall.
          3.	The Seifa refutes Rava!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> Olives are recognizable (from whose
          tree they fell), so the owner does not despair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, also regarding figs, the owners should
          not despair!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> A fig becomes detestable when it
          falls.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW TO DESPAIR</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If property of Reuven was
          taken by a Ganav (covert thief), Gazlan (open robber) or
          (overflowing) river and given to Shimon, Shimon may keep
          it.
          1.	Reuven is aware of a Gazlan or river, but he is
               not aware of a Ganav!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> In the Beraisa, 'Ganav' refers to
          armed robbers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> It also mentions a Gazlan!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It discusses two kinds of robbers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (for Abaye - Beraisa):</font></b> If a river took Reuven's
          beams, wood and rocks and deposited them on Shimon's
          property,  he may keep them, because Reuven despaired.
          1.	Inference: Unless (we heard that) Reuven
               despaired, Shimon could not keep them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The case is, Reuven could save them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Seifa):</font></b> If Reuven was chasing after them,
          Shimon must return them.
          1.	If Reuven could save them, even if he was not
               chasing them, Shimon must return them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, Reuven could save them with
          difficulty.
          1.	If he chases them, he shows that he does not
               despair. If not, we may assume that he despairs.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TAKING TERUMAH FOR ANOTHER PERSON</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa) Question:</font></b> In what case can one separate
          Terumah without the will of the owner, and it takes
          effect?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Reuven entered Shimon's field, gathered fruit,
          and separated Terumah without consulting Shimon;
          1.	If Shimon considers Reuven's separation of
               Terumah to be theft, the Terumah does not take
               effect. If not, it takes effect.
          2.	Question: How do we know whether or not he
               considers it to be theft?
          3.	Answer: If when Shimon sees him, he says 'why
               didn't you take nicer ones?', and there are nicer
               fruit that Reuven did not select for the Terumah,
               Shimon is being sincere, and the Terumah takes
               effect;
               i.	If Reuven took the best fruit, Shimon is being
                    sarcastic. He resents that Reuven 'stole' the
                    best fruit to be Terumah, so it does not take
                    effect.
               ii.	If Shimon gathered fruit and added to the
                    Terumah that Reuven separated, whether or not
                    Reuven took the best fruit, Reuven's separation
                    takes effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> When we find that there is better fruit, how
          does the separation take effect?
          1.	At the time Reuven called it Terumah, he did not
               know whether or not Shimon would agree to it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava, on behalf of Abaye):</font></b> The case is, Shimon
          had made Reuven a Shali'ach to separate Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (our text) Support:</font></b> Presumably, this is
          correct. Had he not made him a Shali'ach, the Terumah
          could not take effect!
          1.	'You... also you' includes that a Shali'ach (and
               only a Shali'ach!) may separate Terumah for the
               owner;
          2.	Just like the owner separates like he wants, the
               Shali'ach can separate only if the owner wants him
               to.
          3.	The case is, Shimon did not tell Reuven which
               fruit to make Terumah. Most people select average
               Peros to be the Terumah, but Reuven took nicer
               Peros.
               i.	Shimon said 'why didn't you take nicer ones?' If
                    there are nicer fruits, the Terumah takes
                    effect. If there are no nicer fruits, it does
                    not take effect.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Gra and many Rishonim) Objection:</font></b> Is this
          reasonable?!
          1.	'You... also you' - this includes that a
               Shali'ach may separate Terumah for the owner. Just
               like the owner separates like he wants, the
               Shali'ach can separate only if the owner wanted him
               to.
          2.	Once Reuven was appointed, it doesn't matter if
               Shimon approves of the fruits he selected!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Shimon did not specify which fruits to take,
          and most people select average Peros to be the Terumah,
          but Reuven took nicer Peros. Therefore, unless we see
          that Shimon approves, he was not authorized to do this.
          1.	Shimon said 'Why didn't you take nicer ones?' If
               there are nicer fruits, the Terumah takes effect. If
               there are no nicer fruits, it does not take effect.
               (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi came to Mari bar Isak's
          orchard. Mari's sharecropper put dates in front of them.
          Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate, but Mar Zutra did not. Mari
          found them.
          1.	Mari (to his sharecropper):</font></b> Why didn't you give
               them from these nice ones?
          2.	Ameimar and Rav Ashi (to Mar Zutra): Why don't
               you eat now?
               i.	(Beraisa): If there are better fruits, the
                    Terumah takes effect (because the owner is
                    sincere).
          3.	Mar Zutra: Rava taught that 'why didn't you take
               nicer ones?' applies only to Terumah, for people are
               happy to do Mitzvos (nicely);
               i.	Here, (perhaps) Mari suggested giving nicer ones
                    only because he was embarrassed (to say that he
                    did not want to give us).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If Peros were still wet from dew and the
          owner was pleased, they are Huchshar (receive Tum'ah);
          1.	If they became dry, even if the owner was later
               pleased, they are not Huchshar.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'YE'USH' IN THE CASE OF A STOLEN OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara attempts to prove from a Beraisa that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is Ye'ush. The Beraisa states that if a Ganav or Gazlan steals something from one person and gives it to another, the recipient may keep the object. The Gemara understands that this is because when something is stolen either through Geneivah or Gezeilah, the owner is assumed to have Ye'ush. The Gemara asks, if 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is not considered Ye'ush, then why may the recipient keep the object? The term 'Ganav' refers to one who steals surreptitiously, so it is possible that the owner does not yet know that the object is missing. The Gemara answers that the term 'Ganav' in the Beraisa does not have its usual connotation of one who steals surreptitiously, but rather it denotes a 'Listim Mezuyan,' an armed bandit.
</p><p>
The Gemara's initial proof is based on the Beraisa's assumption that in a normal case of Geneivah, the owner has Ye'ush. Why, then, does the Gemara cite a proof from a Beraisa, when it could cite proof from a Mishnah (Kelim 26:8, cited in Bava Kama 114a)? The Mishnah there teaches that according to the Chachamim, when a Ganav steals animal hides and decides to use them as cushions, his intent makes them fit to become Tamei. Although only the intent of the actual owner of an object can make it fit to become Tamei, the Ganav is considered the owner because in a normal case of theft, the true owner has Ye'ush. (<b>RITVA</b> in the name of 'Yesh Makshim')
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the Mishnah in Kelim might refer to animal hides which the owner already has discovered have been stolen. The Beraisa -- which states that the Ganav stole from one person and gave the object to another -- implies that the recipient received it immediately after the theft. In such a case, the owner probably has not yet had time to realize that the object was stolen. The Gemara chose the Beraisa over the Mishnah to cite as proof because the Beraisa more clearly discusses a case that is relevant to the issue of 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as.'
</p><p>


<font><b>2) SEPARATING FINE PRODUCE AS TERUMAH WITHOUT THE OWNER'S CONSENT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara attempts to prove from a Beraisa that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is Ye'ush. The Beraisa discusses a person who separates Terumah from another person's grain without the knowledge of the owner of the grain. The Beraisa teaches that if the owner of the grain later comes and tells the person that he should have taken better fruit as Terumah, the separation of Terumah is valid because his statement shows retroactively that he consented to the separation of the Terumah. (<b>TOSFOS</b> and the Rishonim explain that although 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' applies specifically when it can be assumed that the owner will have Ye'ush, in this case the owner's reaction can be predicted in advance. It is assumed that the owner will consent to the use of fine fruits for Terumah because of the Mitzvah involved.)
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects the proof and explains that the Beraisa is discussing a person who was appointed as a Shali'ach to separate Terumah but was not told by the owner which produce (the produce of higher quality or of lesser quality) to separate. The Beraisa teaches that if the Shali'ach separates good produce and the owner says that he should have separated better produce (and there <i>is</i> better produce), then the Terumah is valid. The Gemara adds that the case must be a case of a Shali'ach, because a verse teaches that only a Shali'ach may separate Terumah for someone else.
</p><p>
How does this answer refute the proof for Abaye's opinion? If a person must be appointed a Shali'ach in order to separate Terumah, and this Shali'ach was not told explicitly to separate the better produce as Terumah, then he should not be considered a Shali'ach to separate the better produce. Even if the owner later shows his consent to the better produce that was separated, it should be like 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' since his consent was not given expressly at the time that the produce was separated as Terumah. (<b>TORAS CHAIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RITVA</b> explains that this was, in fact, part of the Gemara's argument. The initial proof of the Gemara also understood that the person who separated the Terumah must have been a Shali'ach, since it is obvious that only a Shali'ach may separate Terumah for someone else. Nevertheless, the Gemara thought that this Beraisa supports Rava's opinion for the reason explained above: If the owner did not expressly appoint the Shali'ach to separate Terumah from the fine produce, then he cannot be considered a Shali'ach to do so. The Gemara's response, according to the Ritva, is that when a person appoints a Shali'ach, he is aware, at least, that the Shali'ach will do something on his behalf, even if he does not show clear consent for better produce to be separated. Since he is aware of the Shelichus, when he later consents to the separation of higher quality produce, that is assumed to have been his original intention as well when he appointed the Shali'ach. In the case of 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as,' however, the owner has no knowledge whatsoever that he lost the object, and therefore his later Ye'ush cannot be understood to reflect his original intent. (The Toras Chaim gives a similar answer.)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY ONE TAKE SOMETHING IF THE OWNER WOULD CONSENT?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven entered Shimon's field,
               gathered fruit, and separated Terumah without
               consulting Shimon, and Shimon said 'why didn't you
               take nicer ones?', and there are nicer fruit that
               Reuven did not select for the Terumah, Shimon is
               sincere, and the Terumah takes effect.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi came to Mari bar
               Isak's orchard. Mari's sharecropper put dates in
               front of them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate, but Mar
               Zutra did not. Mari came and asked his sharecropper
               'why didn't you give them from these nice ones?'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ameimar and Rav Ashi (to Mar Zutra):</font></b> Why don't you
               eat now?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mar Zutra:</font></b> Rava taught that 'why didn't you take
               nicer ones?' applies only to Terumah, for people are
               happy to do Mitzvos (nicely). Here, (perhaps) Mari
               suggested giving nicer ones only because he was
               embarrassed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Eruvin 71a (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> One (who did not
               make an Eruv) may give Reshus (rights to his
               property, only) before Shabbos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, one may give Reshus (even) on
               Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ula):</font></b> Beis Hillel consider Bitul (giving Reshus) on
               Shabbos like the case of 'take nicer ones!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Bava Kama 119a:</font></b> Rava bought vine shoots from a
               sharecropper.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> We may not buy fruit or
               wood from people who guard fruit.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses guards, who get no share
               of the Peros. A sharecropper gets a share; we may
               suppose that he sells from his share.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesuvos 48a (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a man went insane, Beis
               Din takes from his property to feed his wife and
               children, and for something else (this will be
               explained).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Ravina - Beraisa):</font></b> If a man went overseas
               and his wife demands food, Beis Din takes from his
               property to feed her, but not to feed his children
               or for something else.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> One who left intentionally is 
               unlike who left unintentionally.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Something else' is cosmetics (for his
               wife).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is Tzedakah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> Rav Yosef would say that we give to her cosmetics.
               Her husband does not want her to become repulsive.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Terumos 4:3):</font></b> If Reuven separated
               Terumah (from Shimon's Peros) without permission, or
               took Peros from Shimon's field, and separated
               Terumah, and.Shimon said 'why didn't you take nicer
               ones?', If there are nicer fruits, the Terumah takes
               effect.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ketzos ha'Choshen (262:1):</font></b> In Eruvin (71a),
                    Beis Hillel hold that Bitul Reshus on Shabbos
                    works, for it is like 'why didn't you take
                    nicer ones?' Shlichus does not apply there; we
                    must say that it is because it is a Mitzvah.
                    Also, Poskim permit using another's Esrog or
                    Sukah (Taz 637:4) because one is happy that
                    others use his property for a Mitzvah, even
                    though now he does not know. One may not eat
                    another's food, even if he knows that the owner
                    would consent if he knew, since he does not
                    know now, and the Halachah follows Abaye. We
                    must say that Mitzvos are different. Once, due
                    to Ones one forgot to be Mevatel his Chametz
                    before the sixth hour on Erev Pesach, and after
                    six hours he remembered and was Mevatel. This
                    is like Bitul after dark in Eruvin. It says in
                    Pesachim (7a) that after six hours, one cannot
                    be Mevatel. We can say that that Sugya is
                    rejected due to the Sugya in Eruvin, just like
                    we rejected the Sugya in Bava Metzia. I joined
                    this to many other reasons to permit benefit
                    from it. One cannot be Mevatel after six hours
                    only if he knew from the beginning and was not
                    Mevatel. (Normally, we must be stringent, for
                    the Poskim did not distinguish.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Rebuttal (Nesivos ha'Mishpat Bi'urim 4):
                    Always, a person does not want the Isur of
                    Chametz! He has no gain from it; the Torah
                    removed it from his Reshus! Nevertheless, the
                    Torah obligates him for it unless he was
                    Mevatel with his mouth or in his heart.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:3):</font></b> Even though Mari did not know that his
               sharecropper was giving fruits to Rabanan, and the
               Halachah is that Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is not
               Yi'ush, Rav Ashi and Ameimar relied on the
               sharecropper to give from his own portion, and to
               give to Mari others in place of what he gave. Mar
               Zutra would not eat before Mari divided with his
               sharecropper.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri (2:3) and Mordechai (425):</font></b> In
                    Bava Kama (119a), Rava said that a sharecropper
                    brings from his own share. This is when he
                    brings from his house. Here, Mari's
                    sharecropper brought from the orchard. Mar
                    Zutra feared lest he not tell Mari at the time
                    of division.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ramban (Bava Metzia 22a DH Ameimar):</font></b> Why did Ameimar
               and Mar Zutra (note: the Ramban's text was different
               than ours) eat? A Mishnah forbids buying from people
               who guard fields. They did not know that Mari would
               come and consent! If the sharecropper owned a share
               of the fruits, why didn't Rav Ashi eat? Rava bought
               vine shoots from a sharecropper. Presumably, Rav
               Ashi agrees! Rav Ashi must permit only after
               division, but not attached Peros that were not
               divided yet. Ameimar and Mar Zutra held that since
               he owns a share, he gives his own. It suffices that
               he wil tell the (land) owner at the time of
               division. The owner himself is pleased to divide
               attached Peros in such a case. After Mari came, it
               was clear that he approved of the 'Shlichus' to
               divide in his absence. If we would say that they ate
               Mari's fruits, this is unlike the proof from
               Terumah! Rav Ashi was stringent, for regarding
               Terumah it is customary to separate generously.
               Here, perhaps Mari was particular to divide only
               after the fruits were detached!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ran (in Shitah Mekubetzes 22a DH Ameimar):</font></b> The
               Rashba answered that even if the sharecropper had no
               share in the fruits, we estimate that the owner
               would not mind. This is the custom. A Tosefta
               teaches that a son or slave eating from his father
               or master may give a piece to the son or slave of
               his friend without concern for theft, for this is
               the custom. This is why we may take a small amount
               of Tzedakah from women.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (358:4):</font></b> One may buy from a
               sharecropper, for he owns a share of the Peros and
               wood.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (1):</font></b> Tosfos (22a DH Mar), Hagahos Ashri
                    and the Mordechai say that if Ploni gives
                    Levi's food to David, David may not eat, even
                    if he knows that Levi would consent. The
                    Halachah follows Abaye; consent at the end does
                    not help for beforehand. I would distinguish.
                    One despairs against his will because he does
                    not know where the object is. Therefore, it
                    came to the finder's hand b'Isur. He cannot
                    acquire through despair, for the owner does not
                    know now, and if he knew that the finder has
                    it, he would not despair. Here, since David
                    knows that Levi will not mind, it came to him
                    b'Heter. Even though the Gemara compares
                    Terumah and Tum'ah to Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as,
                    Terumah and Tum'ah are different, for they
                    require proper awareness.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Maharit (1:150):</font></b> In the Yerushalmi (Bava Basra,
                    Sof Perek 2) R. Chanina was stringent not to
                    give to R. Yochanan figs of R. Chanina's son,
                    even though a son normally does not mind if his
                    father takes (Nedarim 25b)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Ketzos ha'Choshen (1):</font></b> In Kesuvos, Rashi
                    explains that if one went insane, we assume
                    that he would want Beis Din to feed his wife
                    and children. Even when we know that one would
                    consent, it is Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as. Why may
                    we take his property? Perhaps it is because
                    there is a Mitzvah to feed children. Even
                    though we do not force one to feed children
                    above six, he is pleased to do the Mitzvah.
                    However, we uses his money even for cosmetics
                    (which is not a Mitzvah). Why does it suffice
                    that he would consent?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Imrei Baruch:</font></b> Bava Kama 119a permits taking a
                    small amount of Tzedakah from a married woman.
                    We estimate that a man would consent; Zachin
                    l'Adam she'Lo Befanav (we may do something
                    beneficial for someone in his absence). The
                    same applies to one who went insane. Everyone
                    wants to feed his family. If he were sane, he
                    would want this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that this is only after they divided,
               for then we may assume that he sells his own. One
               may not buy before division, lest the sharecropper
               not give to the landowner corresponding to what he
               took.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>SEPARATION OF TERUMAH BEFORE THE OWNER CONSENTED </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
          2.	Suggestion: This is because current satisfaction
               is never considered as if he was pleased
               retroactively.
          3.	Rejection: Hechsher is an exception. It says 'Ki
               Yiten (when he will put, i.e. willingly)' - he must
               be happy when the liquid is (put) on the Peros.
          4.	Question: If so, when the Peros were still wet
               when he was pleased, why are they Huchshar?
          5.	Answer: This is like Rav Papa taught;
               i.	Contradiction (Rav Papa): It is written 'Yiten
                    (he will put)', but tradition says to read this
                    like 'Yutan (will be put)'!
               ii.	Resolution (Rav Papa): We require that (a
                    liquid) will be put, similar to when he will
                    put. Just like a man puts only if he wants to
                    put, he must want that the liquid was put.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael ben
          Yehotzedek):</font></b> What is the source that one may keep
          something that was taken by an overflowing river?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'And so you
          will do to his donkey... that will be lost from him, and
          you found it (you must return it)' applies only when it
          is lost from him, but available to others. It excludes
          what is hopeless for anyone to retrieve it.
          1.	Presumably, the case of something forbidden to
               take resembles what is permitted. Just like one is
               permitted something (in the river) whether or not it
               has a Siman, also one is forbidden to take an
               Aveidah (on the land) whether or not it has a Siman.
          2.	This refutes Rava. The Halachah follows Abaye
               against Rava in six places, whose acronym is <b>YA'AL</b>
               <b>KAGAM</b>:
               i.	Yud - Yi'ush (despair) without knowledge;
               ii.	Ayin - Edim Zomemim are disqualified
                    retroactively;
               iii.	Lamed - (Rashi - Lechi (a post to permit
                    carrying in an alley); Tosfos - Leidah (days of
                    childbirth on which blood is not seen; or, Lo
                    Efshar (inevitable), undesired benefit from
                    something forbidden);
               iv.	Kuf - Kidushin that forbids the couple to
                    have relations;
               v.	Gimel - Giluy (revealing) intent to nullify a
                    Get;
               vi.	Mem - Mumar (a wanton sinner) who sins to
                    fulfill his desires.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> Since the Halachah
          follows Abaye, why may we eat dates that fall off other
          people's trees in the wind?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Since vermin eat dates that fall,
          people despair from them from the beginning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If the owners are orphans (minors), how can
          we answer? Their despair is invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> That is an unusual case, we are not concerned
          for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Questions:</font></b> If we know that the owners are minors, what
          is the law? If a wall of stones surrounds the tree, what
          is the law? (Rashi - vermin cannot eat them; Aruch - this
          shows that he wants them.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Indeed, then it is forbidden.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SIMAN THAT WILL NOT LAST</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may keep (small) bundles of sheaves
          found in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rabah):</font></b> This is even if they have a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> He holds that a Siman that is apt to be
          (destroyed when) trampled is not a valid Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> One may keep them only if they do not have a
          Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> Rava holds that a Siman that is likely to be
          trampled is a valid Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rabah):</font></b> A Siman that is likely to be
          trampled is not a valid Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> It is a valid Siman. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rava - our Mishnah and the Seifa
          (25a)):</font></b> One may keep bundles of sheaves found in the
          Reshus ha'Rabim. If one found bundles of sheaves in a
          Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and announces (to return
          them).
          1.	Question: What is the case?
               i.	If there is no Siman on them, in a Reshus
                    ha'Yachid, why must he return them?
          2.	Answer: Rather, there is a Siman on them, and in
               the Reshus ha'Rabim, he keeps them!
          3.	Conclusion: A Siman that is likely to be trampled
               is not a valid Siman. This refutes Rava!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (for Rava):</font></b> Really, there is no Siman on them,
          but the place they were found is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabah holds that the place is not a Siman; they
          explicitly argued about this.
          1.	(Rabah):</font></b> The place is not a Siman.
          2.	(Rava): It is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may keep (small) bundles of
          sheaves found in the Reshus ha'Rabim. If he found them in
          a Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and announces.
          1.	Big bundles of sheaves, whether in a Reshus
               ha'Yachid or Reshus ha'Rabim, he takes them and
               announces.
          2.	This is difficult for Rabah and Rava. (What is
               the difference between big and small bundles?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> Small bundles of sheaves have
          Simanim. In the Reshus ha'Rabim, the Siman will be
          trampled (so the finder keeps them). in a Reshus
          ha'Yachid, they will not be trampled;
          1.	Big bundles, because they are tall, are not
               trampled even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The only Siman on the bundles is
          their place. In the Reshus ha'Rabim, bundles get kicked
          around, so they do not remain where they were left. In a
          Reshus ha'Yachid, they remain where they were left;
          1.	Big bundles, because they are heavy, are not
               kicked around even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>3) 'SIMAN HE'ASUY LI'DARES'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava rules that a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' -- a Siman that will likely be trampled and destroyed -- is considered a Siman. The Gemara concludes (end of 23a) that this is the Halachah.
</p><p>
How can this ruling be reconciled with the Gemara's ruling earlier on this page that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is not Ye'ush? If a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' is considered a Siman, then the Halachah of 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' should dictate that one is not permitted to take an object that he finds, even if it does not have a Siman, out of concern that it may have had a Siman originally and it lost its Siman when it was trampled. Rava maintains that an owner of a lost object does not expect his object to be trampled and its Siman to be lost, and thus the finder cannot assume that the owner had Ye'ush from his object as soon as it was lost (since it may have had a Siman at that time). Although the owner certainly will have Ye'ush when he finds out that the Siman was destroyed, Rava would rule that the finder cannot assume that the owner is already aware of his loss, and thus any object that is found without a Siman should automatically be considered a case of 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as.' Consequently, a person should never be permitted to take an object that he finds that does not have a Siman. (<b>KOS YESHU'OS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The answer might be that both Rava and Rabah -- who disagree about the law in the case of a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' -- agree that even a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' is not usually trampled. Nevertheless, Rabah maintains that the owner has Ye'ush because there is a strong possibility that the Siman will be trampled, even if this happens only in a significant minority of cases. A person who finds an object with no Siman is entitled to keep it because of the principle of Rov; since most Simanim are not trampled and destroyed, the finder may assume that the object never had a Siman in the first place. Even though the Halachah in monetary matters normally does not follow the Rov, nevertheless with regard to an Aveidah, a lost object, the Halachah may be based on a Rov, since the object is not in anyone else's possession, as explained earlier (see Insights to 21:1). (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A SIMAN THAT WILL NOT LAST (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rabah - Mishnah):</font></b> Baker's loaves (the
          finder keeps them).
          1.	Inference: Loaves of a common person must be
               announced!
          2.	People have particular ways of making loaves,
               this is a Siman. The Mishnah's law applies even in
               the Reshus ha'Rabim, where they will be trampled!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They will not be trampled, because it is
          forbidden to trample on food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Also Nochrim walk there. They will trample on
          them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Nochrim will not trample on them, for they are
          concerned for witchcraft.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Animals and dogs walk there. They will
          trample on them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a place where animals and
          dogs are uncommon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue as Rabah and Rava argue.
          1.	(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): One must announce
               anything unusual, such as pottery in a ring of figs,
               or coins in a loaf.
          2.	Inference: The first Tana holds that the finder
               keeps them!
          3.	We are thinking that all agree that a Siman that
               comes by itself is a (valid) Siman, and one may
               trample on food.)
          4.	Version #1- Suggestion: The first Tana holds that
               a Siman that will be trampled on is not a Siman, and
               R. Yehudah holds that it is a Siman! (Shitah
               Mekubetzes - R. Yehudah mentioned a Shinuy, for only
               Simanim that came by themselves are lost through
               trampling.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1 (Rav Zvid citing Rava):</font></b> If the first Tana
          held that a Siman that will be trampled on is not a
          Siman, and one may trample on food, he would not obligate
          announcing loaves (not of a baker) in the Reshus
          ha'Rabim!
          1.	Rather, both Tana'im hold that a Siman that will
               be trampled on is a Siman, and one may trample on
               food;
          2.	They argue about whether or not a Siman that
               comes by itself is a Siman. The first Tana holds
               that it is not, R. Yehudah holds that it is.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2 (on behalf of Rabah):</font></b> Both Tana'im hold
          that a Siman that will be trampled on is not a Siman, and
          one may not trample on food;
          1.	They argue about whether or not a Siman that
               comes by itself is a Siman (like above).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2:</font></b> Both Tana'im hold that a Siman that comes
          by itself is a Siman, and a Siman that will be trampled
          on is not a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> They argue about whether or not one may
          trample on food. The first Tana permits, and R. Yehudah
          forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1 (Rav Zvid citing Rava):</font></b> If the first Tana
          held that a Siman that will be trampled on is not a
          Siman, and one may trample on food, he would not obligate
          announcing loaves (not of a baker) in the Reshus
          ha'Rabim!
          1.	Rather, both Tana'im hold that a Siman that will
               be trampled on is a Siman, and one may trample on
               food;
          2.	They argue about whether or not a Siman that
               comes by itself is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2 (on behalf of Rabah):</font></b> Both Tana'im hold
          that a Siman that will be trampled on is not a Siman, and
          one may not trample on food;
          1.	They argue about whether or not a Siman that
               comes by itself is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Zvid):</font></b> The general rule of Aveidos is, when the
          owner says 'woe for my loss of money', that is despair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Zvid):</font></b> The Halachah is, if one finds small bundles
          of sheaves in the Reshus ha'Rabim, the Siman will be
          trampled (so he keeps them);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  	In a Reshus ha'Yachid, if it looks like they fell, he
          keeps them. If it looks like they were placed down, he
          takes and announces them.
          1.	Both of these are when they have no Siman. If
               they have a Siman, whether in a Reshus ha'Yachid or
               Reshus ha'Rabim, whether they fell or were placed,
               he announces them.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'MA'AVIRIN AL HA'OCHLIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara proposes that whether a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' is a Siman is a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama, who argue in the Mishnah about whether one who finds a 'Kikar uv'Socho Ma'os' must announce his find. The Gemara suggests that both Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama maintain 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' but Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' <i>is</i> a Siman, and therefore the owner does not lose hope of retrieving the loaf because he knows he has a Siman on it. The Tana Kama maintains that a 'Siman he'Asuy li'Dares' is <i>not</i> a Siman and the owner despairs because he does not rely on the Siman on his object.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara assume that if the Halachah is 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' the owner will give up hope and assume that the Siman on the loaf will be destroyed?' Both <b>RASHI</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ein Ma'avirin) explain that 'Ma'avirin' does not mean that people step on the bread, but that people pass by it and do not pick it up. (Tosfos proves this from the Gemara in Eruvin.) Even if people do not pick up the bread, the Siman on the bread will not be destroyed because neither Jews nor Nochrim step on bread out of fear of Kishuf, as the Gemara earlier says. Also, the Gemara earlier establishes that the Mishnah refers to objects found in places where animals are not normally found, and thus there is no concern that the Siman will be destroyed by animals. The Gemara here clearly is not retracting one of its original assumptions (that the Mishnah assumes that people are afraid of Kishuf, or that the Mishnah refers to a place where animals are found), because in that case it would not be necessary to understand that the Tana'im maintain 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin.' Even if the Tana'im agree with the opinion of '<i>Ein</i> Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' the Tana Kama still would maintain that the owner will have Ye'ush, either because of the presence of animals or because of the presence of Nochrim, as the Gemara says earlier. (<b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> addresses this question and explains that when the Gemara here says 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' it does not use the phrase with its usual connotation (as it uses it at the beginning of the Sugya). Rather, it means that people actually step on the food.
</p><p>
According to the Ritva, the Gemara means either that people are not afraid of Kishuf and therefore they step on the bread, or that animals are common in that area and they step on the bread. The Gemara does not refer to the Halachic issue of whether one must pick up the bread as soon as he sees it. The Gemara uses the phrase 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' even though this is not its usual meaning, since it uses that phrase earlier.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MELO HA'RO'IM</b> answers that the term 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin' may have the same connotation here as it has earlier: that one who finds a loaf of bread on the ground is not permitted to leave it there, but rather he must pick it up. The Gemara here, however, associates the opinion that the owner will have Ye'ush with the opinion of 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin.' If one is permitted to leave food on the ground, then even though people do not intentionally step on the loaf because of their fear of Kishuf, and animals are not commonly found in the area, nevertheless the loaf will be left on the ground for a long time. Once it remains on the ground long enough, it eventually will be trampled either by Ketanim and Shotim who are not worried about Kishuf or by the animals that infrequently pass through the area.
</p><p>
This may explain why Rashi emphasizes that 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin' does not mean that one is not permitted to step on food, but rather that one must pick up a loaf that he finds on the ground and he may not leave it there. Why does Rashi need to emphasize this here? If his only source for this interpretation is the Gemara in Eruvin (as Tosfos says), it is not necessary for Rashi to make a point of it here.
</p><p>
It seems that Rashi is bothered by the question of the Melo ha'Ro'im. If 'Ma'avirin' means that one may step on the loaf, then why does the Gemara suggest, according to the Tana Kama who argues with Rebbi Yehudah, that if the Halachah is 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin' the owner will have Ye'ush because the Siman on the loaf is 'Asuy li'Dares'? Why should that be so? Even if the Halachah permits one to step on the loaf, people will not step on it because of their fear of Kishuf. The Gemara should add that the owner has Ye'ush because people are not afraid of Kishuf, and therefore they will step on the loaf. If people <i>are</i> afraid of Kishuf, the owner will never have Ye'ush, as the Gemara earlier says, even if the loaf was left in Reshus ha'Rabim for an indefinite period of time, because no one will come to step on it.
</p><p>
This is what forces Rashi to explain that 'Ein Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin' really means that one is not permitted to <i>leave</i> a loaf of bread on the ground. The Gemara means that if the loaf is left there indefinitely, the Siman certainly will be trampled (by Ketanim or Shotim). The Siman will remain intact only because the first Jew who sees it will pick it up. That is why the Gemara suggests that if the Halachah is 'Ma'avirin Al ha'Ochlin,' and Jews are not commanded to pick up the loaf, then one may assume that the original owner had Ye'ush because he knows that the Siman eventually will be trampled by Ketanim and Shotim.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS THE PLACE A SIMAN?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 22b (Rabah):</font></b> A Siman that is likely to be trampled
               is not a valid Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> It is a valid Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Rava - Mishnah 21a, 25a):</font></b> One may
               keep bundles of sheaves found in the Reshus
               ha'Rabim. If one found bundles of sheaves in a
               Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and announces (to
               return them).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  We must say that they have a Siman (for in a
                    Reshus ha'Yachid he returns them), and in the
                    Reshus ha'Rabim, he keeps them!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> A Siman prone to be trampled is not
                    a Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (for Rava):</font></b> Really, there is no Siman on
               them, but the place they were found is a Siman.
               Elsewhere, Rava explicitly said that the place is a
               Siman, and Rabah said that it is not.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One may keep (small) bundles of
               sheaves found in the Reshus ha'Rabim. If he found
               them in a Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and
               announces. In either place, he takes big bundles and
               announces. (What is the difference between big and
               small bundles?)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> The bundles have Simanim. The
               Siman on a (small) bundle will be trampled in a
               Reshus ha'Rabim, but not in a Reshus ha'Yachid. Big
               (tall) bundles are not trampled even in a Reshus
               ha'Rabim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The only Siman is their place.
               Bundles in a Reshus ha'Rabim get kicked around and
               do not remain where they were left. In a Reshus
               ha'Yachid, they remain where they were left. Big
               (heavy) bundles are not kicked around even in a
               Reshus ha'Rabim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 23a - Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue as Rabah and Rava
               argue.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> One must announce anything
               unusual, such as pottery in a ring of figs, or coins
               in a loaf.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The first Tana holds that the finder keeps
                    them, for a Siman that will be trampled on is
                    not a Siman, and R. Yehudah disagrees!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #1 (Rav Zvid citing Rava):</font></b> Both Tana'im
               hold that a Siman that will be trampled on is a
               Siman, and one may trample on food. They argue about
               whether or not a Siman that comes by itself is a
               Siman.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #2 (on behalf of Rabah):</font></b> Both Tana'im hold
               that a Siman that will be trampled is invalid, and
               one may not trample on food. They argue about
               whether or not a Siman that comes by itself is a
               Siman.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Zvid citing Rava):</font></b> The Halachah is, if in a
               Reshus ha'Yachid one finds small bundles of sheaves
               without a Siman, that look like they were placed, he
               takes and announces them. If they have a Siman, even
               in a Reshus ha'Rabim, even if they fell, he
               announces them.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 23b - Question (Rav Bivi):</font></b> Is the place (it was
               found) a Siman?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> If one found barrels
               of wine, oil, grain, figs or olives, he keeps them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the place were a Siman, he should announce
                    where they were found!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rav Zvid):</font></b> It was left at the dock where
               ships unload.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1 (Rav Mari):</font></b> Losing it at the docks is not
               a Siman, for just like he forgot a barrel there,
               others also forgot barrels.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2 (Rav Mari):</font></b> (In general,) the place is
               not a Siman, for just like he forgot a barrel there,
               others also forgot barrels.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 25b (Mishnah):</font></b> If one finds tied chicks in back of a
               fence, he leaves them there.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The knot should be a Siman!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>20. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Aba bar Zavda):</font></b> All tie them this way, by
               the wings.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>21. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The place they were found should be a
               Siman!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>22. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Ukva bar Chama):</font></b> They can walk slowly.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> Since the Gemara asked that the place (of
               chicks) should be a Siman, this shows that place is
               a Siman.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ba'al ha'Ma'or:</font></b> The Rif did not need to say
                    this. He rules like Rav Zvid, who obligates
                    announcing small bundles of sheaves without a
                    Siman placed in a Reshus ha'Yachid. This shows
                    that place is a Siman!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Milchamos Hash-m:</font></b> Rav Zvid cited Rava, one of
                    the parties in the argument. Rava is not
                    believed to say that the Halachah follows
                    himself! Also, Rav Nachman and Rav Mari hold
                    that place is not a Siman. Rava was Rav
                    Nachman's Talmid, and he is an individual
                    against them (a majority). Therefore, the Rif
                    needed a proof that the Halachah follows Rava.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Note:</font></b> Also Rav Zvid holds like Rava, and
                    according to Version #1, it seems that Rav Mari
                    held that in general place is a Siman! The Rif
                    (Shabbos 63a and Bava Kama 8b) said that
                    previous Rabanan argued about whether we follow
                    Rava against his (Rava's) Rebbi. The Rosh (Bava
                    Metzia 49a) says that the Rif holds like Rava
                    against his Rebbi.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ran (in Shitah Mekubetzes 25b):</font></b> The Gemara
                    asked that since it is Safek Hinu'ach (if they
                    were placed or dropped), one should take and
                    announce them, for if they were dropped it is
                    an Aveidah with a Siman (the knot). If they
                    were placed, now they are not totally guarded,
                    and also if the finder takes them, the owner is
                    apt to hear the announcement and get them back.
                    If they were surely placed, one does not take
                    them, for this does not help the owner (it is
                    still not totally guarded; the owner might
                    forget the Siman or not hear the announcement).
                    Similarly, one does not take them from a
                    totally guarded place even if it is a Safek if
                    they were placed.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nimukei Yosef (14a DH Gemara):</font></b> The Gemara asked
                    that the place of the chicks should be a Siman.
                    This shows that we assumed that they were Vadai
                    placed. If so, one must leave them even if the
                    knot were a Siman! We must say that they are
                    not totally guarded, and we are concerned lest
                    the owner forgot them. The Ran explained
                    differently.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b></b> Chidushei R. Meir Simchah (Bava Metzia 25b):
                    Even if it is a Safek Hinu'ach, the Gemara
                    asked that either way one may take them. If
                    they fell, the finder keeps them. If they were
                    placed, the owner will tell the place, which is
                    a Siman! Rather, the Nimukei Yosef challenges 
                    the Ran. If they were placed, one may not take
                    them, like something Vadai placed. If they were
                    dropped, the owner will never get them back.
                    Perhaps the Ran holds that if one took and
                    announced a Safek Hinu'ach item without a
                    Siman, and the owner did not come, one may keep
                    it, for presumably it was dropped. We are
                    stringent about Safek Yi'ush, for nothing
                    suggests that there truly was Yi'ush.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 13:5):</font></b> The place of
                    the Aveidah (where it was found) is a Siman
                    Muvhak (a superb, reliable Siman) i
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (15:10):</font></b> If one found in a Reshus ha'Yachid
               bundles that were placed down, he must announce
               them. Even though they have no Siman, the place is a
               Siman, even though it is not a Siman Muvhak.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> This is a printing mistake. The
                    Rambam said above that the place is a Siman
                    Muvhak, and (13:3) that we return an Aveidah
                    only with a Siman Muvhak!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> I say that here the Rambam
                    teaches that the place is not a Siman Muvhak
                    because we are concerned lest others passed
                    here and (kicked and) rolled it. When there is
                    no concern for this, e.g. it is at the side of
                    a fence, the Rambam wrote that it is a Siman
                    Muvhak.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Ohr Some'ach:</font></b> The Rambam holds that (if it looks 
               like something was placed intentionally), one should
               not take it whether or not it has a Siman. If it has
               no Siman, by taking it he makes the owner lose it
               (he has no way to get it back). If it has a Siman,
               he causes toil to the owner to pursue the finder and
               give a Siman. However, there is a difference if he
               took it. If it has no Siman, he keeps it. If it has
               a Siman, he must announce it. The Rambam does not
               distinguish whether the place is totally or
               partially guarded. The only difficulty is that the
               Rambam's words 'he must announce' connotes even
               before he took it, he must take it and announce. The
               Rambam does not hold like this! This is not
               difficult for Tosfos, who obligate to take and
               announce in a place that is partially guarded. Also,
               it is difficult to omit words from our text of the
               Rambam. Rather, the Rambam holds that one does not
               pick up something with a Siman. The only Siman on
               bundles is the place. One should take it and
               announce, lest it get kicked by people, the Siman
               will be lost, and later, someone will take it and be
               unable to return it. The Rambam (Halachah 8) says
               that we do not take Peros, for Ein Ma'avirin Al
               ha'Ochlin, i.e. one may not step on them, so the
               Siman will not be lost. The Rambam holds that place
               is a Siman Muvhak to return an Aveidah; we are not
               concerned lest someone else lost in this place.
               However, it is not a Siman Muvhak to prevent Yi'ush,
               for the owner thinks that it will get kicked and he
               will lose his Siman. The Rambam says that one take
               and announces big bundles even in Reshus ha'Rabim.
               We must say that they were placed, or else the place
               would not be a Siman. Even though they are not
               kicked because they are heavy, sometimes they are
               kicked. They are no better than (regular) bundles in
               Reshus ha'Yachid. Therefore, the owner wants the
               finder to take and announce it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:3):</font></b> Rav Zvid said in the name of Rava that
               the Halachah is, if one finds small bundles in a
               Reshus ha'Yachid, if it looks like they were placed,
               he takes and announces them. The owner will give the
               place for a Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (4):</font></b> The Rif proved that place is a Siman from
               the Gemara's question that the place (of chicks)
               should be a Siman. Even though Rava ruled that place
               is a Siman, the Rif needed a proof, for Rava merely
               ruled like himself.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 262:9):</font></b> If one found in a Reshus
               ha'Yachid bundles that were placed down, he takes
               them and announces them. Even though they have no
               Siman, the place is a Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> A place where everyone puts this, e.g. barrels
               at the river bank, is not a Siman, for everyone
               unloads there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shulchan Aruch (267:7):</font></b> The place of the
                    Aveidah is a Siman Muvhak.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Midah):</font></b> The
                    Rambam says so in Perek 13. This is explicit in
                    Bava Metzia 23b.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>OTHER TYPES OF SIMANIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> (The finder keeps) fish on a string.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rosh) Question:</font></b> Why does he keep them? The
          way they are tied should be a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> All fishermen tie them this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Ramban):</font></b> Since we do not say that the way
          he tied them is a Siman, it must be, this is not
          considered a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The case is, they are tied like all
          fishermen tie them. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The number of fish is a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> There are as many as fishermen normally put on
          a string.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Is the number found a Siman?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> If he found Kelim of
          silver or copper, or pieces of lead, or any metal Kelim,
          he returns them only to one who gives a Siman or their
          weight.
          1.	Since weight is a Siman, also the measure or
               number is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> (The finder keeps) pieces of meat.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The weight should be a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is a standard weight that butchers sell.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The limb should be a Siman, e.g. the flanks
          or thigh!
          1.	(Beraisa): If one finds pieces of fish or a
               bitten fish, he must announce it;
          2.	If one found barrels of wine, oil, grain, figs or
               olives, he keeps them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> In the Beraisa, the pieces are cut in a special
          way. This is a Siman.
          1.	Rabah bar Rav Huna used to cut triangular pieces
               of meat (to ensure that a Nochri not switch it with
               other meat).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support:</font></b> Presumably, the pieces of fish are similar to
          a bitten fish (taught with it), which is (very rare, and
          hence) a (superb) Siman.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SIMANIM ON BARRELS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one found barrels of wine, oil, grain,
          figs or olives, he keeps them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> If one found barrels of wine
          or oil, he must announce them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Zeira):</font></b> The Mishnah discusses barrels that
          were (opened and re)sealed. This is a Siman.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If the Beraisa discusses open barrels, (one
          may not drink them, for) snakes can drink from them. The
          owner willingly forfeited them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (R. Hoshaya):</font></b> They are covered, but not
          plastered closed (this is not a Siman).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Abaye):</font></b> Also in the Beraisa they are
          resealed;
          1.	The Mishnah discusses before the season to sell
               wine came. It is rare to reseal a barrel then, so
               this is a Siman;
          2.	The Beraisa discusses after the season came. It
               is common to reseal barrels then, so it is not a
               Siman.
          3.	Rav Yakov bar Aba found a resealed barrel after
               the season came. Abaye ruled that he may keep it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Bivi):</font></b> Is the place (where it was left) a
          Siman?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman - Beraisa):</font></b> If one found barrels of
          wine, oil, grain, figs or olives, he keeps them;
          1.	If the place were a Siman, he should announce
               where they were found!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rav Zvid):</font></b> The case is, it was left at the
          dock where ships unload.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 - Question (Rav Mari):</font></b> Why isn't it a Siman
          that he lost it at the docks?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Mari):</font></b> Just like he forgot a barrel there,
          others also forgot barrels.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 - Question (Rav Mari):</font></b> (In general,) why
          isn't the place a Siman?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Mari):</font></b> Just like he forgot a barrel there,
          others also forgot barrels. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  	Reuven found pitch regarding the olive-presses; Rav
          ruled that he may keep it. Rav saw that Reuven was
          hesitant; he told him to split it with Rav's son Chiya.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> This shows that Rav holds that place is not
          a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (R. Aba):</font></b> No, he permitted it because the
          owner surely despaired. Nettles (a kind of mold) were
          growing on it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>NEW KELIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One need not announce
          Anpurya Kelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is Anpurya?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It is new Kelim that one does not
          yet recognize well.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
          1.	If they have a Siman, even if one does not yet
               recognize them, they must be returned!
          2.	If they have no Siman, even if one recognizes
               them, they need not be announced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, he has no Siman;
          1.	If one does not yet recognize them, we are not
               concerned to announce it in case a Chacham
               recognizes it.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) THE 'SIMAN' OF A SEALED BARREL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara points out a contradiction between the Mishnah, which states that a person who finds lost barrels of wine or oil must announce his find, and the Beraisa, which states that the finder may keep them. Rebbi Zeira answers that in the case of the Mishnah, the barrels were previously opened and then resealed ('Rashum'). In the case of the Beraisa, the barrels were opened and not resealed; they are merely covered with a lid that is not sealed shut.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH b'Rashum) explains the significance of a seal as follows. In general, when the Ba'alei Batim who produce the wine are ready to sell their wine (in Shevat or Nisan), they remove the covers of their barrels in order to allow the storeowners (who will purchase the wine) to taste the wine, and then the storeowners close the barrels and seal them shut with a sealant. This seal is called a 'Roshem.' In the case of the Mishnah, the Roshem on the barrel creates a Siman because some storeowners make a Roshem before they take the barrel, while others take the barrel with intent to sell the contents immediately and they do not bother to reseal it.
</p><p>
Rashi's words imply that the Siman is the fact that the barrel has a Roshem. The owner can identify the barrel by the fact that it has been resealed and was not left open. This is difficult to understand for two reasons.
</p><p>
(a) Many of the barrels that the storeowners take are resealed. Why, then, should a person who lost a barrel be able to identify his barrel by the mere fact that it was resealed? How can that be an identifying mark if many barrels are resealed? (<b>RITVA</b>, <b>CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH</b>)
</p><p>
(b) If a sealed cover on a barrel is considered a Siman, then an unsealed cover on a barrel should also be a Siman! Why does the Beraisa say that if one finds a barrel that is open (i.e. not sealed) he may keep it because it has no Siman? (<b>RASHASH</b>, <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH b'Rashum) and all of the other Rishonim argue with Rashi and explain that a Roshem does not refer to the mere fact that a barrel is sealed. Rather, it refers to every person's unique seal. Each Roshem is made slightly differently and, therefore, the Siman is not the fact that the barrel has a Roshem, but rather the way the Roshem looks. The fact that there is a Roshem is not a Siman since most barrels have a Roshem.
</p><p>
The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that Rashi does not disagree with Tosfos on this point. Rashi also means that the barrel has a Siman because of the distinct appearance of its Roshem, and not just because of the fact that the barrel has a Roshem.
</p><p>
What does Rashi mean when he writes that a Roshem is a Siman '<i>because</i> there are some people who seal their barrels with a Roshem, and some who leave their barrels open in order to sell immediately'? Perhaps there is an error in our version of Rashi, and instead of the words '<i>because</i> there are some people...,' the text should say '<i>and</i> there are some people...' ('v'Yesh' instead of 'she'Yesh'). Alternatively, the words beginning with 'she'Yesh...' may belong at the end of the following comment of Rashi, which explains the word 'b'Pasu'ach' in the Gemara.
</p><p>
However, why does Rashi not emphasize (as Tosfos does) that each person seals the barrel in a different manner? After all, that is the essential component of the Gemara's answer. Perhaps Rashi is bothered by the question of Tosfos (in DH Abaye): why does Abaye argue with Rebbi Zeira and maintain that a Roshem is not a Siman? Tosfos there answers that the Roshem is made by the Ba'al ha'Bayis who produced the wine, but the barrels are usually lost by the storeowners who purchase them. Since many storeowners purchase barrels from the same Ba'al ha'Bayis, a Roshem cannot be an adequate Siman for the storeowner to prove that the barrel belongs to him and not to any of the other purchasers. Rashi, however, may have a different answer to this question.
</p><p>
It seems that Rashi and Tosfos argue with regard to <i>who</i> makes the Roshem. Tosfos maintains that the Ba'al ha'Bayis makes the Roshem. Rashi may understand that according to that approach, it should be obvious that the Roshem is not a Siman for the storeowner, even according to Rebbi Zeira (just as the Kikaros Shel Nachtom, loaves made by a professional baker, have no identifying mark that the purchaser can give, since many people purchase their bread from a single baker; see <b>RASHASH</b> on the Mishnah, 21a). Rashi therefore understands that the storeowner who purchases the barrel is the one who makes the Roshem (see end of Rashi DH b'Rashum). The storeowner can identify the barrel as his own based on the unique Roshem that he made. Why, then, does Abaye argue that the Roshem is not a valid Siman? Perhaps Rashi understands that the storeowners do not intentionally make identifying marks on all the barrels that they sell. Rather, they can give general Simanim which show that they were the ones who closed the barrels (for example, they can say that a lot of tar or mortar was used, or that the barrel was sealed neatly, or they can say how far down on the barrel the sealant reached, etc.). Abaye maintains that this is not an adequate Siman, since it is possible that two people happened to seal their barrels in the same way, while Rebbi Zeira maintains that such a Siman is an acceptable form of identification. This would explain why Rashi does not emphasize that every Roshem is made differently -- since the differences between the various types of Roshem are not intentional. (This is not a 'Siman ha'Ba me'Elav' because it is externally visible, as Tosfos writes on 23a, DH Siman.)
</p><p>


<font><b>3) LOCATION AS A 'SIMAN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether or not the location (Makom) in which an object is found is a Siman. It attempts to prove from the Beraisa, which states that one who finds barrels of wine or oil may keep them, that the location is not a Siman. The Gemara rejects the proof because the case of the Beraisa may be where the barrels are found on the river bank. In such a case, the place where they are found is not a Siman because many people leave their barrels on the river bank. The Gemara states that the river bank is not a Siman because just as one person left a barrel on the river bank, someone else may have left a barrel there as well.
</p><p>
The Gemara presents another version of this statement. It asks why the Rabanan say that Makom is not a Siman, and it answers that just as the claimant might have left a barrel in a certain place, someone else might also have left a barrel in the same place.
</p><p>
It seems that the two versions disagree with regard to the general question of whether Makom is a Siman. According to the first version, Makom is a Siman in general, but when that Makom is the river bank it is not a Siman. According to the second version, Makom is never a Siman. However, <b>RASHI</b> (DH Ika d'Amri) writes that the difference between the two versions is that according to the second version, even if the owner describes the exact place where the barrel was found, it is not a Siman. The words of Rashi imply that there is no debate as to whether a Makom is a Siman in general. Rather, the only issue about which the two versions disagree is whether Makom is considered a Siman if a barrel is found on the river bank but the owner can identify exactly at which place on the river bank it was found.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi explain the Gemara in this manner, and not in the more obvious way?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: RAV BETZALEL ASHKENAZI</b> (in the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that Rashi does not accept the possibility that the second version maintains that Makom is not a Siman, because the Gemara earlier (23a) concludes in accordance with Rava that Makom <i>is</i> a Siman. Therefore, Rashi explains that the second version is not discussing whether Makom in general is a Siman, but whether the owner's ability to cite a specific location along the river bank is considered a Siman. (Some Rishonim have a Girsa in the Gemara in which the second version also asks why the <i>river bank</i> is not a Siman.)
</p><p>
Apparently, according to Rashi the entire Sugya is a discussion of this very point. Rav Bivi's original question is not whether Makom is considered a Siman in general; the Gemara has already quoted a dispute between Rabah and Rava on that point. Rather, the question of Rav Bivi is whether a specific location in an area where many people leave their barrels is considered a Siman. Rav Bivi reasons that perhaps even if Makom is normally not a Siman, when the owner identifies an exact location, that <i>is</i> considered a Siman. On the other hand, perhaps even if Makom normally is a Siman, when the barrel is found in an area where many barrels are placed, even an exact location does not suffice as a Siman. The Gemara tries to prove from the Beraisa that even an exact location is not a Siman, since the Beraisa teaches that if one finds barrels of wine he may keep them. The Beraisa implies that even if the owner knows exactly where the barrels were found, this is still not a Siman because they were found in an area where many barrels are placed. The Gemara rejects the proof with the argument that the Beraisa allows the finder to keep the barrel only if the original owner identifies its location in general as the bank of the river, but he does not give an exact point along the river where the barrel was found. The Beraisa may agree, however, that if the owner can identify the exact spot on the river bank where the barrel was found, it must be returned to him.
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN A CHACHAM MAY LIE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Chachamim may lie to cover up three
          things: (knowing) a tractate, bed (when they had Bi'ah),
          and (a host who gave to him good) hospitality (lest
          unfitting people flock to the host).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the significance of this teaching?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Mar Zutra):</font></b> One who lies only about these three
          things is considered a Chacham to whom we return an
          Aveidah if he recognizes it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	A silver cup was stolen from Mar Zutra Chasida's host.
          He noticed a Talmid drying his hands on someone else's
          garment. He reasoned that if the Talmid does not mind
          using another's property, he is the thief. He confronted
          him, and the Talmid confessed.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT R. SHIMON BEN ELAZAR PERMITS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar agrees that if one
          found new Kelim that people recognize, he must announce
          them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	The following Kelim, when new, are not recognized:
          Badei (sticks from which stick out) needles or hooks, or
          a string of forks (for weaving gold).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	These are permitted when only one is found. If two are
          found, he must announce them.
          1.	'Badei' means branches, like a Mishnah teaches
               (that the minimum requirement for willow branches
               is) one leaf on each Bad (branch).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa #1 - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may keep the
          following: what he saves from a lion, bear, leopard,
          polecat, what was taken by a high tide or an overflowing
          river, and what he finds in a big encampment or
          thoroughfare, or any place where many people pass;
          1.	This is because the owner despairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #1:</font></b> Did R. Shimon ben Elazar say this only in
          a city that is mostly Nochrim, or even in a city that is
          mostly Yisre'elim?
          1.	Question #2: If he said so even in a city that is
               mostly Yisre'elim, do Chachamim disagree?
          2.	Question #3: If Chachamim disagree, is this only
               in a city that is mostly Yisre'elim, or even in a
               city that is mostly Nochrim?
          3.	Question #4: If you will say that Chachamim argue
               even in a city that is mostly Nochrim, does the
               Halachah follow R. Shimon?
          4.	Question #5: If you will say that the Halachah
               follows R. Shimon, is that only in a city that is
               mostly Nochrim, or even in a city that is mostly
               Yisre'elim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (to Question #1 - Beraisa #2):</font></b> If one finds
          coins in a Beis Keneses, Beis Medrash or any place where
          many people go, he may keep them, because the owner
          despairs.
          1.	The Tana must be R. Shimon ben Elazar, who
               follows the Rov (Rashi - he permits in places where
               many pass), and he permits even in a Beis Keneses,
               where mostly Yisre'elim go! (Our Gemara supports
               Rashi, for it learns from Beraisa #1 that R. Shimon
               follows the Rov, and Beraisa #1 does not mention a
               majority, only places where many pass. However,
               Tosfos explains 'follows the Rov, i.e. majority,' in
               its normal context. Answer #2 below supports this.
               Perhaps our Gemara understands that he permits in
               places where many pass because he follows the
               majority regarding Metzi'os.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1:</font></b> The case is, the coins are scattered.
          (Even Chachamim in our Mishnah permit this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> The Tana permits only in a place where many
          people go!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2:</font></b> Really, the coins are wrapped together.
          The Beraisa refers to a Beis Keneses (meeting place) of
          Nochrim.
          1.	Question: The Beraisa permits also in a Beis
               Medrash. How can we answer that?
          2.	Answer: It is a Beis Medrash of Yisre'elim, but
               Nochrim stay in it (to guard it. Rashba - the
               Nochrim are considered the majority, for they live
               there and search it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #3:</font></b> Also regarding a Beis Keneses, we can say
          that it is of Yisre'elim, but Nochrim stay in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (to Question #1 - Mishnah):</font></b> If one found an
          Aveidah in a city with Yisre'elim and Nochrim, if the
          majority are Yisrael, he must announce it. If the
          majority are Nochrim, he need not announce it;
          1.	The Tana must be R. Shimon, who follows the Rov,
               and he permits only when the majority are Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, the Tana holds like Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (to Question #3):</font></b> This shows that Chachamim
          admit to R. Shimon ben Elazar when the majority are
          Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1:</font></b> Really, the Tana is R. Shimon, and he
          permits even in a city that is mostly Yisre'elim;
          1.	In the Mishnah, the Aveidah was covered.
          2.	Question: If so, he may not touch it!
               i.	(Mishnah): If one finds a Kli in a waste heap, if
                    it was covered, he may not touch it. If it was
                    exposed, he takes it and announces.
          3.	Answer (like Rav Papa said elsewhere): It is a
               waste heap that is not frequently cleared out, and
               the owner decided to clear it out. (Therefore, even
               though it is covered, the finder takes it.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TELLING ABOUT ONE'S HOST</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that a Talmid Chacham is permitted to alter the truth when someone asks him about his host. <b>RASHI</b> explains that this means that if his host treated him hospitably, it is proper for him to say that he was not treated hospitably so that the host should not be overburdened with unwanted guests.
</p><p>
Why is a person (a Talmid Chacham, no less) permitted to speak derogatorily about his host? Why is that not Lashon ha'Ra?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Apparently, since it is in the host's best interest for the Talmid Chacham to speak about him this way, the host wants the Talmid Chacham to say that he was not a good host. Thus, the Talmid Chacham's words are not considered Lashon ha'Ra.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> explains based on the <b>ARUCH</b> that in all three cases in which a Talmid Chacham is permitted to alter the truth, he still is not permitted to lie explicitly and give a false answer to a question. Rather, he is allowed to respond 'I do not know' instead of revealing the truth. When the Gemara says that a Talmid Chacham may alter the truth with regard to his host, it means that when he is asked where he will stay tonight, he is permitted to say that he does not know, even though he does know where he will stay. This is permitted in order to prevent people from sneaking in to his room and stealing things from him, as the Gemara says in Chulin (127a).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> writes that a Talmid Chacham should say that he was hosted by a <i>different</i> person instead of revealing the identity of his host.
</p><p>
However, although this will protect the privacy of the true host, it will be detrimental to the person who he claims was his host! Why is he permitted to do this?
</p><p>
</p><center><font color='ff0000'><b><b>HE'OROS B'MASECHES BAVA METZIA</b> answers that the Talmid Chacham mentions the name of a person whom he is certain that others will not want, or be able, to visit.</b></font></center><p> Alternatively, the Gemara is concerned only that the true host will be overburdened by a flow of guests, but no one is overburdened by only one guest. Hence, when he claims that someone else was his host, the Talmid Chacham merely causes that person to receive a single guest, and not a second guest. Thus, the second person will not be unduly burdened.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) ANNOUNCING THE FIND OF EVERY LOST OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the Mishnah (21a) teaches that when one finds a brand new item, he does not have to announce it if it has no Siman, because no one -- not even a Talmid Chacham -- will be able to identify it through Tevi'us Ayin. The Beraisa adds that if the new utensil has been used long enough for a Talmid Chacham to have Tevi'us Ayin in it, then the finder is required to announce it.
</p><p>
Why should the finder be required to announce the find? Why should he suspect that the item belongs to a Talmid Chacham? If Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar means that the finder is <i>always</i> obligated to announce a find that has no Siman because its owner may be a Talmid Chacham, then why is it not necessary to announce any of the objects described in the Mishnah (21a) which the finder may keep because they have no Siman?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Modeh) and the <b>RAMBAN</b> explain that even a Talmid Chacham cannot have Tevi'us Ayin for food items. (Perhaps the same applies to raw materials such as Gizei Tzemer and Pishtan, and to money, which constantly changes hands.)
</p><p>
(b) Tosfos and the Ramban add that according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, the finder is required to announce the object only when it was found in an area frequented by Talmidei Chachamim (such as a Beis Midrash).
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> add that if the finder saw a Talmid Chacham lose the item (but he did not notice exactly who it was), then he is obligated to announce it.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> cites the <b>RASH</b> of <b>VIDASH</b> who adds that if the object that was found is a Sefer or another object normally owned by Talmidei Chachamim, then the finder must announce it.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) maintains that a person indeed must announce every object that he finds that has no Siman. However, it is not necessary to announce it in the same manner that he announces an object that has a Siman. It is sufficient for the finder to announce the object only two or three times in places frequented by Talmidei Chachamim (regardless of where it was found).
</p><p>


<font><b>3) RODS OF NEEDLES</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that if a person finds a rod that holds needles or a rope that holds axes (neither of which have a Siman), he does not have to announce his find and he may keep the object (when there are a standard number of needles or axes attached to it; <b>TOSFOS SHANTZ</b>). However, if he finds two or more such rods or ropes, then he must announce them because the number of rods or ropes that he finds is considered a Siman. It is clear from the Beraisa that even two such items is considered an identifying Siman.
</p><p>
How can this be reconciled with the Gemara earlier (20b)? The Gemara earlier rules that when a person finds two Shtaros bound together, the number is not a Siman because when the finder announces that he found 'Shtaros' (documents), everyone knows that the minimum number that he could have found is two, and therefore anyone will be able to claim the items and say that two of them were lost (see <b>RASHI</b> to 20b, DH Shtarei). (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>TOSFOS SHANTZ</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) and the <b>RITVA</b> answer that when the finder announces that he found an object, he does not mention the rods or ropes but he simply says that he found needles or axes. If the owner says that there were two of them, it indeed is not a Siman. If, however, he says that there were two <i>rods</i> of needles or two <i>ropes</i> of axes, then it <i>is</i> a Siman.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> cites the '<b>SHITAH</b>' who points out that the <b>ARUCH</b> (Erech Bad) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gezeilah v'Aveidah 16:1) seem to understand the Beraisa differently. They explain that if a rod is found that contains a single needle, then it is not a Siman, but if the rod contains two needles, then it is a Siman. They apparently maintain that there is no standard number of needles per rod or axes per rope. Rather, as long as there is more than one needle or axe, the number of needles or axes is considered a Siman. The 'Shitah' explains that according to this explanation, the finder announces merely that he found a rod for needles or a rope for axes, and if the claimant tells him the number of needles or axes that are on it, this is considered a Siman.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, this case is not comparable to the case of a person who announces that he found 'Shtaros.' In the case of the Shtaros, the announcement itself indicates that more than one Shtar was found. In the case of the needles or axes, however, the finder's announcement gives no indication that he found more than one needle or axe.
</p><p>



</p><p>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SOMETHING FOUND WERE MANY PASS</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may keep what
               he finds in a big encampment or thoroughfare, or any
               place where many people pass, for the owner
               despairs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #1:</font></b> Did R. Shimon ben Elazar say this only
               in a city that is mostly Nochrim, or even in a city
               that is mostly Yisre'elim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #2:</font></b> If he said so even in a city that is
               mostly Yisre'elim, do Chachamim disagree?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #3:</font></b> If Chachamim disagree, is this only in
               a city that is mostly Yisre'elim, or even in a city
               that is mostly Nochrim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #4:</font></b> If you will say that Chachamim argue
               even in a city that is mostly Nochrim, does the
               Halachah follow R. Shimon?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #5:</font></b> If you will say that the Halachah
               follows R. Shimon, is that only in a city that is
               mostly Nochrim, or even if it is mostly Yisre'elim?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 24b - Answer (to Question #1 - Rav Asi):</font></b> If one
               finds a barrel of wine in a city that is mostly
               Nochrim, he may keep it. (This is like R. Shimon,
               and he permits only when a majority are Nochrim!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps R. Shimon permits even when the
               majority are Yisre'elim. Rav Asi holds like R.
               Shimon only when the majority are Nochrim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> A man found four Zuz wrapped in a sheet and thrown
               in the river Biran. Rav Yehudah ruled that he must
               announce it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> The majority of people there are Nochrim.
               This shows that the Halachah does not follow R.
               Shimon, even regarding a majority of Nochrim!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Most of the people who dam up the river
               and dig it out (to let the water flow) are
               Yisre'elim, therefore he does not despair.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one found a wallet in the
               market of shredded wheat, what is the law?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> He may keep it. If a Yisrael came
               and gave a Siman, he must return it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b></b> This means that he must go beyond the letter of the
               law and return it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If one found a wallet in the market
               of shoemakers (some say, Chachamim), he may keep it,
               even if a Yisrael came and gave Simanim. Even if the
               loser is screaming that it is his, he is like one
               screaming over his house that burned or his ship
               that sank.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b></b> R. Ami found slaughtered chicks between Tiverya and
               Tzipori. Rav Asi, R. Yochanan or Chachamim in the
               Beis Medrash permitted them to him.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> The questions were not resolved. The Sugya
               permits when most are Nochrim, and obligates to take
               and announce when most are Yisre'elim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 11:6):</font></b> In a city that is
               half Yisre'elim and half Nochrim, one who finds an
               Aveidah takes and announces it. If a Yisrael gave a
               Siman, he gives it to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (7):</font></b> If most of the city are Nochrim, if he
               found it in a place where mostly Yisre'elim are
               found, he must announce it. If he found it in a big
               encampment or thoroughfare, or a Beis ha'Keneses or
               Beis Medrash where Nochrim are always found, or any
               place where many people are frequent, he keeps it.
               This is even if a Yisrael gave Simanim, for he
               despaired when he dropped it, for he assumed that a
               Nochri would find it. Even though it is the
               finder's, one who wants to go in the good, straight
               path and go beyond the letter of the law will return
               it to a Yisrael who gives Simanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:7):</font></b> The Rif says that since Rav Asi rules
               like R. Shimon ben Elazar when most are Nochrim, but
               not when most are Yisre'elim, the Halachah follows
               this. The Gemara knew that mostly Nochrim are in the 
               markets of shredded wheat and of Chachamim. This is
               why it did not try to prove from there that the
               Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Elazar even where
               most are Yisre'elim. We do not force one to go
               beyond the letter of the law. The Ra'avad rules like
               R. Shimon ben Elazar even where the majority are
               Yisrael. He learns from the slaughtered chicks that
               were permitted. We cannot say that most of the
               slaughterers were Yisre'elim but most of the people
               there were Nochrim, for people slaughter their own
               chicks! Rather, even though most of the people were
               Yisre'elim, they were permitted.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (CM 259:7):</font></b> If Rav Asi permitted chicks
                    even though the majority were Yisre'elim, this
                    contradicts his ruling about the wine!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rashash (24b DH Sham):</font></b> <i>Rav</i> Asi ruled about
                    the wine, and <i>R.</i> Asi ruled about the chicks.
                    Tosfos (Chulin 19a) says that Rav Asi and R.
                    Asi are different! We follow R. Asi, for he
                    ruled in an actual case.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 259:3):</font></b> If one found an Aveidah
               in a place where Yisre'elim are found, he must
               announce it, for the owner did not despair. Even if
               the city is half Yisre'elim and half Nochrim, or
               even mostly Nochrim but he found it in a place where
               mostly Yisre'elim pass, he must return it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> A
                    Mishnah in Machsirim (2:8) is stringent when
                    exactly half are Yisre'elim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Iy):</font></b> We learn
                    from the money wrapped in a sheet and thrown in
                    the river that one must return it if the
                    majority of the people who pass by are
                    Yisre'elim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>SMA (6):</font></b> If the majority of the city are
                    Nochrim, we are stringent only for a place
                    where mostly Yisre'elim pass, but not if half
                    Yisre'elim pass. Likewise, if the majority of
                    the city are Yisre'elim, we are lenient only
                    where mostly Nochrim pass. A majority (of the
                    city) overrides what is closer (the place it
                    was found) only when it was not found in the
                    close place, and presumably it came from the
                    majority (of the city).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (SMA):</font></b> In Bava Basra 24a, Amora'im
                    argue about whether we follow the majority or
                    what is closest. Rashi says that the former
                    opinion follows the majority of the world, and
                    not from what is closer. This is the Halachah.
                    If so, here we should follow the majority of
                    the city! I say that here, since we can clarify
                    the matter through announcing, we rely on the
                    majority only for despair; the owner despairs
                    if the majority nearby are Nochrim. When there
                    is no despair, but the majority of possible
                    losers are Nochrim, one must announce to see if
                    a Yisrael lost it. Tosfos (Bava Basra 23b DH
                    Chutz) says like this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> If most of the city are
               Nochrim, or even if most are Yisre'elim but where he
               found it mostly Nochrim pass, he is exempt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Aval):</font></b> The
                    Gemara said that one keeps money found in a
                    Beis ha'Keneses if mostly Nochrim are found
                    there. We must say that the city is mostly
                    Yisre'elim, for if not one may keep money found
                    anywhere in the city!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (2 and 260:12):</font></b> We require a recognizable
                    majority of Nochrim. This is why the Gemara
                    (26a) discusses <i>three</i> Nochrim who rented from
                    a Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> This is even if he knows that
               a Yisrael lost it and it has a Siman, for surely the
               owner despaired. This refers to something for which
               we may assume that he knew immediately when it fell.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH u'Mah she'Chosav Afilu: Rav
                    Nachman said that one may keep the Aveidah even
                    if a Yisrael came and gave Simanim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> SMA (7):</font></b> We hold that Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as
                    (one who would despair if he knew that he lost
                    the item) is not despair.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that one does not despair from
               Seforim even in a place that is mostly Nochrim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (8):</font></b> Normally, only Yisre'elim buy Seforim.
                    The loser does not despair, for he thinks
                    '(even if a Nochri finds it,) the Yisrael who
                    buys (from the finder) will announce it, and I
                    will give a Siman.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Nimukei Yosef (Bava Kama 41b DH Yishava):
                    Perhaps one does not despair if his Seforim
                    were stolen even by a Yisrael, for he knows
                    that a Yisrael will get them, for Nochrim do
                    not buy Seforim. We find that one does not
                    despair of something lost in a river if
                    Yisre'elim dam it and dig it out.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (5):</font></b> Even though letter of the law,
               in a place that is mostly Nochrim he need not return
               it even if a Yisrael gives Simanim, it is proper to
               go beyond the letter of the law will return it to a
               Yisrael who gives a Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> If the finder is poor and the loser is rich,
               he need not go beyond the letter of the law.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (3):</font></b> The Mordechai says so in the name of
                    Avi ha'Ezri. Avi ha'Ezri and Ra'avan force a
                    rich finder to return it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (15):</font></b> The Gemara said that he must return
                    it, for we force him to go beyond the letter of
                    the law. 'He is like one screaming over his
                    house that burned' applies when the finder is
                    poor and the loser is rich.
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>SOMETHING LOST FROM EVERYONE </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2:</font></b> Really, the Tana of the Mishnah holds
          like Chachamim. They did not say that when the majority
          is Nochrim it is his, just that he need not announce it;
          1.	If a Yisrael will give a Siman, he must return it
               to the Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (to Question #1 - Rav Asi):</font></b> If one finds a
          barrel of wine in a city that is mostly Nochrim, he may
          keep it (regarding laws of Metzi'os), but he may not
          benefit from it (for it is probably wine of Nochrim);
          1.	If a Yisrael gives a Siman, the finder (keeps it
               and) may drink it.
          2.	This is like R. Shimon. He permits only when the
               majority are Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Really, R. Shimon permits even when the
          majority are Yisre'elim. Rav Asi holds like R. Shimon
          only when the majority are Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Since one may not benefit from it, why bother
          saying that he may keep it (regarding laws of Metzi'os)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> He may use the Kli that it was in.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>METZI'OS IN PUBLIC PLACES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	A man found four Zuz wrapped in a sheet and thrown in
          the river Biran. Rav Yehudah ruled that he must announce
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> This is like something taken by a high tide.
          (Surely, the owner despaired!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The river Biran is different. Since they dam it
          up, the owner would not despair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> The majority of people there are Nochrim.
          This shows that the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon,
          even regarding a majority of Nochrim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Most of the people who dam up the river and
          dig it out (to let the water flow) are Yisre'elim,
          therefore he does not despair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If one found a wallet in the
          market of shredded wheat, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> He may keep it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If a Yisrael came and gave a
          Siman, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Shmuel):</font></b> He must return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> That contradicts the previous answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He should go beyond the letter of the law and
          return it.
          1.	Shmuel's father found donkeys in the wilderness;
               he returned them to the owner after 12 months. This
               was beyond the letter of the law.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> If one found a wallet in the market of
          shoemakers (some say, Chachamim), what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He may keep it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> If a Yisrael came and gave Simanim,
          what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The finder keeps it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The loser is screaming that it is his!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> He is like one screaming over his house that
          burned or his ship that sank.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MEAT THAT WAS FOUND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  	A vulture took meat from the market and deposited it
          among Bar Meryon's date trees. Abaye ruled that he keeps
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> The majority of people in the area are
          Yisre'elim. This shows that the Halachah follows R.
          Shimon, even when the majority are Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, something taken by a vulture is like
          something taken by a high tide.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Rav said that meat that was not watched
          constantly is forbidden (lest it was switched with  meat
          of Nochrim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, he was watching from when the meat
          was taken.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Chanina found a slaughtered kid between Teveriyah
          and Tzipori.
          1.	Rabanan permitted him to keep it. This ruling was
               like R. Shimon;
          2.	Rabanan ruled that we assume that the slaughter
               was Kosher. This ruling was like R. Chananya, the
               son of R. Yosi ha'Glili.
               i.	(Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> If one lost his kids and
                    chickens, and found them slaughtered, they are
                    forbidden;
               ii.	R. Chananyah permits them.
               iii.	Rebbi says, if they were found in the waste
                    heap, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah. If they
                    were found in the house, the Halachah follows
                    R. Chananyah.
          3.	Since the slaughter was permitted, we must say
               that the city was mostly Yisre'elim, and R. Shimon
               permits even in this case!
          4.	Rejection (Rava): No. The city was mostly
               Nochrim. The slaughter was permitted because most of
               the slaughterers were Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	R. Ami found slaughtered chicks between Teveriyah and
          Tzipori, and R. Yitzchak Nafcha found threads for twining
          ropes. R. Yochanan (or Rav Asi or Chachamim in the Beis
          Medrash) permitted them they were permitted to keep them.
<br>

<p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS THAT MUST BE ANNOUNCED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> The following must be announced: Peros found
          in a Kli, an empty Kli, coins in a wallet or an empty
          wallet, bunches of Peros or coins, three coins on top of
          each other, bundles of sheaves in a Reshus ha'Yachid,
          loaves (not of a baker), shearings from the dyer's store,
          and barrels of wine or oil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Inference:</font></b> One must announce Peros found in a
          Kli and coins in a wallet. If they were found in front of
          the Kli or wallet, he keeps (the Peros or coins, even if
          the Kli or wallet has a Siman)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Our Mishnah teaches like the following Beraisa.
          1.	(Beraisa #1):</font></b> If one finds Peros in front of a
               Kli or coins in front of a wallet, he keeps them;
          2.	If some of the Peros or coins are in the Kli or
               wallet and some are on the ground, he must announce.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If one finds something with
          a Siman next to something without a Siman, he must
          announce (both).
          1.	If someone gave the Siman (and said that the
               other object is not his), the finder keeps the other
               object.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Zvid):</font></b> The Mishnah (and Beraisa #1)
          permits keeping flax found near a barrel, or coins near a
          wallet. They could not have come from the barrel or
          wallet, for surely some would have remained inside;
          1.	Beraisa #2 discusses Peros that could entirely
               spill out of the Kli.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Both discuss Peros found in front
          of a Kli. We assume that the Kli has a rim (like most do)
          that would keep some of the contents inside.
          1.	In the Mishnah, nothing remains in the Kli. In
               Beraisa #2, some remains inside.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> In both cases, nothing remains inside. In
          Beraisa #2, the mouth of the Kli faces the Peros (so
          presumably, the Peros came from the Kli). In the Mishnah,
          the mouth faces away.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4:</font></b> In both cases, nothing remains inside, and
          the mouth of the Kli faces the Peros. In the Mishnah, the
          Kli has a rim. In Beraisa #2, it does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Bunches of Peros or coins (must be
          announced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> This teaches that number is a Siman (for
          they have no other Siman)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, the Mishnah refers to one bunch of
          Peros. The Siman is the place it was found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> This teaches that place is a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the Mishnah refers to bunches of
          Peros, and the Siman is the number.
<br>
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOUND COINS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> Three coins on top of each other (must be
          announced).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yitzchak Migdala'ah):</font></b> This is only if they are
          stacked like a tower. If not, he keeps them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one found scattered coins, he
          keeps them. If they are stacked like towers he must
          announce them;
          1.	A tower is three coins on top of each other.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> First, the Beraisa permits scattered coins.
          This implies that if they overlap at all, he must
          announce them. Then it says that if they are stacked like
          towers, he must announce them. This implies that if they
          merely overlap, he keeps them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> If they are not like a tower, the Tana calls
          this scattered.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Chanina):</font></b> This is only if there are of three
          different kings. If they are of the same king, he need
          not announce them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
          1.	If they are like a tower, even if they are of the
               same king, he must announce them!
          2.	If they are not like a tower, even if they are of
               different kings, he need not announce them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Correction:</font></b> Rather, he must announce them only if they
          are of one king, but are like of three different kings
          (they are different sizes).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They are like a pyramid. The widest is on
          bottom, the next widest is over it, and the narrowest is
          on top. Surely he placed them this way;
          1.	If they are like coins of one king, i.e. they are
               all the same width, he does not announce them. We
               suppose that he did not place them; they happened to
               fall that way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> Even if they are (like) of the same
          king, he must announce them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What does he announce?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> He announces the number that he found.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> If so (the finder need not say how many he
          lost), even if he found two, he should announce them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Ravina):</font></b> Rather, he announces that he found
          coins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Questions (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> What is the law in the
          following cases: he found them in a circle; in a row; in
          a triangle; like steps?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (regarding steps):</font></b> Rav Nachman taught that if
          one can move them all at once using a chip of wood, he
          must announce them.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) FRUIT FOUND TOGETHER WITH A VESSEL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that if a person finds Peros inside of a Kli, the owner may claim them (i.e. both the Peros and the Kli) by giving the Siman of the Kli. If a person finds piles of Peros (or coins), he must announce them, because the owner can identify them based on the number of piles or the place where they were found. The Beraisa adds that if the Peros are found in front of a Kli (and the opening of the Kli is facing away from the Peros, as the Gemara explains), then the finder may keep the Peros.
</p><p>
(a) When one finds a pile of Peros (or coins) in Reshus ha'Rabim, why should the place or the number of piles be considered a Siman? The Gemara earlier (23a) teaches that objects left in Reshus ha'Rabim are usually kicked around and therefore cannot be identified by their place. The number of piles will also vary because the piles are trampled and kicked about. Thus, objects found in Reshus ha'Rabim should not be subject to either of these Simanim.
</p><p>
(b) When a person finds Peros outside of a Kli, why should he be permitted to keep them? The Gemara earlier (21b) asks why one may keep scattered Peros according to Abaye, who maintains that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is not considered Ye'ush, and it answers that the Peros are permitted only when they are found in a place of threshing (where the owners left them with no intention of coming back to retrieve them). Thus, the Mishnah does not permit one to keep Peros that fell; it permits the finder to keep only objects that were left behind intentionally by the owner. Peros found next to a Kli are obviously Peros that fell, and that is why the Gemara discusses whether they can be identified by the owner based on the Siman of the Kli. If, however, the fruits fell from the Kli without the owner's knowledge, they should be prohibited because it is a case of 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) 'Peros' here refers to fruits that are destroyed when they are trampled, and thus it is forbidden for people to step on them (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RITVA</b> to 22b). Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that they have been moved about even though they are in Reshus ha'Rabim. As for coins, since coins are valuable, it is assumed that they will be picked up by the first person who notices them. Alternatively, coins do not move from one place to another when they are stepped on, so even if they may have been kicked their location is still a Siman (<b>ROSH</b> 2:1; the <b>RA'AVAD</b> has a different approach; see Chart, footnote 8).
</p><p>
(b) The Rishonim give two answers to this question.
</p><p>
1. The <b>RIF</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> (21b; see Chart, footnote 5) maintain that according to the Gemara's conclusion, all foodstuffs are important to a person, and thus the rule of Rebbi Yitzchak applies to foods as well: a person carrying foods checks constantly to make sure that they have not fallen. Thus, if someone does lose food items, he notices the loss (and has Ye'ush) right away. (<b>MA'AYAN HA'CHOCHMAH</b>)
</p><p>
2. Alternatively, the Beraisa may refer specifically to heavy fruits, the loss of which is noted immediately by a person who is carrying them. The Gemara (21b) could have explained the earlier Mishnah this way as well, that it refers to heavy fruits whose loss is noticed immediately. However, the Gemara chose to interpret the Mishnah as referring to fruits left behind on the threshing floor in order to teach the added Chidush that fruits left behind on a threshing floor are sometimes considered Hefker. (<b>RITVA</b> to 21b, <b>RASHBA</b> to 21a)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SITUATIONS IN WHICH ONE DOES NOT ACQUIRE THROUGH HIS YARD</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 25b (Mishnah):</font></b> One may keep something found in a
               rockpile or an old wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The finder keeps it, for he can say that
               it was from Kena'anim (from before Bnei Yisrael
               entered Eretz Yisrael with Yehoshua).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Perhaps a Yisrael owned the wall and left
               it inside!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is very Shasich (rusted).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 26a (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven rented his house to others,
               one may keep what he finds even in the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We should assume that it belongs to the
               last tenants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Menasiya bar Yakov):</font></b> The last tenants
               were Nochrim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The last tenants were three
               Yisraelim. The loser is sure that one of the other
               two took it; they deny it, so he despairs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 26b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven found something (without a
               Siman) in Shimon's store, or money in front of the
               table of a moneychanger, he keeps it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> If Shimon sold or sent Peros to Reuven, and there
               were coins inside, Reuven keeps them.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif (14a) brings the Sugya on 25b.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (DH d'Shasich):</font></b> It is very
                    rusted. The owner of the wall would not have
                    left it so long. Since we attribute it to the
                    Kena'anim, the finder keeps it even if it has a
                    Siman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 16:4):</font></b> If Reuven found
               something (without a Siman) in Shimon's store on the
               table or in front of it, he keeps it. Shimon does
               not acquire it, because his store is not a guarded
               Chatzer. Even though Shimon is inside, he must say
               'my store should acquire for me.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ra'avad:</font></b> Some say that even if he says so, he
                    does not acquire because the Metzi'ah was there
                    before despair. His Chatzer is only like his
                    hand. Further, Yi'ush (despair) allows the
                    finder to acquire only an Aveidah. This is like
                    a deposit, for its owner forgot it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Magid Mishneh:</font></b> Also the Rashba says that he
                    does not acquire because the Metzi'ah was there
                    before despair. I do not understand the
                    Ra'avad's second challenge.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>R. Akiva Eiger (Kav v'Chosam Bava Metzia 26,
                    brought in Frankel Rambam):</font></b> The first challenge
                    is based on the Halachah, that Yi'ush she'Lo
                    mi'Da'as (something one would despair from if
                    he knew that he lost it) is not Yi'ush. The
                    second challenge is according to Rava, who says
                    that Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is Yi'ush, or
                    according to the Kesef Mishneh (15:1), who says
                    that after Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as, a finder
                    acquires something without a Siman if he cannot
                    clarify who owns it. Here it is not Yi'ush, for
                    if he knew at the time he dropped it, he would
                    not despair. Therefore, the grocer is like a
                    Shomer Aveidah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nimukei Yosef (14b DH Masnisin: The owner of
                    the store does not acquire through his Chatzer
                    because we hold like Abaye, that Yi'ush she'Lo
                    mi'Da'as is not Yi'ush. The Aveidah came to his
                    store before despair, so the owner never
                    acquires it later. Rava, who says that Yi'ush
                    she'Lo mi'Da'as is Yi'ush, explains that the
                    store is like a Chatzer that is not guarded,
                    for people enter and leave. Even though the
                    grocer is there, since he does not see the
                    Aveidah, it is like an unguarded Chatzer.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rambam (7):</font></b> If one found a treasure in a rockpile or
               an old wall, he keeps it, for we can say that it was
               from Nochrim from long ago. This is if it was very
               low, like old treasures. If it seems that it is
               recent, even if it is doubtful, he may not touch it,
               lest it was placed there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (2):</font></b> The Rambam's text said 'it is very
                    <i>Shasis</i> (low).'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (8):</font></b> A Chatzer acquires for its owner even
               without his knowledge. Why doesn't the owner of the
               wall acquire through is Chatzer? This is because he
               or others do not know about it. It is inaccessible
               to him and others.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:9):</font></b> A Chatzer does not acquire something
               (e.g. a Kena'ani's object) that might never be
               found. Further, it does not belong to the Yisrael
               who inherited this wall (in the days of Yehoshua),
               for the spoils were divided among all of Yisrael.
               Since this was there, it is as if was lost from
               Yisrael, and it belongs to the finder. Why didn't
               the owner's Chatzer acquire for him after Yisrael
               despaired? His Chatzer is no better than his hand.
               If something came to his hand before despair, he
               does not acquire it afterwards, for it came to his
               hand b'Isur (in a way that it was forbidden for him
               to keep it). Also his Chatzer does not acquire in
               such a case. Even if the wall belonged to the
               ancestors of the current owner for many years, and
               it is possible that it rusted so much since then,
               since we can attribute it to Kena'anim, and a
               Yisrael never had a Chazakah in it, the finder keeps
               it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Ashri, citing Avi ha'Ezri:</font></b> In such a
                    case, we cannot say that one's Chatzer acquires
                    for him without his knowledge, and the first
                    one who bought the wall acquired. This is
                    unlike normal Metzi'os. It never crossed the
                    mind of the buyer to acquire what is inside.
                    Therefore, he acquires only what he wanted to
                    acquire. His Chatzer acquires for him only what
                    will enter it afterwards. A case occurred in
                    which Levi bought (what was assumed to be) tin
                    from a Nochri smith, in order to cover his
                    roof. He sold it to David. It was found to be
                    silver covered with tin. The Re'em exempted
                    David, for Levi did not acquire the silver,
                    since he did not know about it. R. Tam agreed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Drishah (CM 260 1 DH uv'Mordechai):</font></b> This reason
                    (it never crossed the buyer's mind) does not
                    explain why a moneychanger or grocer does not
                    acquire what is lost in his store. Things are
                    commonly lost there, and he intends to acquire
                    them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (10):</font></b> The owner of the store does not acquire
               through his Chatzer because he is not confident of
               finding (what is lost inside), for people enter and
               leave. Even if the grocer is there, it is considered
               guarded only if he can prevent others from taking
               it. Here, he does not know that it is there, and
               many are found there, so he does not acquire.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (14a DH d'Shasich):</font></b> Tosfos says
                    that one acquires through his Chatzer (without
                    knowledge) things apt to be found. This
                    excludes treasure in a wall and coins in a
                    store. (Coins are small, and are not apt to be
                    found.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mordechai (259,260):</font></b> A case occurred in which a
                    convert died in the Riva's house. A Talmid
                    seized gold in the convert's belt. The Riva
                    said that he (the Riva) did not acquire it
                    through Chatzer, for even a guarded Chatzer
                    does not acquire something he does not know
                    about more than anyone else. R. Baruch said
                    that only regarding total Hefker, one's Chatzer
                    acquires for him without his knowledge. It does
                    not acquire an Aveidah, even after despair, for
                    if the loser would know, he would not make it
                    Hefker. R. Avigdor said that if a Nochri lost
                    money in a Yisrael's house, and a different
                    Yisrael found it, he keeps it. A house acquires
                    for its owner only things commonly found. In
                    the first Perek (11a), we say that a field
                    acquires a lame deer or chicks that cannot fly,
                    for deer and chicks are common in a field. It
                    would not acquire coins or Metaltelim. We learn
                    from one who rented his house to three that
                    even the house owner can despair of something
                    he lost in his house and someone else can
                    acquire it. His house did not acquire, because
                    a Chatzer acquires only Hefker. This is why a
                    moneychanger or grocer does not acquire money
                    lost in his store, and one does not acquire
                    things placed in a new wall on the side towards
                    Reshus ha'Rabim. R. Tam says that one acquires
                    only what is destined to be found. This is why
                    one's Reshus does not acquire for him coins in
                    Peros.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 260:1):</font></b> If one found a treasure
               in a rockpile or an old wall that no one remembers
               who built it, and it was not established from
               antiquity to belong to the current owner and his
               ancestors, the finder keeps it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (1):</font></b> Even though it is possible that it was
                    from his ancestors, since it could be from
                    previous Nochrim, ha'Motzi mi'Chavero Alav
                    ha'Re'ayah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (2):</font></b> Normally, a Chatzer acquires for its
                    owner without his knowledge! This is only for
                    total Hefker. It does not acquire an Aveidah,
                    even after despair, for if the loser would
                    know, he would not make it Hefker.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz:</font></b> The Mordechai cited this in the name of R.
                    Baruch, but not to answer this question.
                    Anything left from the Kena'anim is Hefker!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> This is if it was very
               rusted, for we can say that it was from Nochrim from
               long ago. This is if it was very low (in the wall),
               like old treasures. If it seems that it is recent,
               even if it is doubtful, he may not touch it, lest it
               was placed there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Prishah (1 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Rabeinu):</font></b> If we
                    would know that the wall was built by a Yisrael
                    not from the current owner's ancestors, we
                    would leave the Metzi'ah until Eliyahu, for
                    there would be a doubt who owns it, and no
                    despair. We do not say that it belongs to the
                    last (current) owner, like we say about
                    renters, for if something was buried like a
                    treasure, we are concerned lest the owner died
                    and did not take it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Prishah (1 DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Hu):</font></b> The
                    Rambam requires that it is very low. If not,
                    even if it is rusted, we are concerned lest
                    someone else hid it there. Therefore, one may
                    not touch it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Drishah (1 DH Kosvu):</font></b> The Torah permitted something
               that one lost if no one (else) can retrieve it, e.g.
               a raging river took it. All the more so, a buried
               treasure, which never belonged to the owner of the
               wall, is permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Shach 2):</font></b> The Tur brought Rashi's Perush
               (it is very rusted) and the Rambam's (it is very
               low), for perhaps both of them are true. I.e. in
               either case we know that it is from Kena'anim. Why
               does the Shulchan Aruch require that it is both very
               rusted and very low?!
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>HOW CAN A WOMAN RECEIVE A GET IN HER PROPERTY? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If they are arranged like the idol
          Markulis (this will be explained), what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> If one found scattered coins, he
          keeps them. If they are arranged like Markulis, he must
          announce them;
          1.	Markulis is two stones near each other, and a
               third resting partially on each of the two.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven found a Sela in the market, and
          Shimon said 'it is mine. It was new', 'Niron Kaiser's
          name was on it', or 'it was of King Ploni', he does not
          get it;
          1.	Even if Shimon's name was on it, he does not get
               it, for Simanim do not help for coins.
          2.	Perhaps he spent it, and someone else dropped it!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO FINDS CHICKS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one finds tied chicks in back of a fence,
          or on a path in a field, he leaves them there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If one finds a Kli in the waste heap, if it is covered,
          he leaves it. If it is exposed, he takes and announces
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does he leave it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> We assume that someone left it there. If the
          finder would take it, the owner will not find it, and
          perhaps he does not have a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The knot should be a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (R. Aba bar Zavda):</font></b> They are tied by their
          wings. Everyone ties them this way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The place they were found should be a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Ukva bar Chama):</font></b> They can walk slowly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, perhaps they came from afar. The
          finder should keep them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Perhaps they came from afar, and perhaps they
          were placed there;
          1.	Whenever there is a Safek if something was
               placed, one may not take it. If he took it, he does
               not put it back.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS FOUND IN A WASTEHEAP</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one finds a Kli in the waste heap, if it
          is covered, he leaves it. If it is exposed, he takes and
          announces it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If one finds a Kli covered in
          the waste heap, he takes and announces it, for waste
          heaps are often cleared out. (If he leaves it, the item
          will perish!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Zvid):</font></b> If one finds a wine flask or cup,
          it was put there intentionally, so he should leave it. A
          knife or small fork was presumably lost or thrown out, so
          he takes it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Both refer to a wine flask or
          cup. If the waste heap is often cleared out, he takes it.
          If the waste heap is not often cleared out, he leaves it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If it is often cleared out, the owner
          knowingly threw it out to be lost!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, he takes it if the waste
          heap is not normally cleared out, and they reconsidered
          to clear it out.
          1.	This explains the expression of the Beraisa 'for
               waste heaps are often cleared out.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> According to Rav Zvid, what does this mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is common to (accidentally) clear out small
          Kelim to waste heaps.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS FOUND IN A WALL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> One may keep things found in a rock pile or
          an old wall.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If something was found in (a hole in) a new wall
          (between Reuven's property and Reshus ha'Rabim (a public
          road):
          1.	If it was in the half facing Reshus ha'Rabim, the
               finder keeps it;
          2.	If it was in the half facing Reuven's premises,
               Reuven gets it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven rented his house to others, one may keep what
          he finds even in the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> (In an old wall) the finder keeps
          it, because he can say that it was from Kena'anim (from
          before Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael with Yehoshua).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why may he say so? Perhaps a Yisrael owned
          the wall and left it inside!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They are very rusted. (No one leaves things so
          long.)
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) AN ITEM THAT IS 'SAFEK HINU'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that one is not permitted to take Gozalos without a Siman that are found behind a fence. The Gemara explains that since the Gozalos hop from place to place, one cannot be certain that they were placed intentionally in this place by their owner and thus he may not take them because of the rule of 'Safek Hinu'ach.' This rule states that if one finds an object in a slightly protected area where it <i>might</i> have been placed by the owner intentionally, he may not take it. The Gemara adds that if a person does take such an object, 'he does not return it' ('Lo Yachzir').
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that he does not return it because no one can give a Siman to claim the object. Rashi seems to understand that the words 'Lo Yachzir' do not mean that the finder may not return the object to the place in which he found it, but rather 'Lo Yachzir' means that the finder may not give the object to a person who claims that it is his, because the finder may not honor a claim without a Siman. Rashi later writes this more clearly (37b, DH v'Im Natal). Rashi there concludes that the finder must hold the object until Eliyahu ha'Navi comes or until the true owner brings witnesses who testify that he placed the object there.
</p><p>
According to Rashi, why is it necessary for the Gemara to teach that one should not return a lost object to a claimant who does not give a Siman? The verse, 'Ad Derosh Achicha Oso' (Devarim 22:2), teaches that an Aveidah may not be returned unless the claimant presents Simanim that it belongs to him (and according to the opinion that Simanim are d'Rabanan, he must present witnesses that it belongs to him). (<b>TOSFOS</b>, end of DH v'Im)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) At certain times an Aveidah <i>is</i> returned without a Siman. The Gemara (24a) teaches that an object without a Siman may be returned to a Talmid Chacham based on his Tevi'us Ayin alone, since he is known to tell the truth. Perhaps the Beraisa means that even if a Talmid Chacham wants to claim this object, it may not be returned based on his word alone.
</p><p>
However, this answer is difficult for two reasons. First, Rashi does not mention anything about returning the object specifically to a Talmid Chacham. Second, if an object normally is returned to a Talmid Chacham without a Siman, then why should the case of 'Safek Hinu'ach' be any different? The Tevi'us Ayin of a Talmid Chacham should be enough for such an object to be returned to him as well.
</p><p>
In fact, it seems that the Aveidah indeed should be returned to a Talmid Chacham based on Tevi'us Ayin, because Tevi'us Ayin is the best form of Siman (see 19a, where the Gemara seems to equate it with a 'Siman Muvhak' with regard to a Get). When Rashi writes that one should not return the Aveidah because it has no Siman, he means that <i>if</i> it is not claimed by a Talmid Chacham it should not be returned. Thus, the question remains: why must the Gemara teach that the Aveidah is not to be returned without a Siman?
</p><p>
(b) One might have interpreted the verse of 'Ad Derosh Achicha Oso' as referring only to an object which can be identified based on Simanim, while an object that has no Siman may be returned based on the claimant's word alone. One might have thought that the Torah requires that the claimant give a Siman to retrieve a lost item in order to protect the true owner (so that no one else will be able to claim to be the owner). When an object has no Siman, however, this rule seems to be to the owner's detriment, since it prevents him from retrieving his object; it would be in his best interests to allow him to collect it without a Siman. If the Torah would insist that the claimant provide a Siman, a person would not be able to retrieve his Aveidah that has no Siman. The Gemara therefore teaches that even an object with no Siman should not be returned without a Siman, because there is still a possible way, albeit a difficult one, for the owner to retrieve it: if he brings witnesses who testify that the object belongs to him (even though such witnesses are difficult to find).
</p><p>
According to the opinion that Simanim are mid'Rabanan, there is a more straightforward explanation of the Gemara. The Gemara later (27b) explains according to this opinion why the Rabanan instituted that an Aveidah may be returned merely with Simanim and without witnesses, even though the Torah requires witnesses. The Rabanan knew that such an enactment would be in the best interest of the owner, since it is difficult to find witnesses who can testify that the object belongs to him. Therefore, the owner of an Aveidah would prefer that the object be returned through Simanim even though it might be returned to the wrong person. Based on the same logic, one might think that the Rabanan permit one to return an Aveidah without a Siman (Safek Hinu'ach), even though it might be returned to the wrong person. The Gemara therefore must teach that it is not returned without a Siman, but rather it may be returned only when witnesses testify that it belongs to the claimant.
</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THINGS FOUND IN A WALL (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If something was found in a new wall, if it
          was closer to Reshus ha'Rabim, the finder keeps it. If it
          was closer to Reuven' premises, Reuven gets it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Ashi):</font></b> If a knife is found, we assume that it was
          inserted from the direction the handle faces. (The finder
          keeps it only if the handle faced Reshus ha'Rabim.) We
          assume that a drawstring bag was inserted from the
          direction that the strings face.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that it depends on which half
          of the wall it is in!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses things held from either
          side, like tufts of wool or pieces of silver.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If the Aveidah spans the entire width of the
          wall, the finder divides it with the owner.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> This is obvious!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, the (hole in the) wall slopes. One
          might have thought that we assume that the Aveidah was
          put on the higher side and slid down. The Mishnah teaches
          that this is not so.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FROM WHOM IS THE AVEIDAH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven rented his house to others, one may
          keep what he finds even in the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should assume that it belongs to the last
          tenants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If coins were found (in Yerushalayim) in
               front of people who sell animals, we always assume
               that the coins were used to redeem Ma'aser Sheni.
               (One must spend such coins on food and eat it in
               Yerushalayim. Most such coins are spent to buy
               Korbanos Shelamim.) Coins found in Har ha'Bayis are
               (assumed to be) Chulin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In other markets in Yerushalayim, during the
               festivals (when all Yisrael come to Yerushalayim
               with Ma'aser coins), they are Ma'aser. At any other
               time, they are Chulin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Shemayah ben Ze'ira):</font></b> This is because the
               markets of Yerushalayim are swept daily. (Surely,
               the coins were dropped the day they were found. Har
               ha'Bayis is not swept, so we follow the majority
               usage.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Similarly, (had the Aveidah been left by prior
               tenants, the next tenant would have found it. We
               should assume that) what was found now was left by
               the last tenant!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Reish Lakish):</font></b> The case is, the house was
          rented to three (people, even) Yisre'elim. The loser
          surely despaired.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> This shows that the Halachah follows R. Shimon
          ben Elazar (who permits keeping an Aveidah found in a
          public place, because the loser despairs) even when most
          of the city are Yisre'elim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rejection #1 (and Answer #2 - Rav Menasiya bar Yakov):
          The house was rented to three Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if it was rented to
          three Yisre'elim, perhaps the Halachah does not follow R.
          Shimon. Here, the loser despairs, for he is sure that one
          of the other two took it, and they deny it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  	This is like Rav Nachman taught elsewhere.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If two people were standing together
               and Levi saw a coin fall from one of them, he must
               return it;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN ANCIENT LOST OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara explains that one may keep an object that he finds in an old wall when the object is very rusty. The rust shows that it does not belong to the present owner, and therefore the finder may claim that the object was left there from the times of the early Amorites and is not of Jewish origin.
</p><p>
However, even if it is possible that the object is from the Amorites, there certainly exists a possibility that it was lost by a Jew! Even if that Jew died, the object belongs to his heirs. It is true that the heirs would have had Ye'ush had they known that the object was lost. Nevertheless, since they may not have been aware that their father had such an object, it should be considered 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as.'
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>TORAS CHAIM</b> states that the object indeed might have been lost by a Jew. However, since there is a possibility that it is from the Amorites, the finder is permitted to keep it due to the doubt about its true origin. (Since the object is not in the possession of its owner, the owner does not have a Chazakah on it, and the finder may keep it. See Tosfos to 23a, and Insights to 21:1.)
</p><p>
The answer of the Toras Chaim indicates that, in general, a person may keep a Safek Aveidah. However, the Gemara later (26b) seems to contradict this. The Gemara later discusses a Sela that was lost by one of three people who are walking together. The Gemara rules that if the coin found is worth even two Perutos, the finder may not keep it. The Gemara is concerned that all three may have owned the coin jointly, and one of them relinquished his share to one of the other two partners, in which case the Aveidah would be worth a Perutah to the one who lost it. If they are partners, they would trust each other and assume that one of them must have found it and will return it later, and therefore they would not have Ye'ush. Since a possibility exists that the owner did not have Ye'ush, the finder is not permitted to keep the coin. However, according to the Toras Chaim's opinion, why would the Rabanan make such an assumption to prevent the finder from keeping the coin? This case should be considered at least a Safek, and the finder should be permitted to keep the coin due to that doubt.
</p><p>
This difficulty may be resolved based on the interpretation of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Nafal) who explains that the Gemara is referring to a case in which the three people began to look for the coin together. The fact that they looked for it together shows that they trust each other. The coin, therefore, is not even considered a 'Safek Aveidah'; rather, the Halachah assumes that they certainly did not have Ye'ush.
</p><p>
However, <b>RASHI</b> earlier (24b, DH Mi) seems to contradict the Toras Chaim's opinion. The Gemara there states that the Rabanan (who argue with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) do not permit a person to keep an object found in a place populated mostly by Kena'anim, and Rashi explains that the Rabanan do not follow the principle of 'Rov' with regard to monetary matters. This implies that Rashi disagrees with Tosfos (at least with regard to the Rabanan's opinion) and maintains that the Chezkas Mamon of the original owner does not allow the finder to keep an Aveidah, even if it is a Safek Aveidah. If the Toras Chaim's explanation of the Sugya is correct, then it would seem that the Halachah of the Mishnah is true only according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi understands the Halachah of the Mishnah differently. When the Gemara answers that the object is rusty, Rashi may interpret this to mean that since the object was left there for so long, the finder may assume that the owner certainly has forgotten where he left it and had Ye'ush already. It is not considered 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' because if an object was placed intentionally in a particular place by its owner, it is assumed that the owner will remember it shortly thereafter (see Chart #8, footnote 8a). Since the object is rusty and clearly has been in the wall for a long time, the finder may assume that the owner is already aware of his loss.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DOES A RENTED CHATZER ACQUIRE FOR THE OWNER</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 25b (Mishnah):</font></b> One may keep things found in an old
               wall.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> The finder can say that it was from
               Kena'anim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> The case is, they are very rusted. (Therefore, we
               are not concerned lest a Yisrael owned the wall and
               left it inside.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 26a (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven rented his house to others,
               one may keep what he finds even in the house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We should assume that it belongs to the
               last tenants!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Menasiya bar Yakov):</font></b> The house was
               rented to three Nochrim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 102a (Mishnah):</font></b> The dung belongs to Reuven (who owns
               the house). Shimon (the renter) gets only (ashes)
               from the oven.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If Shimon rents the Chatzer and the dung
               is from his own animals, why does Reuven get it? If
               Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer and the dung is
               from his animals, obviously he gets it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The case is, it is Reuven's Chatzer, and
               dung from others' animals.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and
               the Chatzer.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> This means that dung in the pen in the
               Chatzer belongs to Reuven (even though Shimon rented
               the Chatzer).
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Ashi):</font></b> This teaches that rental of a Chatzer
               does not rent the pen inside.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzia 59a and 8:28):</font></b> The house
               owner gets the dung, i.e. when he did not rent out
               the Chatzer. The dung is from others' animals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Sechirus 6:5):</font></b> Dung in a Chatzer
               from the renter's animals belongs to the renter.
               Dung of others' animals belongs to the owner. One's
               yard acquires for him, even if it is rented out.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</font></b> We established the Mishnah
                    to be when he did not rent out the Chatzer, and
                    the dung is from others' animals. Had he rented
                    it out, the renter would get it, just like a
                    buyer acquires by renting the premises.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense #1 (Magid Mishneh):</font></b> The Rambam explains
                    the conclusion to discuss Reuven's Chatzer and
                    others' animals, even when it is rented out.
                    The Gemara said 'it is Reuven's Chatzer.' It
                    did not say 'he did not rent out the Chatzer',
                    like it said above. The Ra'avad explains that
                    the renter has permission only to pass through
                    to his house.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal (Gra CM 260:13):</font></b> We cannot infer from
                    the 'omission' of 'he did not rent out the
                    Chatzer.' Nor did it say 'he rented it out'!
                    Rav Ashi deduced that he does not rent the pen
                    in the Chatzer (for if so, he would acquire the
                    dung)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Ketzos ha'Choshen 1):</font></b> Normally, an
                    owner grants rights to acquire to the renter.
                    However, if one rented a Chatzer and kept the
                    pen, surely he wanted to acquire the dung for
                    himself.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Maharit 2 CM 83):</font></b> The Rambam
                    explains that Rav Ashi learned from 'and in the
                    pen in the Chatzer'. In the Chatzer is extra,
                    to teach that a renter acquires a pen in a
                    Chatzer only if it was explicitly included.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense #2 (Shach CM 313:1):</font></b> We cannot learn
                    about acquiring Hefker from a sale, in which
                    another party transfers ownership.
                    Alternatively, a renter acquires only what he
                    (knows about and) wants to be there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Metzia 2:9):</font></b> The one who rented his house
               to Nochrim did not acquire (through his house) the
               Aveidah they left behind after they left. This is
               because he always rented it out, so he was not
               destined to find the Aveidah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> The first one who bought the
                    wall (in which a Kena'ani left something) did
                    not acquire it. Avi ha'Ezri says that this is
                    because one's Chatzer acquires for him in the
                    future without his knowledge. It acquires for
                    him what is already inside only if he intends
                    for this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Tosfos Bava Metzia 11b DH v'Chi):</font></b> How does
               the owner of the Chatzer acquire the dung? He does
               not guard it, for the renter is in the Chatzer!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Tosfos):</font></b> The case is, also the owner has a
               door open to the Chatzer.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (260:4):</font></b> If Reuven lived with Shimon
               in Shimon's house and paid rent, if a lame deer
               entered, both acquire (Rema - like a Chatzer of
               partners).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Shach (1):</font></b> Tosfos (Bava Metzia, ibid.) holds
                    that only Shimon acquires.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (313:3):</font></b> Dung in a Chatzer from the
               renter's animals belongs to the renter. Dung of
               others' animals belongs to the owner. One's yard
               acquires for him, even if it is rented out.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (SMA 5):</font></b> This is like the Rambam.
                    Above (260:3), the Shulchan Aruch rules like
                    the Rosh (Teshuvah 1:1), Tur and Rashi, who say
                    that the renter acquires!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Shach 1):</font></b> The Toras Chaim answered
                    (that here is different, for the Chatzer was
                    not rented for the sake of animals), but his
                    words are difficult (some delete this from the
                    Shach). The Rambam's opinion is primary. The
                    SMaG, Magid Mishneh, Nimukei Yosef and Tosfos
                    (ibid.) support him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal (Beis Meir, in Teshuvas R. Akiva Eiger
                    133 DH v'Hinei Kavod):</font></b> Only the Magid Mishneh
                    supports the Rambam! Tosfos holds that the
                    Chatzer is not rented. He asked why the owner
                    acquires, because the renter walks through. The
                    Rif and Nimukei Yosef explain like Rashi, that
                    the renter acquires. We follow them, the
                    Ra'avad, Rosh and Tur against the Rambam.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Ketzos ha'Choshen 1):</font></b> Normally, an
                    owner cedes rights to acquire. Here, he kept
                    the pen. Surely wanted the dung for himself.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva Eiger (ibid., DH v'Hinei l'Mah):
                    Tosfos holds that a room rented out does not
                    acquire for the owner. The renter can keep the
                    owner out, so it is not guarded for the owner.
                    Even though the Rambam did not specify that the
                    owner has a door open to the Chatzer, perhaps
                    he requires this. He often cites the Gemara
                    verbatim. However, in Hilchos Mechirah (6:6),
                    the Rambam says that Chachamim did not enact
                    Meshichah when the seller was renting the
                    buyer's house. The Magid Mishneh says that the
                    buyer acquires through his house. The Rambam
                    changed from the Gemara (which discussed a
                    rented attic) to teach that this applies even
                    when everything is rented. However, the Shach
                    (198:5) says that the Kinyan is through money.
                    I.e., because the buyer does not live there,
                    his Chatzer does not acquire!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shach (1):</font></b> Tosfos requires that the owner has a
                    door open to the Chatzer. It seems that the
                    Rambam other Poskim do not require this. It
                    seems that it suffices that it is guarded, and
                    it is his Chatzer.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Rebuttal (R. Akiva Eiger, ibid. DH b'Ofen):</font></b> The
                    Rambam holds like the second answer in Tosfos
                    (Gitin 79b DH Pnimis), that the renter is like
                    the owner's Shali'ach (to guard it for him).
                    According to the Shach, the Rambam should hold
                    that a buyer's house acquires when it is rented
                    to the seller!
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>HOW CAN A WOMAN RECEIVE A GET IN HER PROPERTY? </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The loser does not despair. He is sure that his
                    companion took it, and he plans to confront him
                    and get it back.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If three people were standing together; and Levi saw
               a coin fall from one of them, he may keep it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The loser despairs, for (he is sure that one of
                    the other two took it, and) whoever he
                    confronts can deny that he found it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rava):</font></b> If the Aveidah (that fell from one of
          three people) is worth at least three Perutos, he must
          return it. Perhaps they are partners (and each owns at
          least a Perutah), and they do not despair.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rava):</font></b> If the Aveidah is worth at least two
          Perutos, he must return it. Perhaps they were all
          partners, and one of them pardoned his share to the
          others.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE MITZVOS INVOLVED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If Reuven saw a coin fall from Shimon, and he
          picked it up before Shimon despaired, intending to steal
          it, he transgresses all of the following: 'Lo Sigzol',
          'Hashev Teshivem', and 'Lo Suchal Lehis'alem';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even if he returns it after Shimon despaired, this
               is only a gift. It does not correct his
               transgressions.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he picked it up before Shimon despaired, intending to
          return it, and after Shimon despaired, he intended to
          steal it, he transgresses 'Hashev Teshivem.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If he waited to pick it up until Shimon despaired, he
          transgresses only 'Lo Suchal Lehis'alem.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If Reuven saw a coin fall from Shimon and fall in
          sand, if Reuven picked it up, he need not return it, for
          Shimon despaired.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even if Shimon takes a sifter and sifts the sand, he
               despaired from his coin. He is trying to find what
               others have lost.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MONEY FOUND IN A STORE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven found something (without a Siman) in
          Shimon's store, Reuven keeps it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he found it between Shimon's box (where he puts
               the money) and Shimon, it is Shimon's.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven found money in front of the table of a
          moneychanger (Levi), Reuven keeps it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he found it between the chair (on which the table
               rests) and Levi, it is Levi's.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If Shimon sold or sent Peros to Reuven, and there were
          coins inside, Reuven keeps them;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the coins were wrapped up, he announces (to
               return them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - R. Elazar):</font></b> (Reuven may keep) even money on the
          table.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> Reuven may keep money found in front
          of the table;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> He may not keep money on the table!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Mishnah):</font></b> Money found between the
               chair and Levi, it is Levi's.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Reuven may keep money on the table!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Conclusion:</font></b> The inferences contradict one another. We
          cannot determine which is correct. The Mishnah neither
          supports nor refutes R. Elazar.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is R. Elazar's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> He had difficulty with the Mishnah. Rather
          than teaching that money between the chair and Levi is
          Levi's, it should have taught that money on the table is
          Levi's!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Alternatively, it could have said that Reuven keeps
               what he finds in a moneychanger's store, like the
               Reisha, which says 'Reuven may keep something he
               found in Shimon's store';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Since it did not say either of these, we must say
               that Reuven keeps it.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) ONE WHO PICKS UP A LOST COIN BEFORE 'YE'USH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava rules that if a person sees a Sela fall from someone and he picks it up with intention to steal it before the owner notices his loss and has Ye'ush, he transgresses three Mitzvos.
</p><p>
A Sela is an object that cannot have a Siman. Rava himself maintains that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is Ye'ush. Why is the finder not permitted to keep the coin even if he picks it up before Ye'ush?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> writes that the proper Girsa is 'Amar <i>Rabah</i>' and not 'Rava.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>PISKEI RID</b> write that the correct Girsa in the Gemara is 'if one sees a Sela fall <i>from two people</i>.' (This is the Girsa which Rashi here rejects.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>RASHI</b> seems to understand that Rava eventually retracted his position with regard to 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' and agreed with Abaye that it is not Ye'ush. Rava follows that ruling here. This is evident from Rashi earlier (DH Nakitna), where Rashi discusses a statement that is later elucidated by Rava, but Rashi explains it according to the opinion of Abaye that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is not Ye'ush.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH she'Nafal) questions Rashi's explanation and notes that it is not logical to assume that Rava changed his position. This is, however, what Rashi seems to maintain.
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS RABEINU PERETZ</b> and the <b>RITVA</b> explain that the coin that fell was in a wallet, and the wallet had Simanim. Since the owner relies on the Simanim of the wallet, he will not have Ye'ush.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) COINS FOUND IN A STORE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah teaches that when a person finds coins in a store he may keep them.
</p><p>
Why should the money not be acquired immediately by the storeowner? The Gemara earlier (11a) states that a person's Chatzer acquires an object for him even if he does not know that the object is there, as long as he is standing next to his Chatzer. Since the storeowner is in the store, his Chatzer (the store) should acquire the lost coins for him before anyone picks them up. (<b>TOSFOS</b> to 26a, DH d'Shasich)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that a Chatzer does not acquire an object for the owner of the Chatzer when it is possible that the owner will never find that object. Since coins are small (and they could become lost in the dirt), it is possible that the owner will never find them and thus his Chatzer cannot acquire them for him.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>ROSH</b> and other Rishonim give another reason. They explain that at the moment that the coin landed on the floor, the owner of the coin did not know that he lost it (he had not yet felt that it was missing from his pocket). At that moment, the storeowner could not acquire the lost coin. Even though the owner later has Ye'ush, his later Ye'ush does not remove the obligation of the storeowner to return the coin. Any lost object that enters a person's domain before Ye'ush cannot become his when its owner has Ye'ush, as the Gemara explains in Bava Kama (66a; see also Bava Metzia 21b). (This is referred to as 'b'Isura Asa l'Yadei.')
</p><p>
Why is it significant that the owner has Ye'ush after the object enters the domain of the finder? After all, if a person is Mafkir a lost object after it enters the domain of the finder, the finder may keep it. (See Gemara and Rashi to 27a, 'Afkurei Mafkir Lehu.') Why should Ye'ush be any less effective in this respect than Hefker?
</p><p>
The <b>MORDECHAI</b> cites the <b>MAHARAM MI'ROTENBURG</b> who explains that such Ye'ush is not valid because it is considered like 'Ye'ush b'Ta'us,' mistaken Ye'ush. If the owner had known that the object had already entered the domain of a person who was able to return it, he would not have given up hope of retrieving it.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Bava Kama (66a, DH Keivan) gives another explanation. Tosfos writes that 'Ye'ush is not like Hefker.' (Tosfos is explaining why Ye'ush does not enable a Ganav to acquire a stolen object that entered his possession in the manner of 'b'Isura Asa l'Yadei.' In such a case, the logic of the Maharam does not apply, since the Ganav does not intend to return it and the owner's Ye'ush is therefore justified.) What does Tosfos mean?
</p><p>
Tosfos might mean that Ye'ush does not remove the ownership of the object's original owner. Rather, it permits others to take the object from him. If an object enters another person's domain before Ye'ush (whether the object was lost or stolen), the owner of that domain becomes obligated to return the object to its owner. This obligation prevents him from taking possession of the object, since as long as it has an owner he is required to return it to that owner. In contrast, if the owner is <i>Mafkir</i> the object, then the object has no owner and is not subject to the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah, and the finder may keep it.
</p><p>
Why does Tosfos here not give the same answer that the Ramban and other Rishonim give to the original question? Why does Tosfos not say that the storeowner cannot acquire objects that come into his hands 'b'Isura'? (<b>MAHARSHAL</b> cited by the <b>SHACH</b>)
</p><p>
1. The <b>SHACH</b> and <b>MAHARSHA</b> explain that Tosfos wants to explain the Mishnah even according to Rava, who maintains that 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' is considered Ye'ush. According to Rava, Ye'ush should occur even before an object reaches the floor. (However, it is possible that even according to Rava, 'Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as' does not take effect until the owner leaves behind the coin that fell on the floor. Prior to that point, he would not have Ye'ush if he knew the whereabouts of the coin.)
</p><p>
2. They answer further that Tosfos (DH Afilu) explains understands that the Mishnah refers to a place inhabited mostly by Nochrim. Hence, the object is Hefker from the moment that it falls.
</p><p>
3. <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> explains that an object in one's Chatzer is not considered to be 'b'Isura Asa b'Yadei' since he is not yet obligated in the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. Rebbi Akiva Eiger points out that if a Chatzer is Koneh because it is like a Shali'ach, then it cannot obligate the owner to do a Mitzvah against his will, because 'Ein Chavin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav.' (If a Chatzer is Koneh because of 'Yad,' perhaps it <i>can</i> obligate him in Hashavas Aveidah even if it is not a benefit to him.)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>MONEY FOUND IN PRODUCE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven bought Peros...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Reish Lakish):</font></b> This is only if he bought from a merchant
          (who buys fruit and sells it). If Shimon sold his own
          Peros, surely they are Shimon's coins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	A Chacham recited in front of Rav Nachman a Beraisa
          teaching Reish Lakish's Halachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even if they are Shimon's Peros,
          did he thresh them himself?! (Perhaps a worker dropped
          the coins!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	The Chacham:</font></b> I will no longer recite the Beraisa (there
          is a mistake in the text).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Nachman:</font></b> It is not mistaken. The case is, Shimon's
          Kena'ani slave threshed it. (Even if it is from the
          slave, the money is Shimon's.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PARTICULAR AVEIDOS MENTIONED IN THE TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> We already knew (from the verse, without
          'Simlah') that one must return a garment. It wrote
          'Simlah' to teach the general rule: just like a garment
          has signs and people claim it, also anything that has
          Simanim, and people will claim it, the finder must
          announce it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Question):</font></b> How did the verse already teach that
          one must return a garment?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> It says 'Kol Avedas Achicha (any Aveidah
          of your brother).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> Why did the Torah write (four examples
          of Aveidos,) 'ox, donkey, Seh (sheep or goat) and
          garment'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Torah must teach all four cases:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a garment, one might have
               thought that we return Aveidos only through
               witnesses about the object itself or Simanim on the
               object itself;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'Donkey' teaches that we return a donkey
                    through witnesses or Simanim on the saddle.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> 'Ox' teaches that we must return even the hair
                    at the end of the tail.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>'Seh' teaches that we must return the
                    shearings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Since 'ox' obligates returning even the tail
          hair (which is worth very little), it need not teach that
          we must return shearings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Retraction (Rava):</font></b> We do not know why the Torah wrote
          'Seh';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Also, according to R. Yehudah, we do not know why
               the Torah wrote 'donkey' regarding animals that fall
               in a pit.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Seh teaches that one must return the
          dung!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> People make it Hefker.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it teaches that Simanim are
          mid'Oraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah is, we return Aveidos through a medium
               Siman. We are unsure if this is mid'Oraisa or
               mid'Rabanan. Perhaps it is mid'Oraisa, and 'Seh'
               teaches this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The Tana of our Mishnah said that 'Simlah'
          teaches about Simanim, so we cannot say that 'Seh'
          teaches this.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>EXPOUNDING THE PARSHAH OF AVEIDOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'Asher Tovad (that will be lost)' excludes an
          Aveidah worth less than a Perutah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, 'u'Motzasah (and you will find it)'
          excludes an Aveidah worth less than a Perutah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> They argue only about which verse teaches the
          law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What do Chachamim learn from 'u'Motzasah'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They learn Ravnai's law.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravnai):</font></b> 'U'Motzasah' connotes that it came to
                    your hand (and even so, you need return only
                    your brother's object, but not a Nochri's).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What does R. Yehudah learn from 'Asher
               Tovad'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This teaches R. Yochanan's law;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yochanan):</font></b> What is the source that
                    one may keep an Aveidah taken by an overflowing
                    river?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> 'So you will do to any
                    Aveidah Asher Tovad Mimenu (that will be lost
                    from him) and you will find it' - (one must
                    return) things that are lost from him only, not
                    something that is lost (irretrievably) from
                    everyone.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How does R. Yehudah learn Ravnai's law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He learns from the extra 'Vov' in
               'u'Motzasah.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim learn R. Yochanan's law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> They learn from 'Mimenu (from him)'.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Yehudah holds that we cannot learn this from
                    'Mimenu.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> They argue about an Aveidah worth a
          Perutah that declined in value to less than a Perutah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim learn from 'Asher Tovad' - anything worth
               a Perutah when lost must be returned, even if later
               it is worth less;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'u'Motzasah' - you must
               return an Aveidah only if it is worth a Perutah when
               you find it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> Chachamim should admit that 'u'Motzasah'
          implies that it is worth a Perutah when you find it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, they argue about an Aveidah
          worth less than a Perutah that rose in value to a
          Perutah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim learn from 'Asher Tovad' - if it was not
               worth a Perutah when it was lost, it need not
               returned;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'u'Motzasah' - you must
               return it if it is worth a Perutah when you find it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> R. Yehudah should admit that 'Asher Tovad'
          implies that it was worth a Perutah when it was lost!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, they argue about an Aveidah
          worth a Perutah that declined in value, then rose and is
          again worth a Perutah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim learn from 'Asher Tovad' - since it was
               worth a Perutah when it was lost, it must be
               returned;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah learns from 'u'Motzasah' - you must
               return it only if it was worth a Perutah from when
               it was lost until you found it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ARE SIMANIM MID'ORAISA?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Halachah is, we return Aveidos through a
          (medium) Siman. Is this mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What difference does it make?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHAT THE MISHNAH LEARNS FROM 'SIMLAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah derives from the verse (Devarim 22:3) which singles out a 'Simlah,' a cloak, as a lost item which must be returned, that just as a Simlah -- which has 'Simanim' and 'Tov'im' (people who claim it as theirs) -- must be returned, so, too, any object that has Simanim and Tov'im must be returned.
</p><p>
What does the Mishnah mean when it says that a Simlah has 'Tov'im,' people who claim it?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that a Simlah is an object whose owner is not known to have despaired of retrieving it. Why is it obvious that a Simlah always has Tov'im? Rashi explains that a cloak is manmade and is not an object of Hefker. Hence, it obviously belongs to someone and did not come from Hefker.
</p><p>
How does this logic prove that the owner was not Me'ya'esh from the cloak? Perhaps it had an owner, as Rashi explains, but then the owner was Me'ya'esh from it after he lost it. (Rishonim)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Apparently, Rashi understands that the Limud from 'Simlah' is based on the Torah's choice to mention an object that <i>cannot</i> come from Hefker as an example of an Aveidah. The Mishnah understands that the Torah is referring specifically to a Simlah that is found before Ye'ush, when the owner still has ownership of it. If the Torah would have given an example of an object that could have originated from Hefker, one might have understood that the owner's Ye'ush does not affect the finder's obligation to return a lost object.
</p><p>
According to this understanding, the Mishnah does not quote the verse as a source that Ye'ush is considered like Hefker. Apparently, that is known from another source. Rather, the Mishnah proves that if the owner was Mafkir the object or Me'ya'esh from it after he lost it, there is no obligation to return it. This is consistent with Rashi's comments in Bava Kama (66a, DH Motzei), where he writes that the source for Ye'ush is the Beraisa that discusses the case of 'Shatfah Nahar' (22b). Rashi's source for this is the Yerushalmi, cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> (end of DH Mah).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) explains that a person normally is not Me'ya'esh from a personal item such as an article of clothing. Therefore, the Mishnah derives from the paradigm of Simlah, a cloak, that one is obligated to return only an Aveidah from which the owner was not Me'ya'esh.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Mah) explains the Mishnah differently. According to Tosfos, when the Mishnah states that a Simlah has Simanim and Tov'im, it refers to a <i>single</i> feature of a Simlah. The Mishnah means that <i>because</i> a Simlah has Simanim, <i>therefore</i> the owner will seek it out and will not be Me'ya'esh. That is, the existence of 'Tov'im' is a <i>result</i> of the Simanim. If the object has no Simanim, it need not be returned because the owner probably had Ye'ush. Tosfos adds that this is true not only if Simanim are d'Oraisa, but even if Simanim are d'Rabanan. Even if Simanim are d'Rabanan, a person hopes to retrieve his lost object only when it has a Siman, because the Siman enables him to procure witnesses who can testify that he owns it (which is the only way, mid'Oraisa, for him to retrieve his lost object). In order to find such witnesses, the owner will have to identify the object to them with its Simanim. Moreover, even before he brings witnesses, the owner can determine that his object was found (and that there is a reason to exert himself to find witnesses) only if he first describes it to the finder by its Simanim (since, otherwise, the finder will not show it to him).
</p><p>
Tosfos proves that even according to the opinion that Simanim are not d'Oraisa that the Simanim cause the owner not to despair, since the Rabanan would otherwise assume that the owner is Me'ya'esh even on an Aveidah <i>with</i> a Siman. If Simanim are not accepted by the Torah, then the owner can prove his ownership only if he brings witnesses, and no one relies on finding witnesses to prove that an Aveidah is his. (Otherwise, a person would not be Me'ya'esh even on an Aveidah that has no Siman.) Since the Halachah clearly states that one who finds an object with a Siman must return it, it is clear that the owner is assumed to rely on the Siman and does not have Ye'ush.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> adds that when an object has a Siman, it is possible for the owner to identify it with a Siman Muvhak, which is certainly d'Oraisa (for the owner can explain in great detail exactly where the Siman is and what it looks like). If it has no Siman, then it certainly does not have a Siman Muvhak.
</p><p>
The Gemara later (27b) attempts to prove from the Mishnah that Simanim are d'Oraisa. According to Tosfos, however, the Mishnah mentions Simanim only as the factor that causes the owner not to have Ye'ush. The Mishnah does not seem to attribute any intrinsic significance to Simanim. What, then, is the Gemara's attempted proof?
</p><p>
Apparently, the inference is from the fact that the Mishnah does not say explicitly that <i>because</i> of Simanim, the object has Tov'im. The most straightforward reading of the Mishnah (which is unlike the interpretation of Tosfos) implies that Simanim are d'Oraisa. The Gemara rejects the proof, however, and explains that the Mishnah uses this wording only as an 'Asmachta' for the Halachah d'Rabanan of Simanim; the main point of the verse, however, is that the owner is not Me'ya'esh because a Simlah normally has Simanim.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> cite a Tosefta (2:5) which states that 'Simlah' teaches that the value of a lost object must be at least a Perutah in order for the finder to be obligated to return it. This might be what the Mishnah means when it says that a lost object, like a Simlah, must have Tov'im. A person will try to claim an object only when it has some monetary value.
</p><p>
The Gemara, however, cites a Beraisa which derives the Halachah of Shaveh Perutah from a different source. The Tana Kama derives it from 'Asher Tovad' (Devarim 22:3), and Rebbi Yehudah derives it from 'u'Matzasah.' Neither opinion seems to be in agreement with the Tosefta.
</p><p>
The Ritva explains that the Gemara <i>is</i> in agreement with the Tosefta. The Beraisa quotes a Derashah from 'Asher Tovad' (or 'u'Matzasah') because those words refer to the 'Simlah' mentioned earlier in the verse. Both Derashos are necessary. The Derashah from 'Simlah' alone might have been understood to convey a different Halachah, such as the Halachah of Simanim. Therefore, the Derashah from the end of the verse is needed to indicate that it refers to the Halachah of Shaveh Perutah. The Derashah of 'Asher Tovad' or 'u'Matzasah,' on the other hand, might have been understood as a Ribuy that <i>obligates</i> the finder to return an object worth less than a Perutah. Thus, the Derashah from Simlah is needed to indicate that it is actually a Mi'ut that excludes such an object from the obligation.
</p><p>
Alternatively, the Tosefta may have a third source for the Halachah that one need not return an object worth less than a Perutah, and this third source argues with the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah who derive the law from 'Asher Tovad' or from 'u'Matzasah.'
</p><p>
According to Rashi, the Tosefta may be reconciled easily with the Mishnah. Rashi understands that the word 'Simlah' teaches that if the owner is Mafkir an object after he loses it, the finder is not required to return it. Hence, the Derashah from 'Simlah' also teaches that when a person loses an object worth less than a Perutah, the finder is not required to return it. Since a person does not attach value to objects worth less than a Perutah (see Sanhedrin 55a), the owner certainly is Mafkir it even if it has a Siman.
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>SOMETHING LOST FROM EVERYONE</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 22a (Beraisa):</font></b> If a river swept away Reuven's beams
               and rocks and deposited them on Shimon's property,
               he may keep them, for Reuven despaired.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If Reuven did not despair, Shimon could
               not keep them! (This supports Abaye, who says that
               Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is not despair.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> The case is, Reuven could save them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The Seifa says that if Reuven was chasing
               after them, Shimon must return them. If he could
               save them, in any case Shimon must return them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Reuven could save them with difficulty. If
               he chases them, he shows that he does not despair.
               If not, we may assume that he despairs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 27a - Question (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael ben
               Yehotzedek):</font></b> What is the source that one may keep
               something swept away by a river?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael):</font></b> 'And so you
               will do to his donkey... that will be lost from him,
               and you found it (you must return it)' applies only
               when it is lost from him, but available to others.
               It excludes what is hopeless for anyone to retrieve
               it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 24a (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar):</font></b> One may keep
               the following: what he saves from a lion, bear,
               leopard, polecat, what was taken by Zuto Shel Yam (a
               high tide) or Shelulis Shel Nahar (an overflowing
               river, or the middle of the river), and what he
               finds in a big encampment or thoroughfare, or any
               place where many people pass;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b></b> This is because the owner despairs.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 24b - Question (Rava):</font></b> If one found a wallet in the
               market of shoemakers (some say, Chachamim), and Levi
               came and gave Simanim, what is the law?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He may keep it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rava):</font></b> Can you say so even if Levi is
               screaming?!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He is like one screaming over
               his house that burned or his ship that sank.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 93a (Beraisa):</font></b> If a shepherd was grazing the flock,
               and he left it and went to the city, and a wolf or
               lion came and killed some of the flock, we estimate.
               If he could have saved, he is liable. If not, he is
               exempt.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The Rif and Rosh (2:2, 2:6):</font></b> bring the teachings pf
               R. Yochanan and R. Shimon ben Elazar.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Ba'al ha'Ma'or:</font></b> Shelulis Shel Nahar is the
                    middle of the river. What is there is totally
                    permitted. What was swept away by a river that
                    overflowed its banks is not lost to everyone.
                    Heavy things (beams and rocks) can be
                    deposited. Also, perhaps the river will
                    subside, and deposit what it took.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Milchamos Hash-m:</font></b> Also, if there are obstacles
                    in the river, what was taken can be detained
                    there. If the owner pursues, one must return to
                    him even though there is no Siman, for he did
                    not despair.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Hagahos Ashri:</font></b> If a river swept away Reuven's
                    beams, wood and rocks and deposited them on
                    Shimon's property, he may keep them if Reuven
                    was there are could have saved them if he
                    chased them, but he did not bother to chase.
                    Even though he still could save with
                    difficulty, since he did not bother to chase
                    when he could saved easily, presumably he
                    despaired. If Reuven was not there when they
                    were swept away, it is not despair, for he
                    could save with difficulty. It came to Shimon's
                    property b'Isur (he was not allowed to keep
                    it). If Reuven could not save even with
                    difficulty, this is like Zuto Shel Yam, and it
                    is permitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (2:6):</font></b> R. Shimon ben Elazar said that one may
               keep what he finds in places where many pass because
               the owner despairs. The other cases (what he saves
               from a lion... or from Zuto Shel Yam or Shelulis
               Shel Nahar) are permitted even if the owner stands
               and screams (that he did not despair). He is like
               one who screams that his house fell (it does not
               help).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Piplulei Charifta 8):</font></b> In Siman 7, the
                    Rosh says that if one found something in a
                    place where many pass, and the owner stands and
                    screams, he is like one who screams that his
                    house fell! The Gemara explicitly says that if
                    something was found in a public place, we
                    ignore the owner's screams. Why did the Tur
                    omit this? The Rambam makes no mention of the
                    owner screaming. He explains that Rava asked
                    'if the owner is screaming that he lost such an
                    object, we should infer that he did not
                    despair!' Rav Nachman answered that he is like
                    one screaming over his house that burned. I.e.
                    this is no proof that he did not despair, for
                    people scream about things that cannot be
                    fixed. Therefore, in Perek 11 the Rambam wrote
                    that surely he despaired. Regarding one who
                    saved from a lion, the Tur mentions even if he
                    is screaming, i.e. like the Rambam explains.
                    However, the Rosh is difficult. Presumably, the
                    Tur follows the Rosh. This requires
                    investigation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 6:1):</font></b> If a river swept away
               Reuven's beams and rocks, if Reuven despaired, they
               are permitted, and whoever saves them keeps them. If
               Reuven did not despair, he must return them, and all
               the more so if Reuven was chasing after them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Magid Mishneh:</font></b> The Rambam does not distinguish
                    this from something lost in a river, which is
                    permitted. He permits Zuto Shel Yam and
                    Shelulis Shel Nahar only when Reuven despaired,
                    like the simple reading of the Beraisa. Letter
                    of the law, if Reuven cannot save, even if he
                    did not despair, the finder keeps it. Despair
                    is needed only when Reuven could save with
                    difficulty, and all the more so if he could
                    save easily. If he could save only through a
                    miracle, despair is not needed. Perhaps he
                    holds that in such a case, surely he despaired.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Pnei Yehoshua 22a DH Emnam):</font></b> It seems that the Hava
               Amina was that the owner cannot save. We ask because
               above we totally permitted Zuto Shel Yam, and here
               we permit only if he despaired. Also the Mishnah in
               Bava Kama (114a) permits only if he despaired. The
               Gemara did not ask from the Mishnah, for it knew
               that we could say that it is when he can save.
               Alternatively, Zuto Shel Yam refers to a river that
               never ceases. Therefore, one can save only through a
               great exertion; the Torah permitted this. Here we
               discuss a river that overflowed its banks. Later it
               will subside and deposit what it took, and it will
               be easy to get it, like actually happened (it
               deposited it in another's field). The one who asked
               assumed that the owner despairs, and it is as it is
               impossible to save. The owner will not exert himself
               for a Safek; perhaps the river will carry the beams
               so far that it is not worth going to retrieve them.
               Therefore, 'if he despaired' means 'if he knew that
               the river took them.' We answer that he can save
               through obstacles in the river, and 'if he
               despaired' simply means explicit despair.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (2):</font></b> Therefore, if one saved from a river,
               high tide, troops, fire, a lion... if he is sure
               that the owner despaired, he keeps it. If he does
               not know, he returns it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Ra'avad):</font></b> This is astounding.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Kesef Mishneh:</font></b> We learn (that if he does not
                    know if there was despair, he returns it) from
                    the argument of Abaye and Rava.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Mishneh l'Melech:</font></b> Mahariko (3) says that even if it
               is not certain that the property will be lost, if it
               probably will be lost, we can say that there was
               despair. R. Shimon ben Elazar permits keeping what
               he saves from a lion... Another Beraisa obligates a
               shepherd if he could have saved from a lion, but did
               not. The difference is, R. Shimon discusses saving
               from a lion that is here; in the other Beraisa, had
               the shepherd not left, the lion would not have
               damaged.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rambam (11:10):</font></b> If one finds something in Zuto
                    Shel Yam or Shelulis of a river that never
                    ceases, even if it has a Siman, he may keep it.
                    It says 'that will be lost from him, and you
                    found it.' You must return what it is lost from
                    him, but available to others. It excludes what
                    is hopeless for anyone to retrieve, for the
                    owner despairs.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 259:7):</font></b> One may keep what he
               saves from a lion... Zuto Shel Yam (something swept
               away by a high tide) or and Shelulis Shel Nahar (it
               overflowed its banks), even if the owner stands and
               screams.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  SMA (16):</font></b> He keeps it even if he took it before
                    despair, and even if the owner screams that he
                    did not despair.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Gra (16):</font></b> The Gemara says so about something
                    found in a place where many are found, and all
                    the more so in this case!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> In any case it is proper to return it, like we
               said in Sa'if 5.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Kosvu, citing Tosfos 22a DH
                    Shotaf):</font></b> We must say that Reuven could have
                    saved his beams easily had he chased them when
                    they were washed away. If not, this is like
                    Zuto Shel Yam, which is lost to everyone. In
                    such a case, we would not say 'Stam (if we did
                    not hear of despair) it is forbidden.' This is
                    even if there is no Siman, for obstacles in the
                    river will detain them, and the owner can take
                    them. Even if others take them first, they will
                    return them. Since Reuven pursued immediately,
                    it is evident that he owns them. The Gemara
                    thought that if he does not pursue, he cannot
                    save at all. Others will take them and not
                    return them, for he has no Siman. 'If the owner
                    despaired' means that he was there when it was
                    washed away, and did not bother to chase. Even
                    though if he says that he does not despair,
                    this does not help. Surely he despairs in his
                    heart! 'Stam' is when Reuven was not there when
                    they were swept away. He does not despair until
                    he finds out, and then he cannot save, for he
                    has no Siman. It came to the finder's hand
                    b'Isur, for Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is not
                    despair. The Gemara answered that he can save
                    with difficulty even after it was washed away,
                    i.e. he has a Siman. We asked, if so, if he
                    does not pursue, why do we say that he
                    despaired? We answered that he could save with
                    difficulty. They will get deposited very far
                    away. If he does not pursue, surely he
                    despaired.
<br>
<font color='darkblue'>Other Halachos relevant to this Daf:
<br><b><b>RETURNING A GET THROUGH A SIMAN </b></b>(</font><font color='darkblue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This determines whether we can rely on a
               Siman to (say that a Get found is the same Get that
               a Shali'ach lost, and) return the Get to him (and he
               will use it to divorce);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the law is mid'Oraisa, it applies also to a
                    Get;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If it is an enactment mid'Rabanan, it was
                    enacted only for money, but not for Isurim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> We already knew that one must return
          a garment. It wrote 'Simlah' to teach the general rule:
          just like a garment has signs and people claim it, also
          anything that has Simanim, and people will claim it, the
          finder must announce it. (Since we learn from a verse, it
          is mid'Oraisa.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The verse teaches only that it must have
          people who will claim it. The mention of Simanim is an
          allusion to the Rabbinic enactment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Chamor' teaches that we return a
          donkey through Simanim on the saddle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> It means, through witnesses that recognize the
          saddle.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'it will be
          with you until Derosh Achicha (your brother demands it)'?
          Surely one does not return it before this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, this teaches that you must be Doresh
               (investigate) if he is lying.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> You ask him to give a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> No, you require him to bring witnesses
          testifying that it is his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4 (Mishnah):</font></b> Witnesses may testify (to identify a
          corpse to permit the widow to remarry) only if they saw
          the face with the nose, even if there are Simanim on the
          body and clothes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This shows that Simanim are not mid'Oraisa!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses unreliable Simanim on
          the body, e.g. he was tall or short;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not rely on Simanim on the clothes. We are
               concerned lest the deceased was wearing borrowed
               clothes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why do we return a donkey through
               Simanim on the saddle? Perhaps the saddle was
               borrowed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1:</font></b> People do not borrow saddles, for it
               wounds the donkey.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2:</font></b> Indeed, we are never concerned for
               borrowing;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah teaches that we do not rely on
                    unreliable Simanim on the clothes, e.g. they
                    were black or red.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against Answer #1 - Beraisa):</font></b> If a
               Shali'ach lost a Get and found it tied to his
               moneybag or in his ring, or among his clothes, even
               after a long time, the Get is valid (we assume that
               it is the one he lost).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If we are concerned for borrowing, when it is
                    tied to his wallet, why is it valid?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> People do not lend these articles.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Lending a moneybag is a bad omen. One would not
                    lend his signet ring, lest the borrower use it
                    to forge.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue about whether or not Simanim
          are mid'Oraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> We do not testify (to identify a corpse)
               based on birthmarks;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Elazar ben Mehavai permits.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The first Tana holds that Simanim are
               mid'Rabanan, and Elazar ben Mehavai holds that they
               are mid'Oraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1 (Rava):</font></b> All agree that Simanim are
          mid'Oraisa. They argue about whether or not we are
          concerned that someone with the same Mazel (configuration
          of the stars when he was born) has similar birthmarks.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that this is common, so we are
               concerned. Elazar says that it is rare, so we are
               not concerned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2:</font></b> All agree that it is rare that someone with
          the same Mazel has similar birthmarks;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about whether or not birthmarks are prone
               to change appearance after death.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that they change. Elazar says that
               they do not change.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #3:</font></b> All agree that birthmarks are not prone to
          change appearance after death; and that Simanim are
          mid'Rabanan;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> They argue about whether or not birthmarks are
               considered an infallible sign.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Elazar says that it is. Chachamim say that it is
               not.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE ENACTMENT WAS MADE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Rava):</font></b> If Simanim are mid'Rabanan, why was the
          enactment made?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> The finder is happy to return it
          through Simanim, so that when he loses something, he will
          get it back through Simanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (Rav Safra):</font></b> We are not concerned for the
          finder, rather for the owner!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The loser knows that he cannot bring
          witnesses, therefore he wants to be able to get it
          through Simanim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He is confident that only he knows good Simanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Question (Rav Safra - Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):
          If Reuven borrowed from three people, we return the
          documents to him. If Shimon lent to three people, we
          return them to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The borrower does not want the lender to receive the
               documents through a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> That is based on logic, not on Simanim!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> When they are from the same borrower, surely he
               dropped them. Had they fallen from the lenders,
               there is no reason why they would be together;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> When they are from the same lender, surely he
               dropped them. Had they fallen from the borrowers,
               there is no reason why they would be together.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) IDENTIFYING AN OBJECT BASED ON ADJACENT OBJECTS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that the identity of a dead person cannot be determined based on the Simanim of his clothing, even if Simanim are d'Oraisa, because of the concern that the clothing might have been borrowed from someone else. Nevertheless, a person who lost a donkey may claim it based only on the Simanim of the donkey's saddle, because people never borrow donkey saddles. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that states that when a Get is found tied to a wallet or to a signet ring, or it is found among a person's utensils in his home, it may be returned to the owner of the object to which it is attached. The Halachah assumes that the owner of the Get is the owner of the wallet, ring, or utensils. The Gemara asks, in light of its previous argument, why the Beraisa says that the Get may be returned. Why are the Rabanan not concerned that perhaps the owner of the wallet lent it to someone else, who then tied a Get to it and forgot about it? The Gemara answers that people do not lend out their wallets and rings; they do not lend wallets because it is an omen of misfortune to lend them out, and they do not lend signet rings because they could be used by the borrowers to forge a signature. It therefore may be assumed that the Get belongs to the owner of the wallet or signet ring.
</p><p>
The Beraisa, however, also teaches that a Get is returned when it is found among one's personal utensils in his home, because the utensils belong to the owner of the house. The same question seems to apply to that case as well. Why are the Rabanan not concerned that the owner may have lent a utensil to someone who put a Get in it and then returned it but did not remove the Get? After all, the Gemara earlier states that a body cannot be identified based on the clothing ('Kelim') on it, because the clothing might be borrowed. (<b>RASHI</b>, Yevamos 120b)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Yevamos (120b) answers that the 'Kelim' that may not be used to determine the identity of a corpse are the clothing that are on the corpse. In contrast, the 'Kelim' that may be used to identify the owner of a Get are personal containers of the type that a person normally does not lend to others. This is the answer that most Rishonim here give.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASH MI'SHANTZ</b> (cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes) answers that the Get that was found among Kelim was not found <i>in</i> the Kelim or <i>attached to</i> the Kelim, but it was found <i>next to</i> the Kelim. Therefore, it makes no difference if the Kelim were lent to someone else; the Get clearly was not brought back with the Kelim.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) TRUSTING THE PERSON WHO DESCRIBES THE 'SIMANIM' OF A LOST OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara suggests that a lost object may not be returned to a person who describes the Simanim of another object to which it is attached, if that second object is something that people normally lend to others. It is possible that the owner of the second object lent it to the owner of the first object, who then lost both objects. Therefore, even though the claimant knows the Simanim of the second object, this is not sufficient proof that the first object also belongs to him.
</p><p>
(a) If the Rabanan consider this possibility (that an object might have been lent out) to be a valid concern, then how can any lost object ever be returned to a person who knows its Simanim? Perhaps the claimant once borrowed the object, and that is how he knows its Simanim. Furthermore, a finder should never be required to return an object to a person who describes its Simanim, since it is possible that that person owned the object at some time in the past but has since sold it. Just as Simanim do not prove that the claimant is the owner -- and not a borrower -- of the object, they also should not prove that the claimant is the object's current owner.
</p><p>
(b) The Gemara explains that a lost donkey is returned based on the Simanim of its saddle only because people do not lend out donkey saddles. How can this be reconciled with the Mishnah earlier (24b) which states that lost fruits are returned based on the Simanim of the container in which the fruits are found? In that case as well it is possible that the owner lent his container to someone else and the <i>borrower</i> put fruit inside and then lost the container.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) There are two approaches in the Rishonim to answer these questions. (See <b>RAMBAN</b>.)
</p><p>
1. When a person claims to be the owner of an object and is able to give its Simanim, the finder does not need to be concerned that he may have sold the object; a person who has proof that he owned something in the past is assumed to be the owner now (he has a Chazakah). (Although the Gemara (28a) mentions a case in which the Rabanan are concerned that the person who gives an object's Simanim may have sold it, that concern exists only when the other claimant brings witnesses who testify that he lost the object.)
</p><p>
With regard to the possibility that the claimant may be aware of the Simanim only because he once borrowed the object, since a borrower normally does not hold on to an object long enough to memorize its Simanim (see Chagigah 22b), the Rabanan do not consider that to be a concern.
</p><p>
2. The <b>RAMBAN</b> and other Rishonim suggest a second answer. If a person sold an object and the buyer lost it, the seller probably would not be aware that the object was lost and attempt to reclaim it from the finder. Similarly, if a person once borrowed an object that was subsequently lost by its owner, the borrower probably would not be aware that it was lost. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that a person who attempts to claim a lost object is really a previous owner or borrower of the object. In contrast, if a person lent his donkey saddle to someone else who then lost the donkey and the saddle, the borrower would have had to tell the lender how his saddle was lost. Consequently, a lender would be aware that his saddle <i>and</i> the borrower's donkey were lost together. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that a person who attempts to claim a donkey with the Simanim of its saddle is actually the owner of the saddle but not the owner of the donkey.
</p><p>
(b) With regard to the fruits that are returned based on the Siman of the vessel, all the Rishonim explain that this law is an enactment of the Rabanan. Although such containers are commonly lent out and the claimant therefore should not be entitled to the fruits inside them, the Rabanan nevertheless decreed that a finder should return a lost object based on the Simanim of another object to which it is attached or inside which it is found. This enactment was made for the benefit of the owners, and it is similar to the general Halachah that a lost object is returned based on Simanim, according to the opinion that Simanim are d'Rabanan. When the Gemara discusses the concern that the accompanying object might have been borrowed, it does so only with regard to returning a Get, which is subject to the more stringent d'Oraisa requirements, and with regard to the Beraisa (27a) which implies that the Din d'Oraisa is that a donkey should be returned based on the Simanim of the saddle. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to 20b, DH Matza, and Rishonim here.)
</p><p>
The Acharonim question this approach. The <b>ONEG YOM TOV</b> (Even ha'Ezer 135) asks that this idea is not consistent with the logic behind the general requirement to return an object with Simanim. According to the view that Simanim are d'Rabanan, the Gemara explains that an Aveidah may be returned based on Simanim only because the owner would agree to this arrangement. The owner would reason that even if someone else falsely identifies the object with average Simanim, he will be able to give a better Siman and retrieve it (see <b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Ana). This logic, however, would not apply to the Simanim of another object attached to the first, or to the case of fruits found inside a vessel. The owner of the fruits would not want them to be returned to a person who can provide the Simanim of the vessel, because if the container is borrowed its owner would be more familiar with its Simanim. Thus, the fruits could be claimed unjustly by the owner of the vessel.
</p><p>
The <b>TUMIM</b> (CM 65:12) and <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (EH 1:95) raise another question. The Mishnah earlier (20a) teaches that when one finds a Shtar inside a container he may return the Shtar to a person who can describe the Simanim of the container. This seems to be the same law that applies to fruit found in a vessel. However, it is not possible to interpret this law as a Takanah d'Rabanan. The Gemara states that when a number of Shtaros are found wrapped together or three Shtaros are found that have the same borrower (or the same lender), the Rabanan do not apply even the regular Takanah of Simanim, since the borrower would not agree for his Shtar to be returned to the lender. Based on the same logic, it is not possible that the Rabanan made a Takanah to return a Shtar based on the Simanim of the vessel in which it was found. Since the Shtar might belong to the borrower and he would not agree that it be returned to the lender, the Rabanan would not make such a Takanah. This seems to disprove the approach of the Rishonim.
</p><p>
The questions of the Acharonim, however, are based on the general rules of returning an object based on its own Simanim. Perhaps there is a difference between returning an object based on its own Simanim and returning an object based on the Simanim of another object. The owner of a lost object would be more reluctant to allow it to be returned to anyone who is familiar with its own Simanim, since any person in the world can approach the finder and describe certain standard Simanim that are common to most objects of that type. In contrast, an owner would be less reluctant to allow his object to be returned to a person familiar with the Simanim of an accompanying object, since there is only one other person who might be able to claim it: the person who owns the accompanying object.
</p><p>
Moreover, when an object has Simanim, even if the Rabanan would not allow it to be returned based on its Simanim, the owner would still be able to claim the object if he brings witnesses who can testify that he owns it (if he can find such witnesses). The Gemara here, however, discusses an object which has no Simanim of its own; that is why the claimant must rely on the Simanim of an object attached to it. Even if, mid'Oraisa, a person can claim an object only with witnesses, if the object has no Simanim he will be Me'ya'esh and he will not be able to claim it (as explained earlier; see Insights to 27a). Therefore, the owner would agree to have the object returned to whoever describes the Simanim of the object attached to it; otherwise, it would be impossible for him to retrieve it.
</p><p>
This answers the question of the Oneg Yom Tov. Although the Gemara explains that the owner of a lost object can present a better claim than a false claimant who is able to describe its Simanim, that logic is needed only to explain why the owner would agree for his object to be returned based on its own Simanim. On the other hand, an owner would always agree for his object to be returned based on the Simanim of another object, because that also represents a gain for him; if not for that Halachah, he would never be able to retrieve his object.
</p><p>
The question of the Tumim (from the case of a Shtar that was found inside of a vessel) may be answered as follows. Perhaps the borrower would also want the Shtar to be returned to the claimant, because he would also benefit in a similar case. The borrower himself may lend money to someone else, in which case he would want to be able to retrieve his own Shtar in this way if he were to lose it. Thus, every borrower would agree to the existence of such a law because it might benefit him at a different time, when he becomes a lender. Why, then, does the Gemara state that a borrower would not want a Shtar to be returned based on its own Simanim? If the Shtar itself has Simanim, the borrower would prefer that the lender not be able to retrieve it based on its Simanim. Since there is a way to retrieve a Shtar that has Simanim (i.e. with witnesses), the borrower would not be concerned that he may one day be unable to retrieve a lost Shtar of his own. If a Shtar has no Simanim of its own, however, the only possible way for the owner to retrieve it would be to provide the Simanim of another object found with it. The owner will not be able to bring witnesses who can testify that the object is his, because an owner can find such witnesses only if he can describe the Simanim of the object to them. In such a case, a borrower would prefer for the Halachah to allow the lender to retrieve the Shtar so that he himself will not suffer a complete loss in a similar case.
</p><p>
Alternatively, although the Gemara originally suggests that the Mishnah which allows a Shtar to be returned based on a Siman must maintain that Simanim are d'Oraisa, the Gemara later allows for the possibility that Simanim are only d'Rabanan. The Rishonim explain how to reconcile the Mishnah with that opinion. Their answers can also be applied to the Tumim's question. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
The <b>SHACH</b> (CM 65:26) argues with all of the Rishonim and suggests another way to explain the Mishnah which permits one to return a Shtar based on the Siman of its container. He explains that the case of a lost donkey that was found with a saddle is a case in which the finder announces that he found a saddle and a donkey. In that case, the Gemara says that if saddles were objects that were commonly lent to others, then the person who claims the saddle with Simanim would not be able to claim the donkey. The Mishnah, however, refers to a case in which the finder announces only that he found a Shtar and the person who attempts to claim it volunteers the information that the Shtar was found in a container. That person will be able to retrieve the Shtar when he gives the Simanim of the container, because in such a case there is no concern that the container may have been borrowed.
</p><p>
The Shach further suggests that the container might be a type of container that is normally not lent out to others.
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE ENACTMENT WAS MADE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Mishnah):</font></b> If one found a Tachrich or Agudah of
          documents, he returns them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The borrower does not want the lender to receive the
               documents through a Siman!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Retraction (Rava):</font></b> Rather, Simanim are mid'Oraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa) Question:</font></b> 'It will be with you until
               Derosh Achicha.' Would one have thought to return it
               before this?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, this teaches that you must be Doresh
               (investigate) if he is lying, by asking him for a
               Siman.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>COMPETING SIMANIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> If you will say that Simanim are mid'Oraisa...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Interjection:</font></b> Rava just proved that Simanim are
               mid'Oraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> One could reject the proof like above; he
               must bring witnesses testifying that it is his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Continuation - Rava):</font></b> If Simanim are mid'Oraisa, if
          Reuven and Shimon each give Simanim of an Aveidah, we
          leave it until Eliyahu comes;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven gives Simanim and witnesses say that it is
               Shimon's, Shimon gets it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven and Shimon each give Simanim, and one
               witness supports Shimon, the witness does nothing.
               We leave it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If two witnesses say that Reuven wove a garment, and
               two witnesses say that it fell from Shimon, we
               assume that Shimon bought it, so he gets it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> If Reuven knows the length and Shimon knows the
               width, Reuven gets it, for one can estimate its
               width when he sees another wear it, but not its
               length;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> If Reuven knows the length and width, and Shimon
               knows the sum of its length and width, Reuven gets
               it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> If Reuven knows the length and width, and Shimon
               knows the weight, Shimon gets it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> If Reuven and his wife both give Simanim on a Get
               (for her), she gets it (he surely knows. She would
               only know if she received it.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What Simanim did she give?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The length and width is not a proper  Siman.
                    Perhaps she saw it in his hands!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, there is a hole near a particular
               letter.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> If Reuven and his wife both give Simanim on the
               string holding the Get, she gets it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What Simanim did she give?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The color is not a proper  Siman. Perhaps she
                    saw it in his hands!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, she gave the length.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b></b> If Reuven and his wife both say that the Get was in
               a pouch, he gets it.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> She knows that he puts all his things in his
               pouch.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ANNOUNCING AN AVEIDAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> One must announce until the
          neighbors hear;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	R. Yehudah says, he must announce for three festivals,
          and seven days after the third festival;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The seven days allow someone to return home in three
               days, check if he lost it, return in three days and
               claim the object on the seventh day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> Neighbors of the Aveidah (must hear).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> To which neighbors does this refer?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> If refers to neighbors of the owner.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> If the finder knows the owner, he should
               give it to him!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Rather, it is neighbors of the place where he
          found it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehudah says... (three days to return
          home...)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Mishnah):</font></b> We start requesting rain (in 
          prayer) on the third of Cheshvan;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Gamliel says, we begin on the seventh. We do not
               want rain while people are returning home (from
               Yerushalayim) after the end of Sukos, After 15 days,
               the last travelers have reached the Peras River (the
               end of Eretz Yisrael).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Fifteen days were allotted during
          the first Mikdash, for there were more people - 'Yehudah
          and Yisrael were numerous like the sand at the sea
          (shore)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Three days sufficed during the second Mikdash, for
               there were few people - 'the whole Tzibur, 44,360.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection (and Answer #2 - Abaye):</font></b> Just the contrary!
          'V'Chol Yisrael b'Areihem' - they lived in the same
          cities in Bayis Sheni as in Bayis Rishon (so there is no
          reason to allow less time);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> In the first Mikdash, there were more people, so
               they could travel day and night in caravans. Three
               days sufficed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> In the second Mikdash, caravans were harder to find,
               so 15 days were needed. (It was more than twice as
               long, for people would stop early, lest they not
               find a good place to lodge before dark. E.g. if
               Chasidim Rishonim spent three hours for each of
               Shacharis, Minchah and Ma'ariv, they could travel 15
               hours a day in Bayis Rishon, and only three hours a
               day in Bayis Sheni if they stopped traveling at
               midday.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Rava):</font></b> In each Mikdash, the last people needed
          15 days;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim did not burden finders to wait more than
               seven days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference (Ravina):</font></b> This teaches that the finder would
          announce the object he found, e.g. 'a cloak';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he would merely announce 'an Aveidah', another
               day would be needed for the (possible) losers to
               check if they lost anything.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps he merely announced 'an
          Aveidah.' Chachamim did not burden finders to wait
          another day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> On the first festival, he announces 'this is
          the first festival (of announcement).' On the second he
          says 'second festival'; on the third, he does not mention
          which festival it is (so people will know that it is the
          last festival).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He should explicitly say 'third festival'
          (people know the law)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> People might mistakenly think that he said
          'second'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Also regarding the second, they may think he
          said 'first'!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ONE WITNESS ON A LOST OBJECT</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case in which two people claim one lost object from the finder. One gives a Siman, and the other gives a Siman <i>and</i> brings a witness who supports his claim. The Gemara rules that the object should be put aside until Eliyahu comes.
</p><p>
The <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> (6:3) asks that this Gemara seems to contradict the words of the <b>RAN</b> in Chulin (96a). The Ran writes that the Torah accepts the testimony of a single witness with regard to lost objects. In an ordinary case of monetary matters the testimony of a single witness cannot decide the case; it only obligates the other party to swear against his testimony. This limited power of a single witness applies only when the witness testifies to take money <i>away</i> from someone. When his testimony does not involve taking money away from someone -- such as the case of a lost object, where the finder admits that the object is not his -- a single witness' testimony is strong enough to decide the case.
</p><p>
The Gemara here, however, implies that a single witness' testimony is not strong enough to decide the case of a lost object. How does the Ran reconcile the Gemara with his position?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>DIVREI EMES</b> (Kuntrus 6) explains that the Ran does not rule that a single witness can decide a case whenever no other claimant is holding the money. In the case of a lost object, the Ran agrees that a single witness does not decide the case, because the other person has a Siman which normally would entitle him to take possession of the lost object.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>PRI MEGADIM</b> (YD 111, Kelalei Simanim) writes that in this case, the testimony of the single witness is directly contradicted by the Simanim. In fact, it is possible that Simanim are <i>stronger</i> than the testimony of a single witness, to such an extent that in a case in which one person brings Simanim and the other brings only a single witness, the object should be given to the person with Simanim.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>PRI YITZCHAK</b> (2:56) writes that the reason why a single witness is believed in the case of a lost object is that as long as the finder realizes that the person who claims the lost object is not dishonest (a 'Ramai') and Beis Din has no reason to suspect that the witness is dishonest, the claimant should receive the object. However, in this case there is another claimant who also has proof (Simanim) that the object is his. In such a case, both parties are now suspected of being dishonest. This is why the object must be left aside until Eliyahu comes. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>APPLICATIONS OF PERUTAH D'RAV YOSEF</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Tana'im argue about a Shomer (one who
               guards an) Aveidah who sold the Aveidah and used the
               money. If he did not use it, all agree that if it
               was lost, he is exempt. This refutes Rav Yosef!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> A Shomer Aveidah is considered a
                    Shomer Chinam (for he gets no benefit.
                    Therefore, he is exempt if it stolen or if he
                    loses it);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He is like a Shomer Sachar (he is
                    liable for loss or theft).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Bava Kama 56b - Version #1:</font></b> Rav Yosef holds
                    that he is like a Shomer Sachar because the
                    Mitzvah to guard an Aveidah exempts him from
                    giving bread to an Oni (who requests).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> He is like a Shomer Sachar because
                    the Torah obligated him to guard the Aveidah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> All agree that if the money was
               stolen or lost, he is liable. They argue about Ones.
               R. Tarfon permits him to use the money, so he liable
               like a borrower. R. Akiva forbids him to use the
               money, so he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 81b (Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven lent to Shimon (relying) on
               a security, Reuven is a Shomer Sachar on the
               security.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Eliezer:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If Reuven lent to
                    Shimon (relying) on a security and lost the
                    security, he swears (that he lost it) and
                    collects the debt.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, he lent only due to the
                    security. If he lost it, he lost the loan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 82a - Suggestion:</font></b> They argue about Shmuel's law,
               when the security is worth less than the loan.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> If Reuven lent 1000 Zuz and took an
                    axe handle for a security, if he loses the
                    handle, he loses the whole loan. (R. Akiva
                    holds like Shmuel. R. Eliezer argues, for the
                    security was taken only for a reminder of the
                    loan.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> All disagree with Shmuel. In such a case,
               all agree that he collects. The Tana'im discuss a
               security taken at the time of the loan. They argue
               about whether a Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer Chinam or
               a Shomer Sachar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Yosef's law is like R. Akiva, and R.
               Eliezer disagrees.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> No, all can agree with Rav Yosef. They
               argue about when the lender needs the security. R.
               Akiva says that we still consider the loan to be a
               Mitzvah, therefore he is a Shomer Sachar (for Rav
               Yosef's reason).R. Eliezer does not consider it to
               be a Mitzvah, so he is a Shomer Chinam.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif (Bava Kama 24a):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav Yosef,
               for the Gemara in Bava Metzi'a (82a) and Shevu'os
               (44b) say that all hold like him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Bava Metzi'a 51a and 6:16):</font></b> We hold
               like our Stam Mishnah, that one who lends on a
               security is a Shomer Sachar, because he did a
               Mitzvah. He is exempt from giving bread to an Oni,
               for Osek b'Mitzvah Patur Min ha'Mitzvah. This is why
               Rav Yosef says that a Shomer Aveidah is like a
               Shomer Sachar. The Halachah follows him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 13:10):</font></b> As long as the
               Aveidah is with the finder, if it was stolen or lost
               he is liable. If Ones occurred, he is exempt. A
               Shomer Aveidah is like a Shomer Sachar. Since he is
               engaged in a Mitzvah, he is exempt from several
               Mitzvos Aseh as long as he is engaged in guarding
               the Aveidah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Shevu'os 6:29):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rabah. He
               holds (Bava Metzi'a 29a) that if the finder sold the
               Aveidah, he is a Shomer Sachar on the money because
               he may use it. Rav Yosef holds that he is a
               borrower. The Halachah follows Rav Nachman in Mamon,
               and he says (Bava Metzi'a 43a) that a moneychanger
               is a Shomer Sachar on money deposited with him,
               because he may use it!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal:</font></b> Rabah holds that one who guards the
               Aveidah itself is a Shomer Sachar. If he sold it,
               the rights to use the money raise his obligation to
               be a Shomer Sachar. Similarly, Rav Yosef holds that
               one who guards an Aveidah is a Shomer Sachar, so the
               rights to use the money make him a borrower!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection of Rebuttal (Rosh):</font></b> Rav Yosef says that a
               Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer Sachar due to the
               exemption from Tzedakah. The same applies if he
               receives a second benefit (ability to use the
               money). The Chiyuv of a Shomer Sachar does not
               depend on how much he is paid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh:</font></b> The Gemara suggested that Rav Yosef's law is
               like R. Akiva, and R. Eliezer disagrees. It did not
               mention Rabah. Some (Rashi Bava Metzi'a 82a DH
               Leima) say that this is because Rabah surely holds
               like R. Eliezer; R. Akiva cannot hold like Rabah.
               The Halachah does not follow R. Eliezer because he
               is Shmuti (from Beis Shamai).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal #1 (Tosfos Bava Metzi'a 29a DH v'Havi):</font></b> We
               cannot say that R. Akiva cannot hold like Rabah. The
               Gemara here said that both Tana'im hold like Rabah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal #2 (Rosh ibid.):</font></b> Even though Rabah could
               say that the Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law, the
               Stam Gemara said otherwise. This is not a proof. Our
               entire Sugya assumes that the Tana'im argue when the
               security is worth less than the loan. This is why it
               did not say that they argue about Shmuel's law!
               Also, on 82a we strove to show that the Stam Mishnah
               is like Rabah. On 84a we established the Mishnah
               unlike R. Eliezer. According to Rav Yosef, we could
               have said that it is like everyone! Even though the
               Halachah follows Rabah, one who lends on a security
               is a Shomer Sachar. We follow R. Chananel, who says
               that Shmuel discusses one who specified that if he
               loses the security, he loses the loan, for all R.
               Chananel's words are Kabalah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Korban Nesan'el (8):</font></b> We follow R. Chananel's
                    text. His rulings are not Kabalah; we often
                    rule against him. However, in Nidah (1:5) the
                    Rosh refused to rule leniently against R.
                    Chananel, for his words are Kabalah.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 267:16):</font></b> As long as the Aveidah
               is with the finder, if it was stolen or lost he is
               liable, like a Shomer Sachar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that he is like a Shomer Chinam. The
               law is the same as we wrote regarding a security.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (72:2):</font></b> If one lent on a security, he
               is a Shomer Sachar.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that he is only a Shomer Chinam if
               the security is worth more than the loan. If it was
               stolen or lost, he is exempt from paying the excess,
               but he does not get back the loan. Since it is a
               Safek, we do not force one to pay.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Sover):</font></b> The Tur says that the
                    Rosh rules like Rabah. R. Yerucham did not cite
                    the Rosh, for he was unsure about his opinion.
                    I say that since he did not give a clear ruling
                    in his Pesakim, we rely on how he ruled in a
                    Teshuvah, like Rav Yosef.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Bach DH u'Mah):</font></b> The Rosh clearly
                    rules like Rabah in Shevuos! The Beis Yosef
                    erred about his opinion.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Shach (23):</font></b> If a lender lost the security and
                    seized his debt from the borrower, we do not
                    force him to return it. He can say 'I hold like
                    the Poskim that a Shomer Aveidah is a Shomer
                    Chinam, and regarding a lender, like those who
                    do not say that it is as if he specified 'if I
                    lose it, I lose from the debt corresponding to
                    it.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (267:17):</font></b> All hold that a lender is a
                    Shomer Sachar on the value of the security up
                    to the amount of the loan. The Rema equates the
                    law of a Shomer Aveidah to that of a lender on
                    the security's value above the amount of the
                    loan.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 6:9):</font></b> One may cover
                    the blood (of a slaughtered bird or Chayah)
                    with dirt that is Asur b'Hana'ah, for
                    fulfilling Mitzvos is not considered Hana'ah. A
                    Shofar or Lulav of Isur Hana'ah would be Kosher
                    if no Shi'ur were required. We do not say that
                    he benefits Perutah d'Rav Yosef by using Isurei
                    Hana'ah for a Mitzvah! The Halachah follows
                    Rabah. If a finder sold an Aveidah, he may use
                    the money. This benefit makes him a Shomer
                    Sachar. The Rambam rules that a Shomer Aveidah
                    is a Shomer Sachar, so when he sells it and may
                    use the money he is a borrower. This is wrong.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rebuttal (Shach 14):</font></b> The Rosh (it seems that it
                    should say 'Ran') in Nedarim (33b DH Perutah)
                    allows a Mudar Hana'ah to return an Aveidah
                    because Perutah d'Rav Yosef is rare.
                    Nevertheless, Perutah d'Rav Yosef suffices to
                    make him a Shomer Sachar. Tosfos (Shevu'os 44b
                    DH v'Rav) asked about saving Perutah d'Rav
                    Yosef while using Isurei Hana'ah for Mitzvos.
                    He answered that Perutah d'Rav Yosef applies to
                    an Aveidah or security because one must
                    regularly spread it out (lest it get moldy),
                    and an Oni might come then. One may blow a
                    Shofar (or immerse in a Mikveh) of Isurei
                    Hana'ah at a time when no Oni will come (so he
                    gets no Hana'ah).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Conclusion (Shach):</font></b> The Rema (72:2), <b>SMA</b> and
                    all the Acharonim say that it is a Safek if the
                    Halachah follows Rabah or Rav Yosef. If the one
                    who lost the Aveidah seized the money from the
                    finder, we do not force him to return it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Or Some'ach (Schirus 10:1):</font></b> We are not
                    concerned for Perutah d'Rav Yosef regarding
                    Isurei Hana'ah because physical benefit does
                    not come from the forbidden object. It is like
                    Mavri'ach Ari (averting a loss). Alternatively,
                    we are concerned for benefit from Perutah d'Rav
                    Yosef when the Mitzvah is due to the Isur. E.g.
                    if a Mudar Hana'ah found an Aveidah of the one
                    he may not benefit from, or if he lends to him
                    only because he receives a security. These are
                    unlike Mitzvos of Shofar and Lulav, which are
                    obligatory on him in any case. His own
                    obligation exempts him from Tzedakah.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>THE CHIYUV OF A SHOMER AVEIDAH </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> In any case, he will come the next festival and
          hear the announcement (and know that this is the last
          time).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ENACTMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> At first, the finder would announce for three
          festivals, and seven days after the last festival;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One could go home and return in six days, and claim
               his object on the seventh day.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> After the Churban, it was enacted to announce in
               Batei Kenesiyos and Batei Medrash;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> After Anasim increased, it was enacted to inform
               (the finder's) neighbors and acquaintances, and this
               suffices.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What are the Anasim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> They are people who say that Aveidos belong to
          the king.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Ami found a Kli of gold coins. A man noticed that R.
          Ami was very nervous. He comforted him 'I am not a
          Persian. They say that Aveidos belong to the king.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> There was a 'rock of claimers' in Yerushalayim
          where finders would announce and losers would give
          Simanim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>TO WHOM WE RETURN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If the loser said what he lost but did not
          give a Siman, he does not get it;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not return to a swindler, even if he gives a
               Siman  - 'Ad Derosh Achicha (until your brother
               demands it)' - you must be Doresh (investigate)
               whether or not he is a swindler.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The finder announces only 'I
          found an Aveidah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> He announces what was found, e.g. a cloak.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If he announces what he found, we must be
          concerned for swindlers!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman):</font></b> We are not concerned for swindlers. If we
          would be, even if we announced 'Aveidah' we should be
          concerned lest he will guess what it is!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (against Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> If the loser
          said what he lost but did not give a sign, he does not
          get it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he only announces 'an Aveidah', this is a
               Chidush. Even though the loser knew what was lost,
               he does not get it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if he announces what was lost, the loser said
               nothing more than he heard. Obviously, he does not
               get it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Safra):</font></b> He did not say good Simanim, but he
          said poor Simanim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> At first, the loser would give the Simanim and
          receive the object. After swindlers increased, it was
          enacted that he must bring witnesses that he is not a
          swindler.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa's father lost a donkey. It was found. Rabah
               bar Rav Huna asked him to bring witnesses that he is
               not a swindler.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabah bar Rav Huna:</font></b> Do you know that he is a
               swindler?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The witnesses:</font></b> Yes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Papa's father:</font></b> You say that I am a swindler?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> The witnesses:</font></b> We meant that we know you are not a
               swindler!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabah bar Rav Huna:</font></b> Presumably, the witnesses meant
               that from the beginning. One does not bring
               witnesses who will incriminate him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>6) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW LONG DOES THE FINDER KEEP THE METZI'AH?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one found something that works and eats (no
          more than the value of its labor, e.g. an ox), the finder
          should use it and feed it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If one found something that eats and does not work, it
          should be sold - 'v'Hashevoso Lo', be careful to return
          it properly. (Do not keep the animal and deduct what it
          eats until the loser claims it.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	R. Tarfon says, the finder may use the money from the
          sale (until the loser claims it). Therefore, if it is
          lost, he is liable;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Akiva says, the finder may not use the money.
          Therefore, if it is lost, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> (If something works and eats,) must
          the finder guard it forever?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He guards it for only 12 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If something works and eats, e.g. a
          cow or donkey, the finder keeps it for 12 months. After
          that, he sells it and guards the money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If something eats and does not work, e.g. calves and
               young donkeys, the finder keeps it for three months.
               After that, he sells it and guards the money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one found geese or (male) chickens, he keeps them
               for 30 days. After that, he sells it and guards the
               money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A hen (because it gives eggs)
          is like a work animal (he guards it for 12 months).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one found a hen or a work animal,
          he keeps it for 12 months. After that, he sells it and
          guards the money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If one found a calf or young donkey, he keeps it for
               30 days. After that, he sells it and guards the
               money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If one found a goose or rooster, or anything
               expensive to care for, he keeps it for three days.
               After that, he sells it and guards the money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction:</font></b> The Beraisos argue about calves and young
          donkeys, and geese and roosters!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer - part 1:</font></b> For calves and young donkeys, in a time
          and place where they can eat grass in the pasture, he
          keeps them for three months. If he must feed them, he
          keeps them for 30 days;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #1 (Rashi) Answer - part 2:</font></b> One keeps big geese
          and roosters (they eat a lot) for three days. He keeps
          small ones for 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Version #2 (Rambam) Answer - part 2:</font></b> One keeps big geese
          and roosters (they can find their own food) for 30 days.
          He keeps small ones for three days. (end of Version #2)
<br>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'Hashevoso Lo' - be careful how you return
          it. Do not let calves, young donkeys, geese and roosters
          consume their value.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) A DISHONEST CLAIMANT WITH A 'SIMAN MUVHAK'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah teaches that when a person identifies the type of object that he lost but not the Simanim, the finder may not give it to him. If the claimant is known to be dishonest, the finder may not give him the object even if the claimant identifies the object with Simanim.
</p><p>
There are three different types of Simanim, as outlined clearly by the <b>S'MA</b> (CM 267:7). The first type is a Siman which is 'Muvhak l'Gamri' -- 'totally clear' -- which is a very specific piece of information about the object (such as that there is a hole on top of one of the words in a lost document). Identification of a lost object with such a Siman is tantamount to bringing witnesses to identify the object.
</p><p>
The second type is a Siman which is 'Muvhak' -- it is clear, but not as clear as a 'Siman Muvhak.' This type of Siman includes the object's weight, length, and other similar information. This is an ordinary Siman which a person can present to retrieve his lost object.
</p><p>
The third type is a Siman which does not clearly identify the object, such as the name or color of the lost object (as mentioned in the Mishnah). Such a Siman is not valid.
</p><p>
When the Mishnah says that one may not return a lost object to a Ramai even if he has Simanim, does it mean even if he has a Siman Muvhak l'Gamri, or does it refer to an ordinary Siman Muvhak?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Aveidah 13:3) writes that even when a Ramai gives 'Simanim Muvhakim' one should not return the object to him unless he brings witnesses. The Rambam apparently understands that no Siman will suffice for a Ramai. However, the <b>RA'AVAD</b> comments on the Rambam with three words: 'Simanim Muvhakim l'Gamri.' What is the Ra'avad's intention? Does he argue or agree with the Rambam?
</p><p>
1. The <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> explains that the Ra'avad's intention is to explain the Rambam. The Ra'avad says that the Rambam means that a Ramai never retrieves his lost object through Simanim.
</p><p>
2. The <b>BACH</b> (CM 267) understands that the Ra'avad argues with the Rambam. The Ra'avad understands that the Rambam rules that even a Siman Muvhak l'Gamri is invalid when a Ramai claims the object. The Ra'avad himself disagrees and maintains that when a Ramai gives a Siman Muvhak l'Gamri the object should be returned to him. This is also how the <b>BE'ER HA'GOLAH</b> understands the Ra'avad.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> clearly learns that if a Ramai gives a Siman Muvhak l'Gamri, the object should be returned to him. (See <b>DERISHAH</b> and <b>SHACH</b> who explain the opinion of the Rosh at length.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>RETURNING THE FULL VALUE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah - R. Tarfon):</font></b> The finder may use the money...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> They argue only if the finder used the money.
          If not, all agree that if it was lost, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> This refutes Rav Yosef!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> One who guards an Aveidah is a Shomer
               Chinam (one guarding a deposit for free);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He is a Shomer Sachar (a paid Shomer,
               who is liable if it is lost or stolen).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> All agree that if the money is stolen
          or lost, he is liable. They argue about Onsim (loss
          beyond the Shomer's control).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Tarfon says that Chachamim permit him to use the
               money, so he is a borrower, he is liable;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says that Chachamim forbid him to use the
               money, he is not a borrower, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, why does R. Akiva say 'therefore'? (If
          he never used the money, obviously he is exempt!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for Rabah, who says that they
               argue about when the money is stolen or lost. One
               might have thought that one who guards an Aveidah is
               considered a Shomer Sachar. R. Akiva teaches that
               this is not so. He may not use the money, therefore
               he is like a Shomer Chinam, and he is exempt.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if all agree that if the money is stolen or
               lost, he is liable, and they argue about Onsim, it
               would suffice for R. Akiva to say that he may not
               use the money, and clearly he is exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Since R. Tarfon said 'therefore', R. Akiva also
          said it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why did R. Tarfon say 'therefore'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Because Chachamim permit him to use the money, it
          is as if he used it, so he is liable (like a borrower).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The Mishnah says that the money was lost!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A 'SHOMER SACHAR' WHO IS 'MUDAR HANA'AH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses the Halachic status of the finder of a lost object. Does he have the status of a Shomer Chinam, a guardian who watches an object for free (whose liability is limited to negligence, Peshi'ah), or does he have the status of a paid guardian (whose liability extends to Geneivah and Aveidah)? Rabah maintains that the finder of a lost object is considered a Shomer Chinam. Rav Yosef maintains that he is considered a Shomer Sachar.
</p><p>
According to Rav Yosef, what pay does the finder receive such that he is considered a Shomer Sachar? Rav Yosef explains that since the finder is involved in a Mitzvah when he takes care of the lost object, he is exempt from giving Tzedakah to a poor person because of the principle of 'ha'Osek b'Mitzvah Patur Min ha'Mitzvah' -- 'One who is involved in one Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah.' The money he saves, called 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef,' is considered his payment for watching the lost object.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Havei) quotes <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> and the <b>BEHAG</b> who prove from the Gemara in Nedarim (33b) that the Halachah follows the view of Rav Yosef. The Gemara there discusses whether a person who is forbidden by a Neder from benefiting from his friend ('Mudar Hana'ah') is allowed to return a lost object to him. According to one opinion there, such a person may not return a lost object to the owner because he would receive the benefit of 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef,' saving money while watching the object. The other opinion says that 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef' is not common, and thus he may return the lost object. The Gemara implies that both opinions maintain that the finder is considered a Shomer Sachar; they disagree only about whether 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef' is a common enough occurrence to prohibit a 'Mudar Hana'ah' from returning a lost object.
</p><p>
Tosfos refutes this proof and says that even Rabah agrees that a person who is taking care of a lost object is exempt from giving Tzedakah, and thus both opinions in Nedarim may follow Rabah as well. Rabah's point of dispute with Rav Yosef is that Rabah maintains that the money the finder saves does not constitute payment for watching the lost object, and thus he is not a Shomer Sachar.
</p><p>
The <b>MAHARSHAL</b> (in <b>YAM SHEL SHLOMO</b>, Bava Kama 6:9) asks that the proof is difficult for a more basic reason. How is it even <i>possible</i> that the second opinion in Nedarim follows the view of Rav Yosef? If the finder has the status of a Shomer Sachar, he should not be permitted to pick up the object since he is 'paid' to do so by its owner, from whom he may not derive benefit? If 'Perutah d'Rav Yosef' is so uncommon, why should he be called a Shomer Sachar at all?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>EVEN HA'AZEL</b> (Hilchos Aveidah 13:10) explains that the finder is considered a Shomer Sachar as long as he stands to gain from guarding the object. However, when a person is a 'Mudar Hana'ah' and may not benefit from someone else, he is forbidden from having <i>actual</i> benefit, but not <i>potential</i> benefit. Since it is unlikely that the finder will encounter a poor person while he is taking care of the lost object, he is permitted to take a chance and pick up the object in order to return it, and he may assume that he will not encounter a poor person. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CHACHAM NEED NOT RETURN AN AVEIDAH BELOW HIS DIGNITY</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 29b (Mishnah):</font></b> If he finds a bag, box or anything
               that normally he would not carry it, he leaves it
               there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 30a (Beraisa):</font></b> We learn from 'v'His'alamta' -
               sometimes you ignore an Aveidah, and sometimes not.
               If a Chacham sees an Aveidah that it is undignified
               for him to carry it, he ignores it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 30b (Rabah):</font></b> If the Chacham hit the animal (so it
               will return to its owner), he is obligated to return
               it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Abaye saw some goats. He threw a clod of earth at
               them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabah:</font></b> You are obligated to return them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Anything that a Chacham would take if it
               were his own, he must return if it belongs to
               another. If a Chacham would load or unload his own
               animal, he must help others load or unload.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi saw a man carrying wood.
               The man rested, then asked R. Yishmael to help him
               load the wood. R. Yishmael bought the wood (to avoid
               needing to help), and made it Hefker. The man
               acquired the wood and asked for help; R. Yishmael
               again bought it and made it Hefker.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> (Loading) wood is below the honor of R.
               Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi. He was exempt!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi went beyond the
               letter of the law.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Rif brings the Gemara.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Nimukei Yosef (DH Nischayav):</font></b> Rashi and the
                    Rambam say that once he started to return it,
                    he must fully return it. According to this, the
                    same applies to Kelim. The Ran was astounded,
                    for Bava Basra says that one must fully return
                    it only because it got used to straying! What
                    bothered the Ran? Here (in Bava Metzia) we
                    obligate full return even of Kelim that he
                    would normally take in the field!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 11:13):</font></b> If a dignified
               Chacham found a bag or box, and he does not normally
               carry such Kelim in his hand, he is not obligated to
               deal with it. He should evaluate: if he would take
               it back if it were his, he is obligated to return it
               to another. If he would not parfon his honor for his
               own, he is not obligated to return it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (14):</font></b> Similarly, if he found an animal and
               hit it, he is obligated to deal with it and return
               it, even though it is below his dignity, since he
               began the Mitzvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (17):</font></b> One who goes in a straight path and
               goes beyond the letter of the law will return an
               Aveidah in every case, even if it is below his
               dignity.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Metzi'a 2:21):</font></b> When the Torah exempted
               him, he should not disgrace his honor. It is
               forbidden to him, for he belittles the honor of
               Torah where there is no obligation. Even in a case
               of Safek (regarding an Aveidah it is not the field
               that he would not return in the city), he should not
               belittle a Safek Isur for the sake of Safek money of
               another. If a Chacham wants to go beyond the letter
               of the law, he will pardon his money (and pay the
               owner), like R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi did. If the
               Chacham hit the animal, he is obligated to return
               it. He caused it to (move, and) find good pasture
               (and it is less likely to return home).
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 263:1):</font></b> If a dignified Chacham
               found a bag or box, and he does not normally carry
               such Kelim in his hand, he is not obligated to deal
               with it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Gra (1):</font></b> The Gemara said 'Zaken'; this refers
                    to a Chacham even if he is young, like we find
                    with Abaye.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Note:</font></b> He does not infer that Abaye was young
                    because he threw earth at the goats, for if so,
                    it was not below his dignity to take them!
                    Rather, Rabah adopted Abaye, and Rabah died at
                    40.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (ibid):</font></b> He should evaluate: if he
               would take it back if it were his, he is obligated
               to return it to another. If he would not parfon his
               honor for his own, he is not obligated to return it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH ha'Motzei):</font></b> Why did Rava need to
                    say that anything that a Chacham would take if
                    it were his own, he must return if it belongs
                    to another? The Mishnah teaches this! The
                    Rambam answers this. Rava teaches that he
                    gauges if he would take his own <i>Aveidah</i>.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (2 and Prishah 1 DH Im):</font></b> He estimates: if
                    his own was in a place prone to be stolen or
                    get lost, if his concern for its loss would
                    overcome his shame. I.e. even if he normally he
                    would not carry this, but he would do so in
                    order to avoid losing it, he is obligated.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (2):</font></b> Similarly, if he found an animal
               and hit it, he is obligated to deal with it and
               return it, even though it is below his dignity,
               since he began the Mitzvah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH v'Zeh):</font></b> The Rambam says that one
                    who started to return an animal must fully
                    return it. This implies that this is only for
                    an animal. He obligates one who found Kelim in
                    the field to return them, for it is no disgrace
                    to return them even in the city, but in a place
                    where he would not normally return them, he can
                    leave them even if he began. However, his
                    reason was since he began the Mitzvah. This
                    applies even to Kelim. This was the Ran's
                    difficulty. The Rambam was not concerned for
                    the proof from Bava Basra, for it was not said
                    to explain, rather, to reject a proof.
                    Alternatively, perhaps the Rambam obligates
                    only for an animal. He means that once he began
                    returning the animal, he must finish, for if
                    not, he harmed the owner, for he accustomed it
                    to straying. The continuation of the Rambam
                    proves that this is correct. He obligates
                    returning to a guarded place only regarding
                    animals, then teaches that it is proper to go
                    beyond the letter of the law and return even
                    when it is below his dignity. The latter law
                    does not belong here! Rather, he taught it here
                    to teach that one must fully return animals
                    because they learned to stray.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> SMA (263:4):</font></b> The Rambam holds that the Gemara
                    discussed an animal to teach that even though
                    he merely hit it and made it move, he must
                    return it. Why did the Shulchan Aruch copy the
                    words of the Rambam, which can be explained in
                    two different ways (like the Beis Yosef
                    explained)?!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Taz (DH v'Chen):</font></b> The Rambam explains that in
                    Bava Metzia, the Gemara's question was whether
                    we say like the rejection in Bava Basra that
                    the obligation (for one who started) applies
                    only to animals! Since the Gemara did not
                    decide, the Rambam concluded 'since he started'
                    to show that this reason is primary. Once one
                    became involved with the Aveidah he must return
                    it, even if he did not begin to return it, like
                    Abaye and the goats.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (3):</font></b> One who goes in a straight path
               and goes beyond the letter of the law will return an
               Aveidah in every case, even if it is below his
               dignity.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH Kosav ha'Rambam):</font></b> The Rambam
                    learned from R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi. The Tur
                    omitted this because the Rosh disagreed. The
                    Rambam holds that it <i>honors</i> Hash-m for a
                    Chacham to go beyond the letter of the law and
                    return, for another, something that he would
                    not deal with if it were his own!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some disagree and forbid, for it is below his
               dignity. If he wants to go beyond the letter of the
               law, he will pay from his own money.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (28:5):</font></b> If a Yisrael asked a Chacham
               to give monetary testimony for him in a Beis Din of
               smaller Chachamim than himself, he is not obligated
               to go.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Akiva Eiger (DH Eino):</font></b> Anshei Keneses
                    ha'Gedolah says that if he wants to pardon his
                    honor and go, this is fine, for he can pardon
                    his honor. This is like an Aveidah.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>A CHACHAM WHO FOUND AN AVEIDAH BELOW HIS DIGNITY IN THE FIELD </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> This is like Rabah taught (elsewhere, that it was
          lost through Ones).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> They were stolen by armed robbers. It was
               lost, i.e. the ship sank.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Tarfon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Rachbah was holding orphans' money. He asked Rav Yosef
          whether he may use it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rav Yosef:</font></b> Rav Yehudah said that the Halachah follows R.
          Tarfon. Similarly, you may use it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Abaye):</font></b> R. Chelbo added that is only when the
          finder sold the Aveidah, since he exerted himself, but
          not when he found money;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Holding orphans' money is like finding money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	Rav Yosef agreed, and forbade Rachbah to use it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW WE CARE FOR AVEIDOS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one found Seforim (written on parchment,
          wrapped around poles), he should read in them once every
          30 days. If he does not know how to read, he rolls them
          from beginning to end;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He may not learn in it something he has not learned
               before (lest he spend a long time in one place), nor
               may two people read together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If one found a garment, he shakes it once every 30 days
          and spreads it out for its upkeep, but not for his own
          honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If one found silver or copper Kelim, he uses them for
          their upkeep, but may not wear them out.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	If one found gold or glass Kelim, he should leave them
          until Eliyahu comes and not touch them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	If he finds a bag, box or anything that usually he would
          not carry (it is below his dignity), he leaves it there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara - Shmuel):</font></b> If one found Tefilin in the market, he
          estimates their value and may wear them immediately (on
          condition that if the owner will come and give a sign, he
          will give their value to him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question (Ravina - Mishnah):</font></b> If one found Seforim, he
          should read in them once every 30 days. If he does not
          how to read, he should roll them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah does not say to estimate them and take
               them!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Tefilin are readily available to buy (the
          owner is happy to get their value). It is not easy to buy
          Seforim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>TAKING CARE OF A SEFER TORAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven borrowed Shimon's Sefer Torah, he
          may not lend it to Levi;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He opens it and reads in it, but may not learn in it
               something for the first time, nor may another person
               read with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	Similarly, if Shimon deposited his Sefer Torah with
          Reuven, Reuven rolls it every 12 months, opens it and
          reads in it. If he opened it for his own needs, he may
          not read in it;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	Sumchus says, one rolls a new Sefer Torah every 30 days.
          One rolls an old one every 12 months;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, one rolls a new or old Sefer
          Torah every 12 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Reuven borrowed Shimon's Sefer Torah, he may
          not lend it to Levi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why was this taught about a Sefer Torah? It
          applies to any borrowed object!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> A Mishnah teaches that a borrower
               may not lend to another person, and a renter may not
               rent to another!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a Sefer Torah is
          different, for one is happy that people do a Mitzvah with
          his property. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must the Beraisa teach 'he opens it and
          reads in it'? This is obvious. He borrowed it to do so!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The Chidush is the Seifa, he may not learn in it
          something for the first time.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> Similarly, if Shimon deposited his Sefer Torah
          with Reuven, Reuven rolls it every 12 months, opens it
          and read in it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #1:</font></b> Why may he use it for himself?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question #2 (Seifa):</font></b> If he opened it for his own needs,
          he may not read in it.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha on top of something him to read in it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer to both questions:</font></b> If when he is rolling it, he
          opens it and reads in it, this is permitted. If he opened
          it for himself, it is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa - Sumchus):</font></b> One rolls a new Sefer Torah every 30
          days. One rolls an old one every 12 months;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, both are rolled every 12
          months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov says just like the first
          Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Correction:</font></b> The text should say that R. Eliezer says that
          both are rolled every 30 days.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He may not learn in it something he has not
          learned before, nor should two people read together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> He may not read a Parshah in it
          and repeat it, nor read a Parshah and translate it, nor
          open it exposing more than three parchments, nor should
          three people read in one Sefer at a time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Two people may read together!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Two people may read in one Parshah, but
          not in two Parshiyos (Rashi; Rambam - just the opposite).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRACTICAL ADVICE OF R. YOCHANAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one found a garment should shake it once
          every 30 days...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Inference:</font></b> Shaking it out is good for it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan said that shaking out a garment
          every day wears out clothing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Shaking it out once in 30 days is good for it.
          Shaking it out every day harms it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> When one person shakes it out, this is good
          for it. When two people shake it out, this harms it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3:</font></b> Shaking it out by hand is good for it. Shaking
          it using a stick harms it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #4:</font></b> Shaking out a woolen garment harms it. Shaking
          out a linen garment is good for it (Rashi; Rambam - just
          the opposite).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> Drinking lukewarm water is more harmful
          than water affected by witchcraft.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is only in a metal Kli. In earthenware, there
               is no problem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even in a metal Kli, if the water was boiled, there
               is no problem.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If herbs or spices were put in the water, there is
               no problem.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(R. Yochanan):</font></b> The following deplete a person's wealth:
          wearing linen garments, using glass Kelim, and leaving
          hired workers unattended.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Wearing linen garments refers to Roman linen (it is
               expensive, and wears out quickly).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Using glass Kelim refers to 'white glass' (a very
               rare and precious crystal);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Leaving hired workers unattended refers to cases
               like plowers (they can ruin the field and the
               cattle).
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) DOES 'EIN HA'SOCHER RASHAI L'HASKIR' APPLY TO LAND AND HOUSES?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara quotes Rebbi who states that a renter may not rent to a third party the object he rented, and a borrower may not lend to someone else the object he borrowed. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Kan Shanah Rebbi) explains that the reasoning behind this Halachah is that the owner may say, 'I only trusted you with my object, not anyone else.'
</p><p>
Does this Halachah apply to all forms of property, including land and houses, or only to Metaltelin (movable objects) such as those discussed in the Gemara here?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Sechirus 5:2) writes that if one who rents a house wants to rent it out to someone else, he is permitted to do so as long as the number of people living in the house with the current renter is equal to or less than the number of people to whom he wants to rent it. The Rambam explains that the Chachamim's rule that a renter may not rent to a third party applies only to Metaltelin. Only in the case of Metaltelin can the owner claim that he did not want his object given to anyone else. However, in the case of land the owner cannot make such a claim. The Rambam apparently maintains that the owner may make such a claim only for Metaltelin because a movable object is prone to become damaged or lost, while houses and land are unlikely to be damaged or lost. The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> quotes the <b>MAHARAM</b> who cites proofs for the Rambam's ruling. The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (CM 316:1) rules in accordance with the Rambam.
</p><p>
(b) The Rambam quotes a dissenting opinion that states that one may not rent an apartment to another renter. This seems to be the position of the <b>RA'AVAD</b> who mentions such an opinion and explains that since some people destroy a house when they live in it and fail to take care of it properly, the owner may claim that he did not want anyone else to use the house other than the person to whom he rented it.
</p><p>
The <b>SHIMRU MISHPAT</b> (ch. 70) writes that although the Halachah follows the Rambam, a renter should not rent out the house without the consent of the owner, or without an explicit condition in the contract permitting him to do so. Customs in monetary law have the status of Halachah, and thus one may not rent out the house without first consulting with the owner. This is also the opinion of the <b>PISCHEI CHOSHEN</b> (Hilchos Sechirus 4:22) and the <b>MISHPETEI HA'TORAH</b> (Sechirus). The Shimru Mishpat adds that if the renter rented out the house without permission from the owner, the owner has the right to collect any extra money which resulted from that rental (such as when the renter charged more than he was paying himself). (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CARE FOR KELIM</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> He spreads it out for its upkeep, but not for
          his own honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> May he spread it out for its upkeep and for his
          own honor?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> He spreads it out for its upkeep.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> For its upkeep and his own honor are
               forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Reisha):</font></b> He may not spread it out for his
               own honor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> For its upkeep and for his own honor
                    is permitted!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> The inferences contradict one another.
               We cannot determine which is correct. The Mishnah is
               not a proof either way.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> He may not spread it on a bed, nor
          on a peg for his needs. If guests came, he may not do
          this for his needs and its sake together.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  	Rejection There is different, for it will be ruined,
          either due to Ayin ha'Ra (envy), or lest it be stolen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> If a calf was brought to a team of
          yoked animals, and it threshed, (this is not considered
          that the owner worked with it, so) it is not disqualified
          from being an Eglah Arufah (a calf beheaded for atonement
          when a murdered body is found);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it was brought in so it will nurse and thresh, it
               is disqualified.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This teaches that intent for its and the owner's
               benefit is like intent for the owner's benefit
               alone!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #1:</font></b> Eglah Arufah is different. It says 'Asher
          Lo Uvad Bah (work was not done with it)' - at all.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Objection:</font></b> If so, also in the first case it should be
          disqualified!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection #2:</font></b> This is like the law of Parah Adumah (the 
          red heifer):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a bird rested on a Parah Adumah, it is
               not disqualified. If a male mated with it, it is
               disqualified.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This is like Rav Papa's teaching (about
               Eglah Arufah);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Had the Torah written 'Uvad (was
                    worked)', and we would read it 'Uvad', we would
                    disqualify it even if it worked by itself;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Had the Torah written 'Ovad (he worked (with
                    it))', and we would read it 'Ovad', we would
                    disqualify it only if he worked with it;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Rather, the Torah wrote 'Ovad', and tradition
                    says to pronounce it 'Uvad'. We disqualify it
                    if Uvad (it worked) similar to Ovad (he worked
                    with it), i.e. he is pleased that it worked.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If one found silver or copper Kelim, he uses
          them...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> If one found wooden Kelim, he uses them so
          they will not rot. Copper Kelim may be used with hot
          food, but he may not put them over a fire;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  	Silver Kelim may be used with cold food, but not with hot
          food, for this blackens them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  	Shovels (for sweeping ashes) and axes should be used
          gently, not roughly, for this blunts them;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  	Gold or glass Kelim should be left until Eliyahu comes.
          One may not touch them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  	The laws of an Aveidah apply also to a deposit (with a
          Shomer Chinam or Shomer Sachar).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why should one use a deposit? (The owner will
          use it as often as he thinks is proper!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, the owner went overseas.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN AVEIDAH BELOW THE DIGNITY OF THE FINDER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If he finds a bag, box or anything that
          normally he would not carry it, he leaves it there.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the source for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> 'V'His'alamta' - sometimes you ignore
          an Aveidah, and sometimes not;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Kohen sees an Aveidah in a cemetery, or a
               Chacham sees an Aveidah that it is undignified for
               him to carry it, or if the Aveidah is worth less
               than what the finder will lose by ceasing from his
               work to return it, he ignores it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> For which of these was the verse needed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is for a Kohen who sees an Aveidah in
               a cemetery.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This is obvious, no verse is needed!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Returning an Aveidah is an Aseh (positive
                    Mitzvah). A Lav (negative Mitzvah) and an Aseh
                    ('Kedoshim Yihyu') forbid a Kohen to become
                    Tamei. An Aseh does not override a Lav and an
                    Aseh!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Also, we do not override Isurim for (Mitzvos
                    pertaining to) money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Rather, the verse is needed for when the
          cessation from his work exceeds the value of the Aveidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> We know that from Rav Yehudah's law!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'Lo Yihyeh Becha Evyon (do not bring
               yourself to poverty)' - (avoiding) your own loss
               takes precedence.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE MULTIPLE MITZVOS OF 'HASHAVAS AVEIDAH'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa lists several cases in which a person is exempt from the obligation to return a lost object. One of these cases is that of a Kohen who is exempt from returning a lost object that is in a cemetery. This exemption is learned from the word, 'v'His'alamta' -- 'And hide yourself from them,' in the verse, 'You shall not see the bull of your brother or his sheep cast off, and hide yourself from them; you must certainly return them to your brother' (Devarim 22:1). Although the simple explanation of the verse is an injunction against hiding oneself from returning a lost object, the Beraisa derives from the unusual wording that sometimes one is <i>supposed</i> to hide himself, such as when he is a Kohen and the lost object is in a cemetery.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks why the Beraisa needs to derive the exemption in this case from the verse. Even without the verse, one would know that a Kohen is exempt from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah when the lost object is in a cemetery, because the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah is only a Mitzvas Aseh, while the Kohen's obligation to avoid becoming Tamei is both a Mitzvah Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh. A Mitzvas Aseh does not override an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh together.
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara say that the Mitzvas Aseh of Hashavas Aveidah does not override the Kohen's obligation to avoid Tum'ah? There is not even a Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah in this case! The Gemara earlier (26b) states that a person transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh of 'Hashev Teshivem' only when he picks up the object and does not return it. If he merely ignores the object, he transgresses only the Lo Ta'aseh of 'Lo Suchal l'His'alem' (Devarim 22:3). In the case of the lost object in the cemetery, the Kohen never picks up the object. Why is there a Mitzvas Aseh of Hashavas Aveidah at all in this case? (<b>RAMBAN</b>)
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that the Beraisa's case is one in which a Kohen already picked up the object (from a place which was not Tamei) in order to return it, and afterwards the wind blew it out of his hands into a cemetery.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, the Ramban answers that although the Mitzvas Aseh of Hashavas Aveidah ('Hashev Teshivem') did not take effect (since the Kohen did not pick up the lost object), the Lo Ta'aseh of Hashavas Aveidah ('Lo Suchal l'His'alem') would have overrode the Kohen's obligation to avoid Tum'ah had that obligation been only a Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAN</b> disagrees with the Ramban and asserts that a person who does not pick up a lost object <i>does</i> transgress the Mitzvas Aseh of 'Hashev Teshivem.' How does the Ran understand the Gemara earlier (26b) which says that when a person waits and does not pick up a lost object until he knows that the owner of the object had Ye'ush, and then he takes the object for himself, he transgresses only 'Lo Suchal l'His'alem'? The Ran explains that the Gemara there refers to a person who watches the lost object until the owner has Ye'ush. Such a person does not transgress 'Hashev Teshivem' since he is watching the object the entire time, ensuring that nothing happens to it. Even though he watches it for selfish reasons, he is acting in a manner which would ensure the protection of the object and its safe return to its owner. When the owner has Ye'ush, he gives up hope of retrieving his object and effectively lets whoever finds it keep it. On the other hand, when a person sees a lost object and walks away from it, he immediately transgresses 'Hashev Teshivem' since he does not guard the lost object at all. Accordingly, the Gemara says that if the Kohen walks away from the lost object he transgresses the Mitzvas Aseh of 'Hashev Teshivem.'
</p><p>
It is interesting to note that <b>RASHI</b> (DH Hai Aseh) is bothered by a different question. If the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah includes a prohibition of 'Lo Suchal l'His'alem' as the Gemara earlier says, then why does the Gemara here not mention that Hashavas Aveidah is both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh, like the Kohen's obligation to avoid Tum'ah? Rashi answers that the Lo Ta'aseh of Hashavas Aveidah does not affect the law that an Aseh does not override an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh; that is, it does not make the Aseh more powerful. The Gemara in Yevamos (21a) states that the only type of Mitzvah which can override another Mitzvah is a Mitzvas Aseh, not a Mitzvas Lo Ta'aseh. The Gemara therefore does not bother to mention the Lo Ta'aseh of Hashavas Aveidah. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CHACHAM WHO FOUND AN AVEIDAH BELOW HIS DIGNITY IN THE FIELD</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 29b (Mishnah):</font></b> If he finds a bag, box or anything
               that normally he would not carry it, he leaves it
               there.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 30a (Beraisa):</font></b> We learn from 'v'His'alamta' -
               sometimes you ignore an Aveidah, and sometimes not.
               If a Chacham sees an Aveidah that it is undignified
               for him to carry it, he ignores it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 30b - Question:</font></b> If the Chacham would return it in
               the field (where few see him), but not in the city,
               must he take it from the field to return it to the
               city?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since he is not obligated to fully return it,
                    he need not start;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Or, in the field, he is obligated to take it,
                    and once he starts, he must finish!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rabah):</font></b> If the Chacham hit the animal (so it will
               return to its owner), he is obligated to return it.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif:</font></b> The Gemara did not resolve the question of an
               Aveidah that a Chacham would return it in the field,
               but not in the city. Therefore, he does not return
               it in the city.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Hagahos Chavos Ya'ir (2):</font></b> The text of the Rif
                    should say like the Rosh cites, '... but not in
                    the city, <i>and</i> he does not return it in the
                    city.'
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Nimukei Yosef (DH Kosav):</font></b> The Rif connotes that
                    he need not begin in the field, in order that
                    he will not need to finish in the city. Rashi
                    connotes similarly. Since the question was not
                    settled, he need not begin, but if he began, he
                    must finish even in the city, like one who hit
                    an animal. The Rambam obligates a full return.
                    It seems that he explained (the question) like
                    Rashi. It seems that the scribe erred and wrote
                    'he does not return.' The text of the Rif
                    should say 'he returns', like the Rambam. Since
                    it is clear that if he began, he must finish,
                    and it is a Safek mid'Oraisa whether he must
                    begin, we should say that he begins, for this
                    is the Mitzvah of a Chacham that it is below
                    his dignity, just like one who saw his Aveidah
                    and it is worth more than his friend's (he may
                    opt to do the Mitzvah to save his friend's).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Beis Yosef (CM 263 DH Kosav Nimukei):</font></b> The
                    Nimukei Yosef never considered that the Rif
                    could have a different text. He assumed that he
                    had our text, which requires full return, or
                    totally exempts. This forced him to explain
                    that the Rif totally exempts. If so, the Rif
                    should have simply said 'he does not return.'
                    Why did he add 'in the city?' Rather, the Rif's
                    text was like the Rosh said.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos Gezeilah 11:13):</font></b> If a dignified
               Chacham found a bag or box, and he does not normally
               carry such Kelim in his hand, he is not obligated to
               deal with it. If he would normally return such Kelim
               in a field, but not in the city, if he found them in
               the city, he need not return them. If he found them
               in the field, he must return them to the owner's
               premises, even though it is in the city and normally
               he does not carry them there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Akiva Eiger (Teshuvah 1:193 DH v'Nir'eh):
                    This is like Tosfos (25b DH v'Im), who says
                    that Rabah obligates only for animals, for he
                    caused them to stray. This is in the city,
                    where he does not become a Shomer Aveidah for
                    other things. In the field he must return
                    everything (at least until the city), and since
                    he became a Shomer Aveidah, he cannot leave it,
                    and must fully return it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rosh (Bava Metzi'a 2:21):</font></b> If a Chacham found an
               Aveidah in a field, which normally he would carry in
               a field but not in the city, since he is exempt from
               a full return, perhaps he is totally exempt. The
               Gemara never settled the question. Some say that we
               are stringent, and he is obligated. I say that since
               the Torah exempted him, for he should not disgrace
               his honor, it is forbidden to him, for he belittles
               the honor of Torah where there is no obligation. The
               Rif said that the Gemara did not resolve this
               question; and he does not return it in the city. It
               seems that his text of the Gemara said 'perhaps in
               the field, in any case, he must return it. Or, a
               full return is required, and since he is not
               obligated in the city, he is not obligated even in
               the field.' He rules stringently, and requires
               returning in the field, for there he does not
               disgrace his honor. This is unlike 'if the Chacham
               hit the animal, he is obligated to return it.'
               There, he caused it to stray (and it is less likely
               to return home). Here, he brought it to (just
               outside the city,) a place more guarded than where
               he found it.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Lechem Mishneh 11:13 and Gra CM
                    263:2):</font></b> If this was the Rif's text, why did the
                    Rif say 'therefore he does not return in the
                    city'? There was no Hava Amina to return in the
                    city!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Lechem Mishneh):</font></b> The Rif's text said
                    that surely he must return in the field. The
                    question was whether he must return in the
                    city. He concluded that he does not, for this
                    would disgrace his honor.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shulchan Aruch (CM 263:2):</font></b> (If a dignified Chacham
               found a bag or box, and he does not normally carry
               such Kelim in his hand...) if he would normally
               return such Kelim in a field, but not in the city,
               if he found them in the city, he need not return
               them. If he found them in the field, he must return
               them until reaching the owner's premises, even
               though it is in the city and he normally does not
               carry them there.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Yosef (DH veha'Rambam):</font></b> The Rambam holds
                    that since the question was not settled, we are
                    stringent and obligate a full return.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema:</font></b> Some say that he does not return in the city.
               He just brings them from the field to the city, and
               leaves them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Beis Yosef DH v'Chosav):</font></b> The Tur said
                    that this is the Rosh's opinion. This is wrong!
                    The Rosh's text of the Gemara said that either
                    he is totally exempt, or he is totally
                    obligated!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense #1 (of Tur - Darchei Moshe 1):</font></b> The Rosh
                    holds that the exemption is because it
                    disgraces the honor of the Chacham's Torah.
                    Surely he is liable to return in the field,
                    when no one sees and there is no disgrace, even
                    though he need not return in the city!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Hagahos Prishah (1 and Drishah 1):</font></b> The Gemara
                    said that either the law of the city is drawn
                    after that of the field, or vice-versa. Since
                    the question was not resolved, we must be
                    stringent as long as there is no Isur in our
                    stringency. The Gemara asked whether the Torah
                    obligates fully returning. If it does, we are 
                    not concerned for disgrace. There is no
                    disgrace in doing a Mitzvah! Even though the
                    Rosh connotes that one returns it only until
                    the city only according to the Rif's text, the
                    Rema must explain that what is logically
                    reasonable according to our text, is clear from
                    the Gemara according to the Rif's text.
                    However, Tur cites in the name of the Rosh the
                    opinion that fully obligates, and says 'just
                    the opposite!' I.e., he is totally exempt
                    (according to our text). The Tur holds that the
                    Rosh prefers the opinion and text of the Rif,
                    for he brought it last.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Defense #2 (of Tur - Taz DH Ela):</font></b> If the
                    exemption is only due to disgrace, and this is
                    only in the city, once we obligate in the
                    field, he should need to return even in the
                    city! It seems that there is a Mitzvah to
                    return it in the field (to just outside the
                    city) since it is guarded better there than in
                    the field, like the Rosh says according to the
                    Rif, so he does this return beyond the letter
                    of the law. This answers the Beis Yosef's
                    question. Had the Rif concluded this way from
                    his own reasoning, he would have mentioned the
                    Isur to return when one is exempt, like the
                    Rosh mentioned. Rather, the Rif merely rules
                    that one is exempt (in the city), not that
                    there is an Isur to return.
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>A CHACHAM NEED NOT RETURN AN AVEIDAH BELOW HIS DIGNITY </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the verse is needed for a Chacham who
          finds something below his dignity.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rabah):</font></b> If the Chacham hit the animal (so it will return
          to its owner), he is obligated to return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  	Abaye saw some goats. He threw a clod of earth at them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rabah:</font></b> You are obligated to return them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If the Chacham would return it in the field
          (where few people see him), but not in the city, must he
          take it from the field to return it to the city?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since he is not obligated to fully return it, he
               need not start;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, in the field, he is obligated to take it, and
               once he starts, he must finish!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This question is not resolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> Anything that a Chacham would take if it were his
          own, he must return if it belongs to another;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If a Chacham would load or unload his own animal, he
               must help others load or unload.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  	R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi saw a man carrying wood. The man
          rested, then asked R. Yishmael to help him load the wood.
          R. Yishmael bought the wood (to avoid needing to help),
          and made it Hefker. The man acquired the wood and asked
          for help; R. Yishmael again bought it and made it Hefker.
          He saw the man going to acquire it again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	R. Yishmael:</font></b> It is Hefker to all except for you.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> That is not Hefker!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - Beis Shamai):</font></b> If something is Hefker only
               for poor people to take, it is Hefker (and is exempt
               from Ma'aser);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel say, it is Hefker only if rich and poor
               may take it, like Shemitah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, R. Yishmael made it Hefker for all. He
          deceived the man, lest he take it again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> (Loading) wood is below the honor of R.
          Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi. He was exempt!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi went beyond the letter
          of the law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'V'Hodata Lahem' is learning a trade
               (some explain - Torah). 'Ha'Derech' is Chesed.
               'Asher Yelchu Vah' is Bikur Cholim (investigating
               the needs of sick). 'Vah' is burying the dead.
               'Ha'Ma'aseh' is the law. 'Asher Ya'asun' is going
               beyond the letter of the law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Bikur Cholim is included in Chesed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah must teach about Ben Gilo (someone
               with the same Mazel as himself).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It was taught that if one visits Ben Gilo, one
                    part in 60 of the sickness goes from the Choleh
                    to the visitor.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The verse obligates Bikur Cholim even in this
                    case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Burying the dead is included in Chesed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah must teach about a Chacham for
               whom it is beneath his dignity to dig. (For burial,
               he is obligated.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Yerushalayim was destroyed only
               because they judged like Torah law.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How should they have judged, using
               torture?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He means, they adhered to the law, and did
               not go beyond the letter of the law.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS CONSIDERED LOST?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> What is an Aveidah? If a donkey or cow was
          grazing on the path, this is not considered lost;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Kelim on a donkey are reversed, or a cow is
               running through a vineyard, this is an Aveidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	If he returned it and it got lost again, he returned it
          and it got lost again, even four or five times, he must
          return it - 'Hashiv Teshivem'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If in the time Reuven spent returning the Aveidah, he
          lost one Sela of earnings, he may not demand compensation
          of one Sela. Rather, he is paid like a worker (this will
          be explained).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (If he wants full compensation,) if there is a Beis
               Din there, he stipulates with Beis Din. If not, he
               is exempt from returning, for he would lose money.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does the Mishnah ask 'what is an
          Aveidah?' The previous Mishnayos gave many examples!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Mishnah asks how to discern
          whether or not something is an Aveidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If a donkey or cow was grazing on the path, no
          matter how long, will we say that it is not an Aveidah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Until three days, it is not an
          Aveidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> At night, even after a moment, it is an Aveidah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> During the day, even more than three days, it is not
               an Aveidah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> The case is, he saw it before dawn or at dusk.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> For three days, we say that it just occurred that
               way. After this, we say that it is an Aveidah.
<br>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'ZAKEN V'EINO LEFI CHEVODO'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara concludes that the exemption from Hashavas Aveidah which is derived from the verse of 'v'His'alamta' is the case of a 'Zaken v'Eino Lefi Chevodo' -- 'an old man, and it is not according to his honor.'
</p><p>
Although the word 'Zaken' commonly refers to an old man, the Gemara in Kidushin (32b; see Insights there) says that it refers to 'one who has acquired wisdom,' a Torah scholar. <b>RASHI</b> there explains the word 'Zaken' is an acronym for 'Zeh she'Kanah' Chochmah -- 'this one has acquired' wisdom. Does the Gemara here use the word 'Zaken' in this context, or in the context of its common meaning ('old man')?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RITVA</b> writes that the exemption from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah applies to a Torah scholar. It is only because he represents the honor of the Torah that he is exempt from returning a lost object which is degrading to the honor of the Torah. Similarly, the Ritva in Shevuos (30a) writes that this exemption applies only to a Talmid Chacham and not to a rich man, even though returning such an object may be below the rich man's dignity. This is also the opinion of the <b>RAMBAN</b>.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b> argues that 'Zaken' refers to both a Torah scholar and any old person, <i>and</i> to anyone else whose honor is such that he would not carry around his own possession like this one (the lost object) in public.
</p><p>
This is also the ruling of the <b>TUR</b> (CM 263), who does not even mention the word 'Zaken' when he records the Halachah. He writes simply, 'One who finds a lost object and it is disgraceful to him to return it.'
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (32a) adds that women are exempt from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah because of the precept, 'Kol Kevudah Bas Melech Penimah' (Tehilim 45:14).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Aveidah 11:13) seems to have a third opinion. He writes that 'if one is a scholar or an honored Zaken.' The <b>PRI YITZCHAK</b> (1:52) infers that the Rambam defines a 'Zaken' is not just a Torah scholar, but also an elder. Nevertheless, the fact that the Rambam does not mention an honored <i>rich</i> person implies that he maintains that 'Zaken v'Eino Lefi Chevodo' does <i>not</i> exempt an honorable rich person from the obligation of Hashavas Aveidah. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 42
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT IS CONSIDERED LOST? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (Beraisa):</font></b> If one found a garment or axe on a
          paved road, or a cow running through a vineyard, it is an
          Aveidah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  	A garment or axe next to the fence, or a cow grazing in
          the vineyard (Gra - in the grass) is not an Aveidah
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  	If this persisted for three straight days, it is an
          Aveidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  	If Reuven saw water coming to flood Shimon's field. he
          should block it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Rava):</font></b> 'L'Chol Aveidas Achicha' includes land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Support (R. Chananyah - Beraisa):</font></b> If Reuven saw water
          coming to flood Shimon's field, he should block it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rava):</font></b> Perhaps this is only when there are
          (detached) sheaves in the field.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> If so, surely he must save them! (They are like
          the examples of Aveidos in the Torah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> Really, the sheaves need to remain attached a bit
          longer. One might have thought that they are considered
          like land (and Hashavas Aveidah does not apply to them).
          The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> A donkey or cow...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> The inferences contradict each other!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says that if it was grazing on the path, it is
               not an Aveidah. This implies that if it was running
               on the path or grazing in a vineyard, it would be an
               Aveidah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Then it says that a cow running through vineyards is
               an Aveidah. This implies that if it was running on
               the path or grazing in a vineyard, it would not be
               an Aveidah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> Each case teaches about a similar
          case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it was grazing on the path, it is not an Aveidah.
               The same applies if they were grazing in a vineyard!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it was running through vineyards, it is an
               Aveidah. The same applies if it was running on a
               path!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection (Rava):</font></b> If each case teaches about a similar
          case, it should teach the bigger Chidush each time!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It should teach that running on the path is an
               Aveidah, and all the more so, running in a vineyard!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It should teach that grazing in a vineyard is not an
               Aveidah, and all the more so, grazing on the path!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Running is an Aveidah if it is heading
          away from the city, but not if it is heading to the city;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A grazing animal is not an Aveidah, but it is a loss
               for the landowner!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> It says that grazing on the path is not an Aveidah.
               Grazing in a vineyard is an Aveidah, i.e. a loss to
               the vineyard;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> It says that a cow running through vineyards is an
               Aveidah. Grazing in a vineyard is not an Aveidah.
               This refers to the animal;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  It gets wounded when running through a
                    vineyard, but not when grazing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Grazing in a vineyard is an Aveidah, i.e. to
          the vineyard!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is a Kusi's vineyard.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> It is a potential loss of the animal. Perhaps
          the Kusi will kill it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> It is in a place where they warn before killing
          the animal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps he already warned about it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> If so, the owner knowingly gives up his animal.
          We are not commanded to save it.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MITZVOS THAT MUST BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If he returned it and it got lost again, he
          returned it and it got lost again...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should say that 'Hashiv' teaches that it
          must be returned once, and 'Teshivem' teaches a second
          time (but no more)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> 'Hashiv' connotes even 100 times;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Teshivem' teaches that one may return not only to
               his house, rather, even to his garden or fallen
               house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If it is guarded there, obviously, it is
                    returned!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If it is not guarded there, why is it
                    considered returned?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Really, it is guarded. The Beraisa teaches
               that the owner need not know that it was returned;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> All thieves and Shomrim must
                    inform the owners when returning the object.
                    Only an Aveidah may be returned without the
                    owner's knowledge, for the Torah included many
                    ways to return it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should say that 'Shale'ach (send)' obligates
          sending (a bird crouching on eggs or chicks) once, and
          'Teshalach' teaches a second time (but no more)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> 'Shale'ach' connotes even 100 times;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Teshalach' obligates sending the bird even if he
               needs it for a Mitzvah (e.g. Taharas Metzora).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> We should say that 'Hoche'ach' obligates
          rebuking once, and 'Tochi'ach' teaches a second time (but
          no more)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Rava):</font></b> 'Hoche'ach' connotes even 100 times;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Tochi'ach' teaches that even a Talmid must rebuke
               his Rebbi.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>LOADING AND UNLOADING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Azov Ta'azov Imo' obligates helping
          to unload only if the owner helps!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> 'Azov Ta'azov' obligates even if the owner
          cannot help.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps 'Hakem Takim Imo' obligates helping
          to load only if the owner helps!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Rejection:</font></b> 'Hakem Takim' obligates even if the owner
          cannot help.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must the Torah write both Mitzvos, loading
          and unloading?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #1:</font></b> Both are needed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only unloading, one might have thought
               that this is due to pain to the animal and a
               monetary loss to the owner (the animal gets weaker),
               but these do not apply to loading;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about loading, one might have
               thought that that is because he is paid, but there
               would be no Mitzvah to unload for free.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> R. Shimon says that also loading is for free.
          How can he answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer #2:</font></b> He says that there is no indication which
          verse discusses loading and which discusses unloading.
          Had the Torah written only one, we would assume there is
          a Mitzvah only to unload.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why must the Torah write both these Mitzvos and
          the Mitzvah of returning an Aveidah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> All are needed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only loading and unloading, one might
               have thought that that it because there is pain both
               to the owner and animal, but regarding an Aveidah,
               there is pain only to the owner;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only returning an Aveidah, one might
               have thought that that it because the owner is not
               there (to save his object), but regarding loading
               and unloading, the owner is there, so he could hire
               people to help him!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) 'HOCHEI'ACH TOCHI'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites many verses which contain an apparent redundancy, and it explains what the Torah intends to teach with each 'extra' word. One of these verses is, 'Hochei'ach Tochi'ach' -- 'You shall rebuke' (Vayikra 19:17). The Gemara explains that the word 'Hochei'ach' teaches that one should rebuke a sinner even one hundred times. The additional word 'Tochi'ach' teaches that even if a student sees his Rebbi transgress, he should rebuke him.
</p><p>
This teaching seems to contradict the Gemara in Erchin (16b). The Gemara there says that if one gives rebuke and the sinner does not accept the rebuke, one should continue to rebuke the sinner. The Gemara there derives this from the 'Tochi'ach.' This implies that the word 'Hochei'ach' alone does <i>not</i> imply that one should continue to rebuke a sinner. How are these two Gemaras to be reconciled?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RAN</b>, and other Rishonim explain that the Gemara in Erchin refers to a case in which the sinner transgress a specific sin repeatedly, while the Gemara here refers to a case in which the sinner transgresses different sins. One might have thought that only when he sees a person transgress different sins is he obligated to rebuke him continually, since the transgressor might not know that what he is doing is forbidden, or he might be doing it only because no one informed him of how severe a sin it really is. Even if he was originally rebuked about a severe sin and did not listen, it is possible that he had a very strong desire to do that particular sin but upon being rebuked he will listen and not commit a less severe sin which he is not temped to do. The Gemara here derives from the word 'Hochei'ach' that one must rebuke a person for different sins. However, once a person has rebuked the sinner about a particular sin but the sinner continues to transgress, one might have thought that he is no longer obligated to rebuke the sinner for that particular sin. The Gemara in Erchin derives from the word 'Tochi'ach' that one must continue to rebuke the sinner even for a single sin.
</p><p>
The Ramban and Ran ask that this does not seem to answer the questions satisfactorily. The Gemara here derives from 'Tochi'ach' that one is obligated to rebuke even his Rebbi if he sees him transgress, while the Gemara in Erchin derives from the same word 'Tochi'ach' that one should give rebuke a second time for the same sin. How can the two Gemaras learn a different law from the same word ('Tochi'ach')? The Ramban and Ran answer that these two laws are really the same: one should give rebuke to any person who sins, whether the sinner has already been rebuked for this sin, or whether the sinner is one's Rebbi.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos De'os 6:4) quotes the <b>YERA'IM</b> who explains that the Gemara here means that even if the sinner repeatedly <i>forgets</i> that his deed is wrong, one should keep reminding him. The Gemara in Erchin (16b) refers to a case in which it is clear that the sinner knows that his action is wrong but he does it anyway. The Gemara there derives from the word 'Tochi'ach' that one nevertheless should keep rebuking him for his wrongdoing. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>

loi:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>UNTIL WHEN MUST ONE REBUKE?</font></b>
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (a)</b>  Gemara</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps Hoche'ach obligates rebuking
               once, and Tochi'ach teaches a second time (but no
               more)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rava):</font></b> Hoche'ach connotes even 100 times.
               Tochi'ach teaches that even a Talmid must rebuke his
               Rebbi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Erchin 16b (Beraisa):</font></b> If the transgressor did not
               accept the rebuke, one must rebuke him again. We
               learn from 'Tochi'ach' - in any case.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> This is even if he will blush from
               embarrassment!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'V'Lo Sisa Alav Chet'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> To what extent must one rebuke?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav):</font></b> One must rebuke until the point
               that the transgressor is ready to hit him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Shmuel):</font></b> One must rebuke until he is
               ready to curse him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #3 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> One must rebuke until he
               gets angry.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b> Tana'im argued like the Amora'im. In a Beraisa, R.
               Eliezer, R. Yehoshua and Ben Azai say like Rav.
               Shmuel and R. Yochanan, respectively
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>11. </font></b></b> All expound 'va'Yichar Af Sha'ul bi'Yehonason...
               va'Yatel Sha'ul Es ha'Chanis Lehakoso.' The three
               opinions learn from 'Lehakoso', 'l'Voshtecha
               ul'Voshes Ervas Imecha'; and 'va'Yichar Af Sha'ul',
               respectively.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>12. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (against the third opinion):</font></b> Even after
               Sha'ul was angry, Yonason rebuked him to the point
               of hitting and cursing!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>13. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Yonason loved David exceedingly, therefore
               he rebuked his father (for wanting to kill David for
               no reason) more than one is required to.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>14. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shabbos 55a:</font></b> R. Zeira asked R. Simon to protest
               against the household of the Reish Galusa. Simon
               said that it would not help.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>15. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Zeira:</font></b> Still, you should protest (you do not know
               for sure)!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>16. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> 148b - Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> A Mishnah
               forbids, on Yom Tov, to clap hands on each other or
               over the heart, or dance (lest one fix a musical
               instrument). People do this, and we do not protest!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>17. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Abaye):</font></b> Rava taught that one
               should not sit even with the Lechi, lest something
               roll away, and he will retrieve it. People set jugs
               down and sit there, and we do not protest!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>18. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer to both questions (Abaye):</font></b> We are silent
               because (they will not listen, and) it is better
               that Yisraelim transgress b'Shogeg than b'Mezid!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>19. </font></b></b> This is even for an Isur mid'Oraisa. Mid'Oraisa, one
               must add to the fast of Yom Kipur (before
               nightfall). Women eat until night, and we do not
               protest!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>20. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Yevamos 65b (R. Ilai):</font></b> Just like it is a Mitzvah to
               say something that will be heeded, it is a Mitzvah
               not to say something that will not be heeded.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>21. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Aba):</font></b> This is an obligation - 'don't rebuke a
               scoffer, lest he hate you. Rebuke a Chacham, and he
               will love you.'
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (b)</b>  Rishonim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (17a and Yevamos 6:21):</font></b> Just like it is
               a Mitzvah to say something that will be heeded, it
               is a Mitzvah not to say something that will not be
               heeded. 'Don't rebuke a scoffer, lest he hate you.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rif and Rosh (Beitzah 16b and 4:2):</font></b> We do not
               protest against people who clap hands or dance on
               Yom Tov because it is better that Yisraelim
               transgress b'Shogeg than b'Mezid. This is only if we
               are sure that they will not listen. If it is
               possible that they will listen, we protest. This
               applies even to a mid'Oraisa transgression.
               Mid'Oraisa, one must add to Inuy (begin fasting
               before nightfall), yet some eat until night, and we
               do not protest!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rambam (Hilchos De'os 6:7):</font></b> If one gave rebuke and
               it was not accepted, he must rebuke a second and
               third time. He must rebuke constantly until the
               transgressor hits him and says that he will not
               listen.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (SMaG):</font></b> Why does the Rambam rule like
                    Rav against R. Yochanan (who says that it
                    suffices to rebuke until the transgressor gets
                    angry)?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Kesef Mishneh):</font></b> R. Yochanan holds
                    like Ben Azai, and surely the Halachah does not
                    follow Ben Azai against R. Eliezer and R.
                    Yehoshua (the Rebbi'im of Ben Azai's Rebbi, R.
                    Akiva). The Halachah follows Rav against
                    Shmuel. Alternatively, the Rambam is stringent
                    to rule like Rav.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Note:</font></b> The Gemara connotes that the Amora'im had
                    not heard the opinions of the Tana'im in the
                    Beraisa. The Kesef Mishneh must say that R.
                    Yochanan would not have ruled like Ben Azai had
                    he known that R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua
                    disagree with him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection (Lechem Mishneh):</font></b> Likewise, we should
                    say that the Halachah does not follow R.
                    Eliezer, for he is Shemuti!
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Lechem Mishneh):</font></b> The Halachah does
                    not follow R. Yochanan because the verse
                    mentions hitting and cursing. The answer given
                    is inadequate.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Hagahos Chavos Ya'ir (on the Rif, 5):</font></b> Ben Azai
                    holds that Yonason rebuked more than is
                    required due to his love for David. If so, what
                    is the source to require rebuking to the point
                    of anger?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer #3 (Gra OC 608:2 DH Ad):</font></b> The Halachah
                    does not follow R. Yochanan against Rav and
                    Shmuel. (Both of them say that Yonason did not
                    go beyond the letter of the law.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Sefer ha'Chinuch (239):</font></b> One must rebuke until the
               point of hitting, i.e. the transgressor is on the
               verge of hitting him. If one sees that his rebuke
               will have no effect, due to the great evil of the
               sinner, or if the sinner is intimidating and might
               kill him, he is exempt.
<br><b><font color='darkgreen'> <b>    (c)</b>  Poskim</font></b>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rema (OC 608:2):</font></b> If one knows that his words will
               not be heeded, he should rebuke publicly only once.
               However, privately one should rebuke until the point
               that the transgressor is ready to hit or curse him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Source (Gra DH Rak):</font></b> In Shabbos (55a) R. Simon
                    thought that he was exempt from rebuking
                    because the rebuke needed to be in public (but
                    he knew that privately one must rebuke
                    repeatedly).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Taz (2):</font></b> Tosfos (Bava Basra 60b DH Mutav)
                    learns from Shabbos 55a that if one is unsure
                    if his rebuke will be heeded, he must rebuke.
                    Shabbos 148b teaches that one does not rebuke
                    if he knows that it will not be heeded.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Magen Avraham (3):</font></b> The Rema discusses when the
                    transgressor is Shogeg. If he is Mezid, one is
                    not punished like him, but if he does not
                    rebuke, he transgresses a Mitzvas Aseh. One
                    must rebuke him until he gets angry.
                    Afterwards, one may not rebuke him - 'don't
                    rebuke a scoffer'. For an Isur in private, one
                    rebukes in private. For an Isur in public, one
                    rebukes immediately, to avert Chilul Hash-m.
                    Semak rules like the opinion that one must
                    rebuke to the point of anger. Sefer Chasidim
                    says that this applies to a friend. One should
                    not rebuke one who will hate him and take
                    vengeance.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Levushei Serad (5):</font></b> The Rema wrote 'until the
                    transgressor is ready to hit <i>or</i> curse him.'
                    He was unsure which opinion we follow.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Machatzis ha'Shekel (DH Semak):</font></b> I say that the
                    Rema obligates rebuke until he is ready to hit
                    him, and <i>permits</i> rebuking until he is ready
                    to curse him. The dearness of Hash-m to us (we
                    are willing to go beyond the letter of the law
                    to protest for His honor) is no less than
                    David's dearness to Yehonason.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vi. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Akiva Eiger:</font></b> I am unsure if we say that it
                    is better that people be Shogeg about less than
                    a Shi'ur of Isur, for this is not explicit in
                    the Torah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>vii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (7):</font></b> Whenever there is danger,
                    one need not protest.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>viii.</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Mishnah Berurah (9,11):</font></b> We rebuke once, in case
                    it will be heeded, or so the transgressor will
                    not be able to defend himself. Some say that it
                    suffices to protest until the transgressor gets
                    angry. One may rely on this, for we may join
                    the opinion that one need not protest when he
                    knows that his words will not be heeded (Sha'ar
                    ha'Tziyon 13).
<br>
<font color='blue'><i>See also:</i>
<br><b><b>WITHHOLDING PUNISHMENT OR REBUKE LEST ONE SIN MORE </b></b>(</font><font color='blue'>


lvr: 42
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT WE EXPOUND FROM OTHER DOUBLED EXPRESSIONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Continuation of Beraisa) Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Mos Yamus
          ha'Makeh (the murderer will be killed)' is only like the
          Torah said, with a sword. What is the source that if we
          cannot kill him this way, we kill him any way we can?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Mos Yumas' - in any event.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Hakeh Takeh' (you will destroy the
          city in which the majority of people served idolatry) is
          only like the Torah said, by burning. What is the source
          that if we cannot burn it, we destroy it any way we can?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Hakeh Takeh' - in any event.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Hashev Tashiv (you will return)'
          discusses only a security taken with permission of Beis
          Din. What is the source for a security taken without
          permission of Beis Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Hashev Tashiv' - in any event.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Chavol Tachbol' discusses returning
          only a security taken with permission of Beis Din. What
          is the source for a security taken without permission of
          Beis Din?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Chavol Tachbol' - in any event.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Why are both verses needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> One (the latter) teaches about a day garment (one
          must return it before morning). The other teaches about a
          night garment (one must return it before nightfall).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Paso'ach Tiftach (open your hand to
          give)' applies only to poor people of your city. What is
          the source that it applies even to poor people of another
          city?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Paso'ach Tiftach' - in any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Nason Titen' is only if you can give a
          big gift. What is the source that it applies even to a
          small gift?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Nason Titen' - in any case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ha'anik Ta'anik' (you will bestow a
          gift to a Yisrael slave when he goes free) is only if
          your house was blessed while he worked for you (like the
          verse says). What is the source that it applies even if
          it was not blessed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Ha'anik Ta'anik' - in any event.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who
               says that you do not give him if the house was not
               blessed - why does the Torah say 'Ha'anik Ta'anik'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah speaks like people do.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> Perhaps 'Ha'avet Ta'avitenu (you will lend
          him)' is only if he has no money and does not want a
          gift. What is the source that it applies if he has money,
          but does not want to use it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer:</font></b> 'Ha'avet Ta'avitenu' - in any event.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> According to R. Shimon, who says that if
               he has money and does not want to use it, we do not
               lend him - why does it say 'Ha'avet Ta'avitenu'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The Torah speaks like people do.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH IS THE FINDER COMPENSATED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Mishnah):</font></b> If Reuven lost one Sela of earnings, he may
          not demand compensation of one Sela. Rather, he is paid
          like a worker.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	(Beraisa):</font></b> He is paid like an idle worker (the amount he
          would want to receive to consent to neglect his work and
          be idle).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Question:</font></b> He did not rest. He returned an Aveidah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  	Answer (Abaye):</font></b> He is paid like a worker would want to
          receive to engage in light labor (such as returning an
          Aveidah) instead of his job.
<br>

<p>

sjt:
</p><p>
<font><b>2) 'LIKE AN IDLE WORKER'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah (30b) teaches that the finder of a lost object may not demand from its owner compensation for the lost income he incurred from his job while attempting to return the object. He may demand only the compensation of 'a worker.' The Beraisa explains that this means that he may demand only the wages of 'an idle worker.' Abaye explains that this refers to the payment one would receive as a worker idle from his own job. What exactly does this mean?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH k'Po'el Batel) explains that Beis Din calculates how much a person would be willing to be paid to do the easy work of Hashavas Aveidah instead of his more difficult job. Rashi in Bechoros (29b, DH k'Po'el Batel) gives an example: if a person is normally paid three Zuz to do his labor for the day, but he would be willing to take one Zuz to find a lost object, the owner of the object must pay him only one Zuz. This is also the opinion of the <b>ROSH</b> and <b>RITVA</b>.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> in Bechoros (29b, DH k'Po'el Batel) asks that according to this explanation, the finder of the lost object is being paid to do the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. How can this be the definition of 'Po'el Batel' if a person is obligated to do the Mitzvah for free?
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that 'Po'el Batel' refers to a worker who is willing to take a day off from <i>all work</i> (even Hashavas Aveidah) with minimum compensation. Accordingly, when he is paid by the owner of the lost object, he is not paid for doing the job of returning the lost object; he is paid only for his time. This also seems to be the opinion of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Aveidah 12:4) who writes merely that he is paid the amount which he would accept to refrain from doing the work he normally does.
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> here answers Tosfos' question on Rashi's explanation. The Gemara is discussing a case in which the person who finds the lost object is not obligated to return it. The Torah exempts one who is involved in his work from taking off time to do the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. Accordingly, if he chooses to take off time from his work to do return the object, he may demand compensation for his lost work. (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>



</p><p>


