Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE PARTICULAR LOST OBJECTS MENTIONED IN THE TORAH

(a) (Mishnah): The verse already taught that one must return a garment - "Simlah" was written to teach the general rule: just as a garment has signs and people claim it, also anything that has Simanim, and people will claim it, the finder must announce (to return it).
(b) (Gemara - Question): How did the verse already teach that one must return a garment?
(c) Answer (Rava): "Kol Avedas Achicha (any lost object of your brother)".
(d) Question (Rava): Why did the Torah write (four examples of lost objects) - "Shor, Chamor, Seh and Simlah"?
(e) Answer (Rava): The Torah must teach all four cases:

1. If it only taught a garment - one might have thought, we only return lost objects through witnesses or Simanim on the object itself;

i. "Donkey" teaches that we return a donkey through witnesses or Simanim on the saddle.
ii. "Ox" teaches that we must return even the hair at the end of the tail
iii. "Seh (sheep or goat)" teaches that we must return the shearings.

(f) Question: Once "Ox" teaches that we must return even the hair at the end of the tail, there is no need to teach that we must return the shearings!
(g) Retraction (Rava): We do not know why the Torah wrote "Seh";

1. Also, according to R. Yehudah, we do not know why the Torah wrote "Chamor" regarding animals that fall in a pit.

(h) Suggestion: Perhaps Seh teaches that the dung must be returned!
(i) Rejection: People make it Hefker.
(j) Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches that Simanim are mid'Oraisa!

1. The Halachah is, we return lost objects through a medium Siman - we are unsure if this is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan - perhaps it is mid'Oraisa, "Seh" teaches this!

(k) Rejection: Since the Tana of our Mishnah said that "Simlah" teaches about Simanim, we cannot say that "Seh" teaches this.

(a) (Beraisa): "Asher Tovad (that will be lost)" - this excludes a lost object worth less than a Perutah; R. Yehudah says, "u'Matzasah (And you will find it)" excludes a lost object worth less than a Perutah.
(b) Question: On what do they argue?
(c) Answer #1: They only argue about which verse teaches the law.

1. Question: What do Chachamim learn from "u'Matzasah"?
2. Answer: Ravnai's law.

i. (Ravnai): "U'Matzasah" connotes that it came to your hand (and even so, you need only return your brother's object, not a Nochri's).

3. Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "Asher Tovad"?
4. Answer: R. Yochanan's law.

i. Question (R. Yochanan): How do we know that one may keep a lost object found in a flooding river?
ii. Answer (R. Yochanan): "So you will do to any lost object Asher Tovad Mimenu (that will be lost from him) and you will find it" - the Torah (commands returning) things that are lost from him only, not something which is lost (irretrievable) from everyone.

5. Question: How does R. Yehudah learn Ravnai's law?
6. Answer: From the extra 'Vov' in "u'Matzasah".
7. Question: How do Chachamim learn R. Yochanan's law?
8. Answer: From "Mimenu (from him)".

i. R. Yehudah holds that we cannot learn from "Mimenu", only from "Asher Tovad".

(d) Answer #2 (Rava): They argue regarding a lost object worth a Perutah that declined in value to less than a Perutah.

1. Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - anything worth a Perutah when lost must be returned, even if later it is worth less;
2. R. Yehudah learns from "u'Matzasah" - you must only return a lost object if it is worth a Perutah when you find it.

(e) Objection: Chachamim should admit that "u'Matzasah" implies that it is worth a Perutah when you find it!
(f) Answer #3 (Rava): Rather, they argue regarding a lost object worth less than a Perutah that rose in value to a Perutah.

1. Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - if it was not worth a Perutah when lost, it need not returned;
2. R. Yehudah learns from "u'Matzasah" - you must return it if it is worth a Perutah when you find it.

(g) Objection: R. Yehudah should admit that "Asher Tovad" implies that it was worth a Perutah when lost!
(h) Answer #4 (Rava): Rather, they argue regarding a lost object worth a Perutah that declined in value, then rose and is again worth a Perutah.

1. Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - it was worth a Perutah when lost, it must be returned;
2. R. Yehudah learns from "u'Matzasah" - you only need return it if it was worth a Perutah from the time it was lost until you found it.

(a) Question (The Halachah is, we return lost objects through a (medium) Siman): is this mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?

1. Question: What difference does it make?

2. Answer: Whether we can return a Get of divorce through a Siman.

i. If the law is mid'Oraisa - it applies also to a Get;
ii. If it is a Rabbinical enactment - it was only enacted by money, not by prohibitions.

(b) Answer #1 (Mishnah): The verse already taught that one must return a garment - "Simlah" was written to teach the generality: just as a garment has simanim and people claim it, also anything that has simanim, and people will claim it, the finder must announce (to return it). (Since we learn from a verse, it is mid'Oraisa.)
(c) Rejection: The verse only teaches that it must have people that will claim it - the mention of simanim was an allusion to the Rabbinical enactment.
(d) Answer #2 (Beraisa): "Chamor" teaches that we return a donkey through simanim on the saddle.
(e) Rejection: It means, through witnesses that recognize the saddle.
(f) Answer #3 (Beraisa) Question: "It will be with you until your brother Derosh (demands) it" - might one have thought to return it before this?!

1. Rather, this teaches that you must Doresh (investigate) if he is lying.
2. Suggestion: This is by asking him to give a sign!

(g) Rejection: No, you require him to bring witnesses testifying that it is his.
(h) Answer #4 (Mishnah): Witnesses may only testify (to identify a corpse to permit the wife to remarry) if they saw the face with the nose, even if there are signs on the body and clothes.

1. This shows that Simanim are not mid'Oraisa!

(i) Rejection: The Mishnah speaks of unreliable Simanim on the body, e.g. he was tall or short;

1. We do not rely on Simanim on the clothes, we are concerned that the deceased was wearing borrowed clothes.
2. Question: If so, why do we return a donkey through Simanim on the saddle - perhaps the saddle was borrowed!
3. Answer #1: People do not borrow saddles, it could wound the donkey.
4. Answer #2: Indeed, we are never concerned for borrowing;

i. The Mishnah teaches, we do not rely on unreliable Simanim on the clothes, such as they were black or red.

5. Question (on Answer #1 - Beraisa): A messenger 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 it is the one he lost).

i. If we are concerned for borrowing, when it is tied to his wallet, why is it valid?

6. Answer: People do not lend these articles.

i. Lending a moneybag is a bad omen; one would not lend his signet ring, lest people will use it for forgery.

(j) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether Simanim are mid'Oraisa.

1. (Beraisa): We do not testify (to identify a corpse) based on birthmarks; Elazar ben Mehavai says, we may.
2. Suggestion: The first Tana holds that Simanim are mid'Rabanan, Elazar ben Mehavai holds that they are mid'Oraisa.

(k) Rejection #1 (Rava): All agree that Simanim are mid'Oraisa; they argue whether we are concerned that someone with the same Mazel (configuration of the stars when he was born) would have similar birthmarks.

1. Chachamim say that this is common, we are concerned, Elazar says that it is rare, we are not concerned.

(l) Rejection #2: All agree that it is uncommon that someone with the same Mazel would have similar birthmarks;

1. They argue whether birthmarks are prone to change appearance after death.
2. Chachamim say that they change, Elazar says they do not change.

(m) Rejection #3: All agree that birthmarks are not prone to change appearance after death; and that Simanim are mid'Rabanan;

1. They argue whether birthmarks are considered an infallible sign.
2. Elazar says that it is, Chachamim say it is not.

(a) Question (Rava): If Simanim are mid'Rabanan, why was the enactment made?
(b) Answer #1 (Rava): The finder is happy to return it through Simanim, in order that when he loses something, he will get it back through Simanim.
(c) Objection (Rav Safra): We are not concerned for the finder, rather for the owner!
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): The loser knows that he cannot bring witnesses, therefore he wants to be able to get it through Simanim;

1. He is confident that only he knows good Simanim.

(e) 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.

1. The borrower does not want the lender to receive the documents through a Siman!

(f) Answer (Rava): That is based on logic, not on Simanim!

1. 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;
2. 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.