Previous daf

1)

(a) What do we extrapolate from 'Kikros shel Nachtom, Harei Eilu she'Lo'?

(b) Does the Tana differentiate between whether the loaves are found in a Reshus ha'Yachid or a Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c) According to Rabah, who holds 'Si'man he'Asuy Li'dares, Lo Havi Si'man', why is the finder not permitted to keep a home-baked loaf that he finds in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(d) Why does the Tana not contend with the possibility that the loaves will be trodden on ...

1. ... by Nochrim?
2. ... by animals?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, obligates the finder to return 'Davar she'Yesh Bo Shinuy'.
What does the Tana Kama say?

(b) We initially assume that even the Tana Kama agrees that an automatic Si'man (that might have come into being on its own) is considered a Si'man and that people walk past food.
On what grounds would we hold that an automatic Si'man is considered a Si'man?

(c) What would then be the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im?

(d) On what grounds does Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava refute this explanation? Why is the above combination not possible?

(a) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava therefore concludes that both Tana'im agree that 'Si'man he'Asuy Li'dares Havi Siman' and 'Ma'avirin al ha'Ochlin', and they argue over Si'man ha'Ba'ah me'Eilav. What will Rabah say?

(b) The second Lashon follows exactly the same pattern as the first, only we do not initially try to establish the basis of the Machlokes as to whether 'Si'man he'Asuy Li'dares Havi Si'man' or not.
Then how do we try to establish it?

(a) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava teaches us a number of principles concerning a lost article.
How do we know when a person has been Meya'esh from a lost article?

(b) Someone who finds small sheaves in the Reshus ha'Rabim, may keep them. Is this speaking with a Si'man or without one, according to Rava?

(c) If he found those same sheaves in the Reshus ha'Yachid, it would depend upon how they were placed.
Why, if they clearly fell, may the finder keep them?

(d) And what will be the Din, according to Rav Z'vid Amar Rava, in all of these cases if the lost article had a Si'man?

5)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the finder of strings of fish may keep them.
Why should the owner not be able to claim them by identifying ...

1. ... the knot ?
2. ... the number of fish per string?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about someone who finds silver or copper vessels, or a piece of lead or metal? On what condition will the owner get them back?

(c) What does Rav Sheishes extrapolate from there regarding our She'eilah whether the number is a Si'man?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about someone who finds ...

1. ... cuts of fish or a piece of bitten fish?
2. ... barrels of wine, oil ... (see Tosfos DH 'Chavi'os')?

(b) Based on the assumption that 'cuts of fish' means the head or the tail, how does this pose a Kashya on our Mishnah?

(c) How do we therefore reinterpret 'cuts of fish'?

(a) How did Rabah bar Rav Huna used to send cuts of meat to his wife?

(b) Why did he need to do that?

(c) How do we prove this interpretation of 'cuts of fish' from the Beraisa itself?

(a) We just learned in the Beraisa that someone who finds barrels of wine or oil, produce, dried figs or olives may keep them.
How does Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav establish the Mishnah later, which obligates someone who finds barrels of wine or oil to announce them, so as not to clash with this Beraisa (see Tosfos DH 'be'Rashum')?

(b) If the Beraisa is not speaking about an open barrel, how then *is* it speaking? Why can it not be speaking about an open barrel?

(c) Abaye establishes even the Beraisa in the case of a sealed barrel.
In that case, what is the difference between the Mishnah and the Beraisa?

(d) What did Abaye rule when Rav Acha bar Ya'akov found a sealed barrel of wine after the store-houses had been opened?

(a) Rav Bibi asked Rav Nachman whether Makom is a Si'man. How did Rav Nachman try to resolve Rav Bibi's She'eilah from the previous Beraisa (which permits someone who finds a barrel of wine or oil ... to keep it)?

(b) To refute Rav Nachman's proof, Rav Z'vid establishes the Beraisa by 'Raksa de'Nahara'.
What does this mean?

(c) This explanation refutes Rav Nachman's proof due to the reason given by Rav Mari.
What does Rav Mari say?

(d) How do others cite Rav Mari? To what is he referring?

(a) What did a certain man find in the olive-press?

(b) What did Rav tell him he could do, when he displayed reluctance to follow his ruling to keep it?

(c) Why did Rav permit him to keep it? Was it because he held that Makom is not a Si'man?

(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar permits the finder to keep 'K'lei Anpuryah'. How does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel define 'K'lei Anpuryah'?

(b) What is 'Anpuryah' the acronym of?

(c) This implies that a vessel that is not brand new, and that the owner has become accustomed to, must be announced, even though it has no proper Si'man.
If the vessel has no Si'man, why should the finder be obligated to return it?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel lists three things in which a Talmid-Chacham tends to lie: 'bi'Mesechta, u've'Puri'ah, u've'Ushpiza'.
What is ...

1. ... 'bi'Mesechta'?
2. ... 'u've'Puri'ah'?
3. ... 'u've'Ushpiza'?

(b) What are the ramifications of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement?

Next daf