\"ממילא I'll get it back.\" So ממילא he's not he's not מיאש. While if something doesn't have a סימן, so the guy who lost it doesn't have any feels that he'll never get it back, so he's מיאש, he gives up hope. And if you give up hope, you're allowed the guy who finds it is allowed to keep it. But the basis of the whole thing is one נקודה: that the דין depends on יאוש. If the owner is מיאש, then the finder could keep it. If the owner is not מיאש, the finder cannot keep it. That's the base- Depends on סימן, not יאוש. No. סימן, what נפקא מינה if it has a סימן or not? If it has a סימן, he's not מיאש. If it doesn't have a סימן, he is מיאש. But the bottom line is not the סימן, the bottom line is the יאוש, if he's מיאש or not. And that's actually what רש״י says right in the beginning of the משנה. The משנה says: אלו מציאות שלו ואלו חייב להכריז. The משנה is going to mention which things you could מציאות, things that you find you could keep and which you have to announce. And it starts off by saying: אלו מציאות שלו, first it gives a list of what you could keep. The next משנה, a few דפים later, is going to give a list of what you can't keep, that you have to announce. And it starts off saying which things could you keep, and it gives an example: מצא פירות מפוזרין, if you find fruits all spread out on the ground, מעות מפוזרות, money spread out, etc., etc. And רש״י טאקע says right in the beginning:

מצא פירות מפוזרין, you're allowed to keep if you find fruits spread out, and רש״י says, because לפי שנתייאשו הבעלים מהן, because the בעלים, the owner is מיאש. מעות מפוזרות, it says you could keep if you find money spread out, and רש״י again says: הואיל ואין להם סימן ניכר, since it doesn't have a סימן that you could recognize, יאוש שנתייאש, you're מיאש. So רש״י makes it very clear, and that's not you don't have to come into רש״י, this is the whole פשט in the גמרא with the whole next סוגיא, יאוש שלא מדעת, and the מחלוקת of אביי ורבא. All this is one נקודה: that if you are מיאש, the finder is allowed to keep it, if the owner is מיאש. The question will come up is: where does it say, where is the מקור, where is the source for this דין that יאוש makes it you're allowed to keep? Why would you be allowed, where is in the תורה such a דין? So you have in the גמרא בבא קמא, the גמרא mentions there this דין, that by an אבידה, if you lose something and you're מיאש, the finder is allowed to keep it. So the גמרא uses this לשון here: it talks about something else, but it gives an example: מי דמי? התם אבידה. אבידה לאו, isn't the דין by אבידה, כיון דמייאש מאריה מיניה, since the owner is מיאש, וקאתי לידיה דאידך, before he found it, the owner is מיאש, קני ליה, you're קונה. So the גמרא mentions here this דין that if you're מיאש, if the owner is מיאש, the one that finds it could keep it. זאגט רש״י: אם נתייאשו הבעלים קודם שמצא זה, if the owner was מיאש before this guy found it, קנה. You can... So רש״י: דתניא באלו מציאות, quotes the גמרא in אלו מציאות. The גמרא in אלו מציאות says like this: the גמרא actually in the beginning of the פרק, דף כ״א עמוד ב׳: מניין לאבידה ששטפה נהר? How do we know an אבידה that the river overflowed and schlepped it away, הואיל ונתייאשו הבעלים שהיא מותרת, how do you know that because the owner is מיאש from it, that's why you're allowed to keep it? תלמוד לומר, the גמרא quotes the פסוק: אשר תאבד ממנו. The

פסוק says like this: there's a דין called השבת אבידה. If you find someone else's object, you have to return it. And the פסוק says, when do you have to return it? Any object אשר תאבד ממנו that got lost from him. What does the word \"lost from him\"? Should've said any object אשר תאבד, that you lose. So the גמרא דרשנ'ט: only an object that's lost from him, but not lost from everybody else. שאבודה ממנו ומצויה אצל שאר בני אדם, other people get it. יצתה זו, the פסוק, this פסוק comes to exclude in a case where it's lost from everybody. And it's and זוטו של ים. So there the גמרא says, why can you keep it? Because the owner is מיאש. אלמא קני, so from there we see that if a person is מיאש, you're קונה, the one that finds it can can it's קונה. So רש״י here quotes this גמרא, and actually this is the גמרא here טאקע in אלו מציאות. We assume he was מיאש, not we know. Well okay, yeah. The לשון is הואיל since he's מיאש, so therefore you can keep it. And the גמרא here טאקע says it. Here, כ״א עמוד ב׳, the גמרא here says this דין: דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק, he said, מניין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת? How do you know an אבידה that was swept away by the river is מותר? דכתיב it says, וכן תעשה, the פסוק it says, אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה, you should return anything אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה, if it's lost from him and you found it, מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם, only if it's lost from him, but other by others it is, יצתה זו שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם. So רש״י makes is very clear that this is the source of יאוש. How how's that tied in to the fact that it's lost from everybody? That's שטף נהר. Yeah, that means יאוש? So the גמרא says that the reason why it is, is because of יאוש. We'll get into this. This is what רש״י says, he quotes this גמרא. The גמרא didn't say that this is the source of יאוש. All the גמרא says the דין. The דין is, from this פסוק we learn out that if it was overflowed by the river, you're allowed to keep it. So רש״י here on דף ס״ו בבא קמא quotes that גמרא, and he says the reason is הואיל ונתייאשו הבעלים, since they were מתייאש, and he says, אלמא, from here we know קני. So when רש״י quotes the גמרא that you're קונה through יאוש, he quotes this, דתניא. This is the מקור of this דין. Comes תוספות over there, this is again, that's on דף ס״ו עמוד א׳, תוספות says, תימה לי דנפקא לן יאוש קונה באבידה, how do we know יאוש is קונה באבידה, from a different place, דהא תנן בבא מציעא, there's a משנה in בבא מציעא, it says like this, מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנים ויש לה תובעים, פירוש על ידי שיש בה סימנים יש לה תובעים שאין הבעלים מתייאשין. So let's go back to this. This a משנה on דף כ״ז. I will read the משנה. The משנה says like this: אף שמלה, אף שמלה היתה בכלל כל אלה, which means there is a פסוק that gives examples of which things you have to return, and the פסוק mentions חמור, שה, all kinds of things. And then it says, כל אבידת אחיך, and anything you lose. So the שאלה is, if it's anything you lose, why does the תורה have to mention? So the גמרא goes into לימודים of every word, חמור comes to teach us this דין, שה, everything teaches something. The word שמלה, what does that teach us? שמלה means a dress, clothes. So we learn out from here, it says, אף שמלה היתה בכלל כל אלה, שמלה was included. למה יצאת? It's a משנה, it's not even a גמרא, it's a משנה. למה יצאת? Why did the תורה specifically take it out and mention it separately? So the answer is, the משנה, להקיש אליה to compare to it, לומר לך to tell you a דין: מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנים ויש לה תובעים, just like a dress is something specific that has סימנים, every dress has a סימן, and that has תובעים, תובעים means it has people that will claim it, אף כל דבר שיש בו סימנים ויש לו תובעים חייב להכריז. So anything that has סימנים and has תובעים, has claimers, and the way תוספות learns here בבא קמא, תוספות טייטשט זו: על ידי שיש בה סימנים יש לה תובעים, because it has סימנים the guy is going to be able to claim it, שאין הבעלים מתייאשין. Why will he claim it and he doesn't give up hope? כיוון שיש בה סימן. ממילא, from here we see, from this פסוק, the word שמלה, and the גמרא טייטשט what the word שמלה teaches us, we see that it When is the דין that you're able to keep it? If there is no תובעים, that means the guy was מתייאש. But if no סימן, ממילא the guy is not is מתייאש, but if it has a סימן, ממילא the guy is not מתייאש, and therefore you can't keep it. One second. So obviously, תוספות learns and תוספות adds Okay. So

תוספות learns that this is learned out from the פסוק שמלה, obviously not from the פסוק אשר תאבד ממנו which is by שטף נהר. Then תוספות adds here: ולא כמשפירש הקונטרס שם, not like רש״י says here in בבא מציעא that what's פשט יש לה תובעים? שאינה של הפקר. רש״י says here that it has they have סימנים, כל שמלה סתם שמלה יש בה סימן, a regular clothes has סימנים, וכל שמלה יש לה בעלים תובעים אותה, there's some owner, שלידתה סתם על ידי אדם, because someone made it, it had to belong, ולא בא מן ההפקר. Things in the street, stones could be הפקר. Clothes, unless you make it הפקר, but a regular clothes has some owner. So what the פסוק what the the משנה the פסוק teaches us, the way the משנה said, the way רש״י learns that what do we learn off from the פסוק שמלה? That הפקר you don't have to return, but it has nothing to do with יאוש. So here we have seemingly a מחלוקת רש״י and תוספות. רש״י learns, where do we learn out the דין of יאוש? From the פסוק אשר תאבד ממנו, שטף נהר, that דין. תוספות says we learn out from שמלה. In truth, תוספות in בבא מציעא on the משנה שמלה, there is a תוספות and תוספות says the same thing. תוספות says, שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנים ויש בה תובעים, במרובה in בבא קמא אמרינן that we learn out יאוש by אבידה, ואם תאמר אבידה גופה מנלן, where do we know the דין of יאוש by an אבידה? יש לומר מהכא נפקא לן, from here: מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימן ואין הבעלים מתייאשין, learns from here. But then תוספות adds at the end of תוספות: מיהו בירושלמי יליף מנא ליה יאוש מן התורה, ירושלמי says, how do you know the דין of יאוש? אמר רבי יוחנן אשר תאבד ממנו, מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם יצתה זו. So In ירושלמי, תוספות admits that in ירושלמי we learn it out from אשר תאבד, but in בבלי we learn it out from שמלה. רש״י seems to learn it out from אשר תאבד, which is like the ירושלמי. Here on this גמרא, here in בבא קמא, when רש״י says אשר תאבד and תוספות says שמלה, זאגט דער ב״ח, \"ועיין שם דבירושלמי נפקא לן יאוש מאשר תאבד ממנו.\" ירושלמי we learn אשר תאבד. The truth is, מפרשים say that רש״י learns from שמלה also. Because if you look in the next רש״י, תוספות quotes one רש״י. רש״י says what does אלה תובעין mean, that it has, it's not הפקר, יש לה תובעין. So from the word שמלה, that's not הפקר. רש״י said in the next רש״י, \"אף כל שיש לה תובעין,\" only when do you have to return it if it has claimers, \"למיעוטא,\" comes to exclude, \"מידי דידעינן ביה דמייאש.\" So רש״י obviously learns also like תוספות, that from the word שמלה, from יש לה תובעין, that only when it has claimers you don't have to return it, you have to return, but if it doesn't, you don't, means יאוש. So it comes out, האבן מיר א זאך according to רש״י, according to רש״י we have two פסוקים. It's as if רש״י says we need two לימודים. There are two things that we learn out and we need both. תוספות learns only from שמלה. The ירושלמי learns only from תאבד, it doesn't say we learn it from שמלה. רש״י seems to be saying that we learn it from here and we learn it from there, because in בבא קמא רש״י says, how do we know it? From the word תאבד ממנו, that if it comes to tell you if it's lost from everybody, like the נהר overflows, ממילא it's a גדר of יאוש, so from there we know that יאוש is קונה. And here he says that from the word שמלה, when the גמרא says that if, when do you have to return it if it has תובעין, means רש״י says if it wasn't מיאש. ממילא he's claiming, while if he's מתייאש, no. So we have to understand number one, why does רש״י need two לימודים? Finish. מיין שאלה.

How do you know when he's מתייאש? How do you know that somebody is מתייאש? Is there a limit of time? So, sometimes, see, here רש״י brings, sometimes you hear the guy say, רש״י says, what's the יאוש? He says you hear the guy say, here, גלויי יאוש, כגון דאמר, \"ווי לי לחסרון כיס.\" If you hear a guy says, \"Oy vey, I'll have a loss.\" Or things which the חכמים assumed a person will normally מייאש. So the חכמים, when they made their דינים and they took out these דינים, they based it on the average, on the general. So normally, if it doesn't have a סימן, the חכמים said so, and that's an, a fact, you'll be מתייאש, you'll give up hope because you don't have any way to get it back, you can't identify it. Fine. But the bottom line is the תוקף, the source of this דין that יאוש is קונה, we learn out from רש״י two פסוקים. Why do we need both? That's one שאלה. Then we have another שאלה, which is connected probably to what you were asking. How do you learn out from אשר תאבד? How does רש״י learn out יאוש? He learns it out like this. Since it says that you have to return it only if it's lost from you and not from everybody else, but if it's lost from everybody else, למשל, שוטפו נהר, which is the same thing, there's a

גמרא later on says here like this, I'll read you the גמרא, here: \"המציל מן הארי,\" if someone saved something from a lion, a lion was about to get it and someone copped it, \"ומן הדוב,\" from a bear, \"ומן הנמר,\" from a a leopard, \"מן הברדלס, מן זוטו של ים, ומשלוליתו של נהר,\" so in those cases all, \"הרי אלו שלו.\" You could keep it. You could be a nice guy and give it back. You don't have to, but here's The שאלה is, רש״י learns Hold on, wait, wait! Don't, don't jump the gun, it's not so simple, it's not a פשט. So here, all these cases, you don't have to return it. Why? So from רש״י it seems the reason is because of יאוש. Comes the רא״ש and many other ראשונים and say, \"I don't understand, what kind of יאוש? No, this is not יאוש, because this דין is even if the guy is standing next to it and screams, 'I'm not מתייאש, I'm telling you clearly, I plan to get it back!' The דין is that he still could take it. So obviously it's a גזירת הכתוב, that the תורה says you're allowed to keep it. It's not because of יאוש. How in the world does רש״י... and the same קושיא would be on the ירושלמי.\" Well, if he's standing there, wouldn't be מתייאש. No, you see a lion coming, so you're standing and you see you can't get it. Yeah, and I'm saying, I'm telling you, I still People fight lions to get... Or you see the river coming and overflowing and taking the stuff away, and and he says a לשון, the reason why it's, what this sounds, it's a כ... כדכתיב, \"מי ש...\" על ביתו שנשרף, he's standing next to his house, it's burning, and he says, \"I'm not מתייאש.\" That's the דין, that's, but not because he's מתייאש. But the idea is, you just said it. Of course, a general person, not some guy who has dreams of No, no, no. He's saying in this case, but it's not יאוש. It's not He wants to say that this is not a דין because of יאוש, it's a דין because of the פסוק. That's what they say, and that's why they say we cannot learn it out from there, that's a special דין, what we learn it out is from הימנו, where it says clearly it teaches you that you have to have claim and you have to be someone that is not מתייאש and he still plans to claim it. So the שאלה is how will the רא״ש answer the שאלה that he says this is a גדר of יאוש? In other words, the שאלה is why do we need both? And לכאורה this one, according to those, to the מפרשים here, doesn't even seem to fit even though I'll read you the גמרא again, I skipped a word special before not to confuse, now I'll read it over again. המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב, he saves from the lion, from a bear, from bear and all these things, מזוטו של ים ומשלוליתו של נהר, from the overflow river, או המוצא באסטרטייא פלטיא גדולה, if you find it in the big square, so many thousands of people there, ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, wherever they are a lot, הרי אלו שלו. And it adds the words: מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין. So לכאורה the ראיה to the רא״ש, the רא״ש says, is a ראיה that is because of יאוש? He says, \"No! The last words, the מתייאשין, is only on the last case. If you find it in אסטרטייא פלטיא, if you find it in the square, there the reason is that people are מתייאש. But the reason why if you\" where it's more than in the sea? The last thing is the each square Yes! No! Yeah, because there's a ווארט of יאוש, because you don't plan to get it back. Here it has nothing to do. What's the case by אסטרטייא פלטיא if you stand there clearly and you say, \"I'm not מתייאש\"? Could the guy keep it who finds it? בפירוש not! Because you have to be מתייאש. But by the river you don't have to stay being מתייאש, even if you say, \"I'm not מתייאש.\" So then why, if the רא״ש, how can they use it against the רא״ש? So he says that it can't be that it just goes on יאוש the way they learn, and the words here must go on the last case, אסטרטייא ופלטיא, in the big square. There it's טאקע because of יאוש. But the other, huh? loss of your wallet That's what, yeah, yeah, yeah. So according to the רא״ש, as you say, if a guy stands in the mall and says, \"This\" It's taken from a פסוק! That's how we learn it, from a פסוק! That's exactly what the גמרא learns. And the גמרא uses a לשון here on דף כ״א עמוד ב׳, by זוטו של ים, the גמרא uses the לשון: רחמנא שרייה, the תורה was מתיר it! The תורה was מתיר it, so it's not because of יאוש. So you have a קשיא on the רא״ש, how do you say it's because of יאוש? The תורה is not is מתיר, it's not because of יאוש. So if you find money in the airport you can keep it? Yes, that's for sure. It's mostly גוים anyway. Even if it has a סימן you can keep it. All this is talking בעיר שרובה ישראל, then you have to have בעיר שרובה עכו״ם, no שאלה. Anyway, so we have a second, so we have two

questions here. Number one: Why does the רא״ש need both? And number two: It seems like this whole פסוק of זוטו של ים and תורה הימנו is not פארבונדן with יאוש, which is another reason why תוספות doesn't learn like that, and other ראשונים don't learn like the רא״ש, because it's not יאוש. That's the רשב״א's קושיא, the רמב״ם, the ר״ן, it's not יאוש, it's a special דין. So the question is: How does the רא״ש answer the שאלה? So, I want to explain it based on this. In the same גמרא in דף ס״ו in בבא קמא, there's a תוספות. תוספות goes on the גמרא, I don't want to go into the details, it's not נוגע to the עיקר words, תוספות says: מכאן משמע שיאוש אינו כהפקר גמור. Uh? יאוש is not like הפקר. Now, normally we think: What's יאוש? After you're מתייאש, it's הפקר. But תוספות: מכאן משמע שיאוש אינו כהפקר גמור, יאוש is not like הפקר. תוספות doesn't tell us What does גמור mean? Yeah, but it's real הפקר, like not הפקר ממש, it's not like that. Not because he has hope? No, not because he has hope. He's מתייאש, and you're allowed to keep it, and it's not like הפקר. There's a difference between it and הפקר. Which way? תוספות doesn't say in which, he just brings that ראיה from the גמרא, but doesn't say. Comes the קצות and the נתיבות, and they both explain the פשט in תוספות, what in which way is יאוש different than הפקר. And this is what they say: Concerning הפקר, there is a גמרא in נדרים. The גמרא in נדרים says like this: It's a מחלוקת between רבי יוסי and the רבנן. רבי יוסי says: הפקר אינו יוצא מרשותו עד דאתי לרשות זוכה. If I'm מפקיר something, this is mine and I'm מפקיר it, it's still mine until someone picks it up, someone makes a קנין. עד דאתי לרשות זוכה. רבנן says it's not true. The moment you're מפקיר it, it's finished. One of the differences would be: If it's not somebody else, nobody, it's still mine, if the moment I change my mind from the הפקר, it's mine again, I don't have to go and pick it up. If the פשט is that it's not mine, so now I'm like everybody else, I have to go and זוכה מן ההפקר. So רבי יוסי says it doesn't go out from my רשות till someone picks it up, the רבנן say it goes out right away. We פסקנ'ן like the רבנן, without a question. הפקר is right away. Comes the קצות and the נתיבות and they say by יאוש, it doesn't go out of your רשות till someone picks it up. That's the difference between יאוש and הפקר. That could be why we don't hold like the קצות on ערב פסח. That's the thing with ערב פסח. Yeah, אין הכי נמי. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I had that חילוק in mind. Oh, that's a חילוק like in the גמרא, the גמרא says גזל חמץ ועבר עליו הפסח, the גמרא goes through this. What about יאוש before פסח according to that? Huh? What about We just spoke about that. According to this, right, if you make it הפקר you don't want it. Yeah. That's You're bringing You're You're touching a point which is such a confusion cuz the רמב\"ן uses the word יאוש by by חמץ. But the שאלה is, is this

פשט the right פשט? Let's Let's continue. So the קצות says that יאוש Not finished yet. Not finished yet, I just started! The קצות says that what תוספות means that יאוש is not like הפקר is that יאוש does not go out of your רשות till someone else picks it up. It seems like that מפרשים bring a ראיה that that's not what תוספות means. That can't be. תוספות doesn't hold. It could be other ראשונים hold like that. We have a ראיה from a different תוספות that תוספות doesn't hold like this. Why? There is a גמרא in בבא קמא later, קט\"ז. The גמרא tells a story with רב ספרא. You know, I got the wrong דף, but that's בבא קמא. A story with רב ספרא, the גמרא says, קט\"ז, part Anyway, I'm not going to look for the exact לשון. רב ספרא was joined a group that went into the went on a trip, a שיירא went through the desert and they need a guard, so they hired lions. They took along a lion to protect them. The lion has to eat. Is that a קבלה story or a No, it's a גמרא story. A pet lion? Yeah, a pet lion. A lion protected them. Were they Were they commanding the lion by? Yeah, yeah, I guess so. I guess they used to Cuz then there's all sorts of הלכות. One second, let's finish the whole thing. A

קושיא from a מעשה. The lion has to eat. So they made up that every day a different person is going to give a donkey to the lion's food. Came רב ספרא's turn, רב ספרא gave the donkey to the lion and the lion did not eat it. Came רב ספרא, ran and he grabbed it back. So one of the the אמוראים asked him, why'd you have to grab it back? Even though you were מפקיר it for the lion, but you're not מפקיר it for everybody else. So the moment the lion didn't take it, it's yours automatically! Why did you have to go and get it? So he answered לרווחא דמילתא. טאקע he didn't have to. You know, what do you want? A guy else, someone else will come and he'll come to a דין תורה and you'll win? So he went to grab it. That's That's the גמרא. Comes תוספות, and תוספות asks a קושיא, why did he say לרווחא דמילתא? Didn't we just learn if you saved something from a lion, הרי אלו שלו? So ממילא anybody would have taken it, תוספות says, would have been theirs. So he had to run! Not only לרווחא דמילתא, not only to be extra careful. But תוספות says it depends which kind of lion. When they say if if if someone saved from a lion, it's a wild lion. But this was a good lion, he was domesticated, this. A lion like this is different. Okay. The שאלה is, over there over there it's יאוש. Now if

we're going to learn like the קצות says, that by יאוש it doesn't leave your רשות till somebody picks it up and therefore, if you changed your mind you don't have to run, so what's תוספות's קושיא? תוספות's קושיא is that לכאורה he did have to run because the other if someone would take it, he would get it, because he saved it from a lion, you're מתיאש. But as long as no one got it, and he saw it and he changed his mind, it's his, he doesn't have to go get it. So what is תוספות's קושיא? And תוספות asks a קושיא and gives a תירוץ. So we want to bring out from here that תוספות does not learn that this is the חילוק between יאוש and הפקר. That by יאוש also it goes out of your רשות. And therefore what happens if you want to get it back? You have to go and be קונה it. And that's why תוספות asks a good קושיא. In this case, you would have to go קונה it. תוספות answers, depends on which lion. This lion is different. So according to this it comes out that we do not learn this is one of the ראיות against the קצות and the נתיבות that this is what תוספות meant. So obviously יאוש goes out of your רשות right away. Then the question is, so what is the difference between יאוש and הפקר that תוספות says? But

we're talking about an אבידה, no? Huh? Talking about an אבידה. Right, but you can't go back and get it, מתיאש and go get it. It's not He lost something. Yeah, and then let's say he sees it. Let me ask you: he lost something and he's מתיאש, and he sees it, and let's say he didn't take it and someone else grabbed it first? Is that הפקר? No, what's the דין? If יאוש doesn't go out of your רשות, he doesn't have to take it when he went and he sees it and he doesn't Yeah. You don't have to go and take it. The moment he decided he doesn't want it, it's not It never left his רשות. ד' אמות? Huh? ד' אמות. No, you don't need ד' אמות, it's his to begin with! But it's a שאלה if there's סימנים or not סימנים. Right, even if there's no סימנים and he's מתיאש, and someone else could take it, but if the guy didn't take it and the moment he decides, he sees it and he changes his mind, no one else could take it. So here also, this is יאוש, so why did What does the ש\"ך say that it was not בלאחר יאוש? It was definitely לאחר יאוש. He goes back to a place two days later and, and he sees it. Yeah, and nobody lying there the whole time. Yeah, he doesn't have to go and take it. He gave up because it has no סימנים. Right, and now he decides so the יאוש you can just That's according to תוספות סברא. But we're saying from this ש\"ך it is משמע not like that. If it's not like that, then we're back to the question, what's the difference between יאוש and הפקר? So I want to say like this, let's understand בכלל, forget about what the book, where יאוש is קונה, where do we see it? What's the סברא behind it? Why is it that if I'm מתיאש, someone else could become קונה it? Why? Because I'm מתיאש? I'm not מפקיר it. You see, ממילא הפקר, I intentionally don't want it. It's not that I don't want it, I don't care about it. But here, the guy who is מתיאש, as the guy who is מתיאש, בשעת יאוש, you know he doesn't have... what's this? I know I will never get it. But ask him, \"What would it be if you would get it? Would you be happy?\" \"Sure, I would be very happy.\" So then, so then ממילא why is it Because he gave up the hope so that's why someone else can take it? Once the guy gave up hope It's worthless. that's a גזירת הכתוב. That's, so that's like a גזירה, the logic. The only thing, גזירת הכתוב if we have no ביאור. Let's see, is there any ביאור in יאוש? If you're going to say that anything is possible that the owner always, like you said, you're going to be hanging around there Yeah. Yeah. And יאוש שלא מדעת we פסקנן like אביי, יאוש, in most cases, יאוש שלא מדעת. So if I pick it up before you know it, even if you're מתיאש later, all right, what should I do with this? I can keep it. Talking about the חפצא, not just that the object itself. What happens, what transforms on the object? Why, oh, this, right! What happens by יאוש? It's not mine anymore. What I know. Why? One second, but what's the סברא behind it? The סברא is that this piece that I'm now מתיאש is now free, it's not mine anymore. One second, let's, let's try to explain this. One second. Let's, let's just go. The ווארט of the קאצקער is a ווארט, he says it's a קנס. A ייד טאר נישט זיין מתיאש. Right? A ייד, are you מתיאש? The אייבערשטער gave you a קנס that you lose it. But what's the הלכה'דיקע פשט behind it? So there's something there, obviously. But the whole יאוש is because a mistake. Had you known you'd get it back, we're talking here you're מתיאש and now you got it back, would you have to give it back or not? Had you known that לכתחילה, you would not be מתיאש. So it's not that you don't want it. Actually the the ירושלמי says a לשון, there is no such thing as יאוש בטעות, there is such a thing as הפקר בטעות. By mistake I was מפקיר it? No יאוש בטעות, why? כל יאוש בטעות הוא. Well, we said that the story with the lion Yeah. that it was a dangerous lion. That's יאוש, right? That's יאוש. And that's that's, I mean that's a טעות. No, a טעות because he feels he's not, but we're talking בפועל someone got it. So he says, if someone got it, I'd like it back. You see, too bad you don't get it, but but it's a mistake. But there's no such thing, every יאוש is in a mistake and the דין is יאוש is קונה, but why? So it's not a קשיא, I'm trying to find an הסברה in it. What becomes of all the lost objects people find? Nobody identifies the owners. Right? And there's no... what's he do with it? One second, let's... identify the owners. But if someone was קונה it, this is I want to say like this: when you're מתיאש, it's still yours. Not because till someone gets it, even when someone gets it it's still yours. יאוש is a פשט it's yours, but the דין is that someone else can take it. Why? Because like you said, you cut yourself off. In other words, if you remove yourself from the object, it doesn't mean that you that you give up hope, I mean that doesn't mean that you give it up. So ממילא technically it's still yours, באמת it's still yours, and as much as it's still yours, the דין is that someone else could take it. But what the fact that it's still yours and someone else has a right to it, but happens right away, not when he takes, not like they say. But that's a- where do we find Hello? Wait, he's got to ring it again. Oh. I'll give an example to this ענין. A

famous example that the רבי explains in the ענין of שמיטה. I once spoke about it, maybe more than once. When שמיטה comes, you don't have to pay the loan. And the רבי asks the שאלה, if so how come the משנה says, המחזיר חוב בשביעית רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו? If a person returns it even though you don't have to So people should borrow money. Yeah, but, but בפועל כל מה דהוה הוה. And it says like this, the לשון is if he returns the loan, לכאורה, what's the פשט returns? There's no more loan. If שמיטה comes, you don't owe money. And if you don't owe money, why is the חכמים happy? בדרך משל, imagine I borrowed money and I paid you, now I don't owe it to you. חכמים would be very happy if you pay him again? I mean, or if I have a loan and you're מוחל. You give it, you're מוחל. In any such דין it would sound stupid to say, someone is מוחל a loan, רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו if you return it. How come here רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו? They don't So the רבי is מחדש a חידוש that the דין of שמיטה is not the פשט that you don't owe the money. The תורה says that even though you owe the money, you don't have to pay. But לפועל, the money is still משועבד to him. And therefore, if you pay it back, חכמים are are are happy, and they call it a חוב, because the חוב is still there. So the רבי is מחדש such a thing that there is such a concept that the חוב should be there. That means it's owed to me. It's mine. But you don't have to give it to me. Usually, if it's mine, you have to give it to me. You cannot take it. Here, it's something that's mine, you take I want to say the same thing is with יאוש. That's the נקודה of יאוש. יאוש is the פשט not that the thing that goes away from me and becomes הפקר into the street. It's mine, and it remains mine. And anybody who finds it, the תורה says, you're allowed to keep his thing. Why? Because he cut himself off of it. But cutting himself off doesn't mean it's not his. But that because he cut himself off and he removed himself, the תורה says now anybody who wants to keep it But it's involuntary. יאוש. What is involuntary? It's inva It's הפקר is voluntary. Right. יאוש is definitely involuntary. But what happens with it? What happens is all it is it makes it that other people can take it because you removed yourself, but it didn't take it away from you. When does it become the other guy's? When someone takes it. But it's still yours. And it's still yours. It's still yours while Yeah, like by שמיטה. The שעבוד never When does the שמיטה go the שעבוד go away? So, this guy can now use it and mekadesh an ishah? Mekadesh ishah would that be And and and in in theory, בעצם, it still belongs to you. There is no בעל הבית who steals it, if I want to get it? Because, yeah, because that guy took it and had a right to take it. But, it is still This belongs to this guy. This is what יאוש is. Hold on. Like, חייב לפולוס? לפולוס חייב לפולוס? חייב? זה פוטנציאל. I wish I would have learned it five weeks. And after the שיעור, I might destroy your דיבור. After Now, this explains something very interesting by יאוש. By יאוש, it says in גמרא later on, it's הלכה in רמב״ם, הלכה in שולחן ערוך, הלכה in אלטר רבי'ס שולחן ערוך, that if somebody loses something and he's מייאש, and you find it, you can keep it, לפנים משורת הדין, you should return it. לאו חייב. It's a מצוה to do so. But, why? By שמיטה? If someone is מפקיר, he said, \"I'm מפקיר this I'm מפקיר this object of mine,\" and then you pick it up, and then, well, even if I decide later, \"You know what, I I really I shouldn't have been מפקיר it. I I want it back.\" Is there anything that could be done לפנים משורת הדין you should give it back? No. It's like anything. If I you have something which I like, it's a nice thing, give it to me. There's no such thing. How come by יאוש? According to the way they learn that יאוש and הפקר is the same thing, the only thing is when it happens, but after somebody else picks it up, it's exactly like הפקר, so why is there a difference in דין? Why by הפקר there's no such thing as you should return it, and by יאוש it is? So, I'm saying the פשט is not like that. The פשט is there was a big difference. הפקר belongs to the guy who picked it up, and יאוש belongs to me still, even though the guy he had he had an עולה to keep it. But, since it still belongs to me, it's לפנים משורת הדין, like exactly like by שמיטה. Like the רבי explains by שמיטה, why is it that it's it's like a a רוח חכמים נוחה, it's a good idea to give back? Because of Because the חוב is still there. It's still connected. There, it's a חוב. Here, it's a belonging. This is the גדר of what יאוש is. And this is what we see from the case of שמלה. What the לשון of the משנה by שמלה? What was the לשון? יפת תובעים. תובעים. The whole thing of of of of יאוש is you can claim it. What did I say? Not that פשט, it's not yours. It's still yours, but you can't claim it. So, that's why the משנה doesn't say it's yours. If כולה, the משנה should have said just like the שמלה has סימנים and יש לה בעלים, there's always יש לה בעלים. Anything What? It doesn't want תובעים. Why? Because this is teaching you the דין of of of יאוש, and יאוש is only one thing: you can't come and claim it. The guy who picked it up has a right to have it. But, you're still the בעל הבית, but you have no right to claim it back. That's what we learn out. How How do we know that he gave יאוש? So, I says, or because he said it, or because there are things which חכמים know people are מייאש. Depends where it's It has no סימן. No. Anything has no סימן, a normal person is מייאש. Because how's he going to ever get it back? What does he think in his mind? Let's say I find the guy who found it, what am I going to do? He'll tell me, \"נו, how do you know it's yours?\" So, the Smart Phone's finally used. Yeah, smartphone is like the used. So, well. Talking about phones. I'll get that Pesach Sheni talk about phones. So, after I might tell, you throw it out this week. What would be the situation if you find something that has all the סימנים many סימנים, but you can't use it at all? Would you be you hold on and you are you supposed to hold on to it? You can't. And For years, it's been years now It doesn't matter, you can't use it. and and for sure he gave it up? He can't use it. But you but you And there's no owner to it then? No, no, there is an original owner. The original owner. Even if he's מייאש, but he is That's the point. Is he מייאש? No, he's מייאש. For sure he is, because One second, wow. If he's מתייאש after you found it, you can't keep it. That's called יאוש שלא מדעת. אביי holds לא הוי יאוש. We פסק like אביי. Anything that you find, even if it has no סימן, but if when you found it, he doesn't know yet he lost it, so he's not מתייאש yet, then even though he's מתייאש later, you can't keep it. That's a different דין. That's I'm telling you, but you you picked it up before he is. Yeah. So you can't keep it. Did you hold it? Yeah, he was a חצי יובל or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He has told us. Anyway, so so bringing out this is what we learn out from שמלה. That that שמלה teaches you the דין of יאוש like רש״י says, and like תוספות says. And רש״י learns the same way, we said, למיעוטי מידי דלית ביה יאוש. That's why the גמרא uses the לשון, ״יש בה תובעין״, which is not a פלא. Normally the גמרא's לשון, that it has a סימן. Instead of it has a סימן, it has an owner. Has a סימן and it has a claimer. That means the whole thing is if he could claim it or can't claim it. From there we see that if it's יאוש, he cannot claim it. That's all it is. It's so he can't claim. The only thing, and that's what תוספות learns. The only thing that רש״י feels that we have to have another place where we find such an example that because you're cut off from it, that's why you're allowed to take it even though it's his. Where do we find such an example? That's what רש״י brings to know, not that רש״י learns that that's the מקור for יאוש. רש״י says with no יאוש because of that. And look at the לשון of רש״י. The לשון is, ״מניין לאבידה ששטפה נהר? הואיל ונתייאשו הבעלים, כיוון דמייאש, שהיא מותרת״, that it's allowed. What What do you mean it's allowed? It's not his anymore. Allowed means that it's your thing and I'm allowed to take it. Usually, if it's your thing, it's אסור to take, גזילה. Here the תורה tells us that what? That you're allowed to take it. So here we see in a case of ששטפה נהר, it's not יאוש. אדרבה, the קשיא that the ראשונים have by ששטפה נהר, it's not יאוש. It's stuck in there. רש״י also learns it's not יאוש. But what it does show you is that the תורה made a דין here that because ששטפה נהר, so there is like a cutoff between you and the thing, the תורה was מתיר it. Oh, so we see from here that if you if you are cut off from it, the תורה was מתיר it. So now we understand when it comes to the other פסוק, אשר תאבד, oh now we can understand over there יאוש, you also cut yourself off from it, so מסתמא that's why you could keep it. So it's a combination of both. One is the direct דין of יאוש. That's the case of ששטף of of of of שמלה, because that's ממש יש בה תובעין or אין לה תובעין, you have no claimers. This is a backup to it, and this is not יאוש. This is not יאוש. You could say, להלכה, this I don't want to go cuz I I want to go back to what you're saying, but that's goes, that you could say that it's the חכמים the the תורה tells you that מסתמא he is מתייאש. And you say he's not. So normally you would The

רמב״ם does say because he is definitely מתייאש. The רמב״ם does say, that's why we fight to fix it into that. But we're not talking about the רמב״ם now. So you could say בפירוש he is not מתייאש, and we don't care he's not מתייאש. And the תורה gives you a דין that because it's אבודה מכל אדם, it's lost from everybody, and you could be a guy who's not מתייאש, תורה says you're cut off from it and you could keep it. And what happens if you could keep it? It doesn't become it it's it's yours, it's still yours. Not because of יאוש. But that's a background to the thing that we see from there that if someone cuts off, you get cut off and then you could keep it. And ממילא רש״י says, whatever we can learn out, that thing also. So this answers the two שאלות that we asked. One שאלה was why does רש״י need two לימודים? One is the לימוד is the לימוד of שמלה, like רש״י says himself by שמלה. And the other one is just a backup. And the other שאלה, how could רש״י learn out from אשר תאבד, from ששטפה נהר, the דין of יאוש when there is no יאוש there like the ראשונים ask? So saying אין הכי נמי, I'm saying רש״י doesn't mean it's יאוש. It's taking out יאוש. It's an example to the נקודה that if you're cut off, you could keep it. The guy who picks it up could keep it even though it's still yours, that's the case over there. Based on this פירוש that we're saying, that the טייטש, and this doesn't say anywhere, that יאוש is the פשט the חילוק is the חילוק between יאוש and הפקר is that הפקר is not yours anymore and יאוש is still yours even though the guy could take it, if you learn like this, you could explain a גמרא in עבודה זרה. The

גמרא in עבודה זרה says a דין, tells a story here. אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, פעם אחת הייתי מהלך אחר רבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי, yeah, we learned over there also, ענין, yeah, and this so he says, \"Once I was going behind רבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי, רבי אלעזר הקפר the great, בריבי is, בדרך, on the way, ומצא שם טבעת, he found a ring, ועליה צורת דרקון, and he found the picture of a דרקון, of a snake, of a dragon, which is seems shows it's עבודה זרה.\" So he found a ring which belongs to עבודה זרה. עבודה זרה is also אסור בהנאה. So what did he do? מצא עכו״ם קטן, he found a גוי, a child, ולא אמר לו כלום, he saw a גוי, didn't say anything to him. מצא עכו״ם גדול, then he found an adult, a גוי, ואמר לו, he says בטליה, because the דין is if a גוי is מבטל the עבודה זרה, the עבודה זרה is not אסור anymore, you could keep it. So he asked the גוי to be מבטל it. ולא ביטלו! He, what, shocked with him, he gave him a פאטש! And then... רבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי gave the גוי a פאטש, וביטלו, and it was מבטל. And the גמרא says, here we know

three things: we know a גוי can be מבטל עבודה זרה even if it's not his own, and only a גוי who understands, not a child, that's why a child not, and also that you could force the גוי to be מבטל and it works. Anyway, this is the גמרא. Huh? But the גמרא goes in how do you מבטל. No, no. You do something to it. You deface it, deface his face and whatever, but if the גוי does it... The גוי has to do something to be מבטל it. This is this is this thing. Yeah. פרעגט די גמרא: ולית ליה לרבי אלעזר הקפר בריבי הא דתנן, doesn't he hold, המציל מן הארי ומן הדוב ומן הנמר ומן הגייס ומשלוליתו של נהר במציאת... במקום שרובא... שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין. So since he found it, and we learn here that if you find by a lion or you find in a big place, since the owner is מתיאש, so here, so this case when he found it, so the owner was מתיאש, so why did he need the גוי to be מבטל it? So it was מתיאש, it was בטל right away! What? The גוי is מתיאש. Yeah, it's sure! The גוי is מתיאש! Should be... Now, let me read you the רש״י: No, why, it could be... No, not אידן. A גוי also. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, but... But לגבי this איסור, נו? Here, it's not a question whether you could keep it, but we see from there that the person who loses it is מתיאש. So רש״י

says: כיון דיאש עכו״ם, since the גוי was מתיאש, בטלה מדעתיה, so he's מבטל from his mind, דלא למיפלחה, he would not worship it anymore. ותו לא צריך לביטולי, you don't have to מבטל it again! The fact that we see that he has יאוש We're not talking why he's allowed to keep it or not, of דין אבידה. That's nothing with a גוי, a גוי's אבידה you can keep even if he is not מתיאש. בפועל we see he is מתיאש, and if a גוי, a person a גוי is מתיאש, so obviously he's giving up hope of of worshiping it. So that's ביטול itself! So the fact that the גוי was מתיאש is ביטול! Why did he have to find another גוי? אמר אביי, אביי answers like this: נהי דמיניה מייאש, a גוי, a person takes a יאוש from it, אבל מאיסורא מי מייאש? He's מתיאש from the עבודה זרה aspect of it? מימר אמר, why, the גוי thinks, says to himself, he lost it, so he's מתיאש, but he says to himself: אי עכו״ם משכח לה פלח לה. If a גוי will find it, he'll worship it. אי ישראל משכח לה, a איד will find it, the גוי the גוי says to himself: איידי דדמיה יקרי, since it's expensive, מזבין לה לעכו״ם ופלח לה. He'll sell it to a גוי and the גוי will worship it. So ממילא he's מתיאש only from from the ownership, which we don't need it here for that anyway, but he's not מתיאש from the איסור. And ממילא, רבי אלעזר הקפר had to get the גוי to be מבטל. לכאורה, it's a סתירה from this המשנה. The משנה says like this: עכו״ם שהניחה את אידו בשעת שלום. If a גוי left an עבודה זרה, it wasn't a war when he ran away, he just decided, left it, מותרת. Anybody who finds it could keep it, it's not עבודה זרה, it's בטל. It's בטל. בשעת מלחמה אסורה. It's מותר. Why is it מותר? Because the guy left it. But we just finished saying that a guy who leaves it, still the גוי who leaves it, even though he doesn't care about it, but what's in his mind? In his mind is that a גוי might find it and worship it, and a איד might find it and sell it to a גוי. So why is it מותר? No, because one is you're telling yourself, Yeah. I lost it, shoot, I lost it. Yeah. But at least it's going to have some... And here? Here, he's like, I don't want it anymore, get away from me, he's leaving it. No, he's leaving it... There is a far thought... Yeah. When you lose something, you're losing it against your will. Yeah. Yeah, but we're talking about the psychology of a person. One second. But when you walk away from something, you're giving up, you're מבטל the whole עצמות of it. No, you remind me of the story of the אלטער רבי. Who said that he was banging on this... You're making it sound like this was a whole גאנצע שטורם. He walked away because... I know, but... No, he is not making feel better. No, he does... No, he's not, because we say normally he knows what's going to happen. Right. Here also he knows. The same knowledge of what's going to happen later he knows here, too. 'Cause he happy for what is going to happen? Because he's not detaching himself. No, because he's not... No, whatever happened happened. He's like, \"Oh, I lost a valuable piece of...\" Yeah. \"At least some other guy will use the bike.\" I don't know if he would have, \"At least somebody else...\" That's what he's saying! That's the in- No, we're saying he doesn't know. Since he doesn't know what's going to happen, so really he thinks. And in this case, as long as he knows that goy might still worship it, it's not ביטול. הביטול means it's קוץ עבודה זרה. Why does he care that a goy is going to worship this thing? And I know I don't know Who's got to care? He doesn't care. Of course he does. There has to be a value. Why does he care? Who says he cares? If I'm thinking about it, if I'm giving it a thought, I'm putting a value on it. It's עבודה זרה, he cares. He loves his עבודה זרה. It doesn't It doesn't mean he actually says it. It means that when he knows, when he left it, he knows that it still can be worshiped. And במילי, the worship is still there. But why does he give it a thought? Why is he giving it a thought? I don't know if he is giving It doesn't mean he is giving it a thought. We're talking he's actively No, but I don't mean We don't We know he thought this or not. Maybe he's a stupid goy. This is the עצם ענין is like this. The ענין is that when he leaves it, it's his mind so so to speak is that it could be for worship. But we don't know what he left it for. But he lost it or he left it? Well, here is he lost it, and there he left it. So, there must be some difference.

What I'm asking is what is the difference? One is ייאוש, and one is הפקר. Oh, that's what I'm trying to get to, but that's only fits if if what I'm saying, I'm right. Right. If ייאוש and הפקר is the same thing, then what's the difference? This is ייאוש. When he left when he lost it, it's ייאוש. ייאוש and הפקר is the same thing. According to them, אלא מאי it's not doesn't leave your רשות till someone picks it up. Fine. But לכאורה when someone picks it up, it's exactly this. So, if by ייאוש we say that it doesn't help and you have to find another goy to be מבטל it, so how come by הפקר it does work? It's his מזל. How's it מבטל it? So, I want to say the the truth is both cases the goy thinks the same way. He knows in his mind that someone could pick it up. The difference is like this. Let's look at the other way. Who cares what he thinks about the other goy? He left it, finished. The other goy is going to worship it. Because of that, it's not ביטול? Why is it a fact that he thinks He's, but his mind have a connection to something that doesn't belong to him. He was מפקיר it. When he is מפקיר it, his mind doesn't count anymore. Like any other other goy's mind. Who cares what he thinks? The moment he is מפקיר it, it's out of mind, out of sight, it's finished. He, תאקע, knows, and he knows, and he's happy maybe even that somebody else is going to worship it, but it doesn't have an effect on the object. No, even if he What's that? Even if he cares. Right, the goy Even if he cares, his mind, if it's another whole כלל. A person's מחשבה cannot have a השפעה on someone else's thing. Why is the rule אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו, you can't אסר somebody else's thing? Because, in my, and it's something of my mind. This is standing here, and I think about it. What השפעה does this have? ממילא, if it's mine, so it's mine, it's connected to me. ממילא, if I do something to it. But, if I sit back, and I look at it, and I think, what, there's no connection. It's not yours. Cuz, not mine. So, ממילא, if the guy who is מפקיר it, it משמע over there where he's מפקיר עבודה זרה, it's not his anymore. So, as much as we're still going to say like it says here that he knows somebody else will his mind thinks somebody else will find it, and somebody else will worship it. So, it doesn't affect עבודה זרה, because, as far as his his mind doesn't count. In the case of ייאוש, it does count. Why? Because in ייאוש, it's still his! Why does the גמרא go to One second, one, let me just finish. So, it's the whole vart because it's his. By ייאוש, because it's his. And when it's yours, your mind connects to it, even though somebody else could find it and take it. And that's why So, באמת, both cases, the goy knows someone else is going to worship it. The question is how come over here we say that, ממילא, it's not בטל, and over there it is בטל? Because here by ייאוש, his mind, who keeps thinking that it's going to be working, has an effect. Why? Because it's still his, and his mind has an השפעה on his thing. ייאוש, if you learn like I'm saying that ייאוש remains his, so his mind has השפעה. מה שאין כן over there where it's הפקר. הפקר means it's not yours. So, your mind has no השפעה on it. So, who cares that you think about it and someone else is going to work? You're מפקיר it. It's not yours anymore. So, you're, and as far as you're concerned, you've finished worshiping it. \"I do know somebody else will.\" So, who cares if it's not yours anymore, it doesn't work. But that doesn't So, if you learn that הפקר, ייאוש are different in this way, then these two גמראs fit this way. But, if you learn הפקר and ייאוש are the same way, then you got a קשיא. You know we're going to have to find some תירוץ like you're saying this, but the bottom line is that in both cases he knows the he knows the fact. If a person who leaves it feels that someone else will worship it, so in both cases he knows someone will worship it. So, why should it be בטל? And over there we see it's בטל. But, if you learn that there's a difference between ייאוש and הפקר, then we understand that. So pay by ייאוש, you have to give it back and by ייאוש, you have to give it back. No, you don't have to. So then and then, it's a פסק הלכה טעי מעי שישא yeah. It's just uh we're talking about It's just that I tell, I want to say about the הפקר, it does מבאטל on the object, and they have to Yes, that it does. But I, I It does it for him only. Not for the next goy. Right, right. But what he thinks about the next guy doesn't care. We don't care. What connection does he have to the next guy? Habanta. Take it by A מעשה שהיה. Yeah. A painter for יום טוב. Yeah. And we

left the גויה alone in the house for six hours, we came back missing a couple of very expensive pieces of jewelry. You saw? The גויה, the worker, when you talk, the jewelry is not there. My mother was 100% certain, בלי שום ספק the גויה took it. ס׳איז עפעס, but my מאמע is בלי שום ספק, and he like, like, we called the police. Police had come in next day, they took her down to the station. They went to her house, they looked through her house. My מאמע, זי זאגט, \"איך בין 100% זיכער אז זי האט עס גענומען.\" נישט געפונען! זיי האבן נישט געפונען. And והראיה, and the proof that it's gone, יוסף had a picture, my brother has a picture, of my mother wearing a one big piece of diamonds, an old dress with jewels. And I spoke to my sister in ישראל, חנה, that if you look at the picture in the airport, when מאמע left, she's wearing that particular with 54 diamonds missing. You talk. To pay her, the next day the police came again, so he said to my mother, \"Unless you're 100% certain, they get to press charges.\" \"Again?\" \"Against the גויה.\" But she came at the end to collect the money. \"איך בין, well, 100% sure.\" Today, my father calls me they have the bracelet in Montreal. What? The bracelet never left, my mother forgot to take it from Montreal. The שאלה I have for you: had I gone to, it's a very expensive piece of jewelry, had I gone to Montreal and take it, would it be mine? Truth be honest. If I,

my mother, and I would have, I think it's a מחלוקת between the רמב״ם and תוספות. Why? Because the רמב״ם says יאוש ברשות doesn't work. If it's יאוש, if you lose something and it's in your house, and תוספות says יאוש ברשות it still is. Can he put a claim? Huh? Can he put a claim? No, no, they, my father gave her a big reward already to the גויה. But she was she was, you pressed charges? They didn't press, but the police still went to her house and checked her house and this and that. On the other hand, my mother went to eat in a restaurant here, by Rare, and she took off her finger a ring