Here in the Gemara in Bava Metzia דף כ״ב עמוד ב׳, the Gemara brings a machloket between Rabbah and Rava. The machloket is whether מקום הוי סימן or מקום לא הוי סימן. Talking here about lost objects and the din is that if it has a siman, if it has a sign that the guy could recognize, you have to return it. Not only because he gives you the siman so you know it's his, the fact it has a siman means that he wasn't meya'esh to begin with. When a person loses an loses an object knowing that he has a siman, knows that he's able to get it back, so lechatchilah he doesn't give up hope. But if you lose something it doesn't have a siman, so then he thinks that, \"I'll never get it. Even if someone who will find it and wanna, but I won't be able to identify it.\" So he's meya'esh to begin with. And therefore even if you know who lost it you don't have to give it back, because if he was meya'esh you don't have to give it back. How about with a siman that gets likely washed away? There is there is a That's what we learned, that's was a special din, but then you have a special That's because he definitely was meya'esh in the only case. So here we have a question of מקום. The object doesn't have a siman, but it's laying in a special place and the person could identify it not by they saying what the identify the object, but he's able to say in this and this place you found it. Is that considered a siman or not? If he found it? He lost it. No, he lost it means that you found it there. When a guy will pick and say, \"I found something,\" he'll be able to say, \"Oh, it must have been at the corner of of Alton and this one.\" And if it happened to be there, then it's a good siman, that's the she'eilah. In the mikveh. Yeah. So Rabbah says that it's not a siman, מקום לא הוי סימן, and therefore if you find something it has no siman even though the guy identifies it or identify it by saying the place, you don't have to give it back. And Rava says מקום הוי סימן. Yeah, and if it's a siman you've got to do all the same dinim like something has a siman. Does that have something to do with the...? No, that's yes. Well it depends. If it's something that you assume that was could be kicked away, then there's no מקום there, that's something else. What about the stuff we just learned about the tree, falls on this side of the tree? That מקום or is that the trees...? No, no, there's the the shape the shape of the fruit if you remember. But then you don't know which tree it came from. Okay. Hear like this. The

Rambam in פרק י״ג הלכה ה׳... Of what? Of Hilchot Gezeilah va'Aveidah. The Rambam says like this: איך? סימנים המובהקים, good סימנים. מובהק means how do you translate מובהק? Reliable. Strong ones. Explicit, strong סימנים. שסומכין עליהם, we rely on it, if a person gives that סימן we rely on it. ודנין על פיהם בכל מקום, דין תורה, מדאורייתא we rely on it and we judge it accordingly. And he gives examples: בהמידה, או המשקל, או המנין, או מקום האבידה, סימנים מובהקים הם. So he gives an example of מידה, the measurement, משקל is the weight, the מנין is the amount, or מקום האבידה, or the place. If a guy gives you the siman of the place where it was lost, that's called a סימן מובהק. That's called a good siman, and as the Rambam started the halacha, if it's a good siman we rely on it and you have to return the object. Fine. This halacha is fine, so the Rambam paskens like Rava that מקום הוי סימן. Good, סימן המובהק. And it's a סימן מובהק. In פרק ט״ו פרק ט״ו, the same הלכות, גזלה ואבידה, פרק ט״ו הלכה י׳, listen to this: מצא כריכות ברשות היחיד, if you find bundles of wheat in the private domain, אם דרך נפילה, if you see it fell, הרי אלו שלו, you could keep it. Why? Because there is no מקום סימן. A guy who drops it doesn't know. If you drop something, you don't know where you dropped it, because if you know where you dropped it, you'd pick it up! So you don't know, so therefore you could keep it. ואם דרך הנחה, if it looks like it was put down, חייב להכריז. So you have to announce it. Why? ש... Huh? Maybe he's not lost. He put it down, but it's not lost. If it looks like he put it down, then you have to announce it. And we're talking about כריכות, bundles don't have a siman. All the bundles look alike. So why, if it looks like it was put down, you have to announce it? שאף על פי שאין להם סימן, even though it doesn't have a סימן, המקום סימן. The place is a siman. And then the Rambam adds three word four words: אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק. The מקום is a siman even though it's not a סימן מובהק. How it's put down? It's for all the מקום. The only time you can give it back because of the מקום is if it's put down. If it's lost, he doesn't know the מקום that it fell down. But here, if it looks like it was put down and you took it, you could give it back if the guy gives you the מקום. Because it's lost. How does the guy know where he lost it? No, so the סימן is wherever it is, it's a סימן. You found it at this corner, he lost it at a different corner. Right. And he doesn't know where he lost it, no? If you, wherever you found it, he can never give you that, including more, in most cases, he can't give you the סימן of the מקום. He doesn't know where he lost. After about a half hour, he realizes, Oy, I'm missing something. So general, is a she'eilah will general work? If he gives, generally, these five blocks. He assumes that's not a ראיה. People lose things within the five blocks, so... Huh? ברשות היחיד, yeah. Yeah, because ברשות הרבים, it's a different reason it's not, we're talking about ברשות היחיד. Anyway, what we're trying to say here is, this

Rambam seems to contradict the Rambam before it. Not seems, it's a clear contradiction! Because the Rambam, when he said סימנים מובהקים, good סימנים, and he gives examples of מידה, משקל, מנין, מקום is called a סימן מובהק! Here he says in the case where it looks like it was put down, you have to announce it. Why? Because he could give a, even though that has no סימן, but there's a סימן of מקום, אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק, even though it's not a סימן מובהק! So the Rambam says it's not a סימן מובהק. Now, the truth is, if you look at the Rambam in our prints, the words אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק is in parentheses. Okay, we'll go over that. I know, but you see it and you see people are going to take it away. It's a mitzvah of השבת אבידה to take it and give it back to the guy. I know, but if you put it down and you left, this is called an אבידה. So we have this contradiction. Comes the Maggid Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh says like this: ומה שכתב בקצת ספרי הרב שהמקום אינו סימן מובהק, when in this הלכה, in some of the manuscripts it says that the Rambam writes that the מקום is not a סימן מובהק, טעות סופר הוא, it's a mistake! שהרי הוא כתב למעלה פרק י״ג, because the Rambam himself writes in the earlier הלכה, that מקום אבידה סימן מובהק, how did he say not? Okay. So someone want to change the גירסא, he says it's a mistake. Then he brings another ראיה it's a mistake, and this is even a stronger קושיא than the קושיא we had before: ועוד, שהרי כתב שם פרק י״ג, the Rambam writes also before in פרק י״ג, שאם נתן סימנים שאינם מובהקים אין מחזירין לו אבידה. I'll read the הלכה. The halachah before we read from here, is הלכה ה׳ where he says that מקום is a סימן מובהק, but then if you look back at הלכה ג׳, I'll read the הלכה, בא בעל אבידה, if the guy who lost it comes, ונתן סימנים שאינם מובהקים, he gives a סימן that's not מובהק, אין מחזירין לו, they don't give it back, עד שיאמר סימנים מובהקים, until he gives a מובהק. So he says, I don't understand, if the Rambam writes here that מקום is not a סימן מובהק, so why does he say you have to announce it? He says, ועוד, שהרי כתב שם פרק י״ג שאם נתן סימנים שאינם מובהקים אין מחזירין לו אבידה, they don't give it back. ואם כן, שהמקום אינו סימן מובהק, if the Rambam says that the מקום is not a סימן מובהק, מה יועיל בהכרזה, so why does he say we announce it even though it's not a סימן מובהק? אלא ודאי, זה שנמצא כאן טעות סופר הוא, it's a mistake. And

because of the Maggid Mishneh's writing it's a mistake, the printer surrounded it. Because the Kesef Mishneh, it's not a mistake. Come the Kesef Mishneh, and he brings here from the Maggid Mishneh, he says, כתב Rav Hamaggid that it's a mistake. ולי נראה, I think, שאפשר לומר, that you could say, that there's no סתירה between the two. שמה שכתב כאן אינו סימן מובהק, when he says here that it's not a real סימן, היינו משום דאיכא למיחש שמא עברו בני אדם ברשות היחיד וגלגלוהו ממקומו, because it's possible even though it's in a רשות היחיד, maybe someone else passed by and kicked it, so it's not in the right place. So therefore it's called a סימן שאינו מובהק. אבל היכא דידוע שלא נתגלגל, but if you know that it wasn't, looks like it's never moved, כגון שהוא מונח בצד הגדר, כגון for instance if it's on the side of the wall, הוי מקום סימן מובהק, so it's a סימן מובהק. Basically what he's answering is that the two הלכות are talking about two different cases. Where the Rambam says מקום is yes a סימן מובהק, that's the case where it looks like it wasn't touched or the same place where it started, so then it's a סימן מובהק. When he writes here that it's not a סימן מובהק, it's in a case where it's in the middle, where it could be that it was kicked around. Huh? Maybe, no, but you could tell it wasn't, doesn't mean a person, maybe the wind, but you could see. If it was turned around, you could tell. So mimela he answers the סתירה between the two הלכות. The problem is with the with the with the מגיד, כסף משנה's answer, first of all, the Rambam doesn't make that chiluk. He doesn't say here it's in the middle, here it's on the side. But besides that, he doesn't answer the second kashya. He says this case here where it says that it's not a סימן מובהק is in a case where it was in the middle. So the the the Magid Mishneh brought that the Rambam says that if it's a siman that's not מובהק, you don't return. Not a siman. Not a siman. So how come he says here, okay, we'll figure out and answer the stira, that this this is a סימן שאינו מובהק, not מובהק because it's not in the, it's not by the wall, it's in the middle. But why does he say you have to return it? On the contrary, if this is a case where it's not a סימן מובהק, the Rambam said clearly it's not a סימן מובהק, נתן סימן שאינו מובהק, אין מחזירין אותו. You don't get back. So lichorah his kashya is valid. So to say that that's a טעות סופרים, to say it's a טעות הדפוס, it's a ta'ut, it's a mistake, is certainly a hard answer. The Kesef Mishneh's answer is also hard. So what's the answer? We're back to the she'eilah. So

basically we have three Rambams which don't fit. One Rambam it says that מקום is a סימן מובהק, the other place he says מקום is not a סימן מובהק, and another she'eilah, in the place where he says it's not a סימן מובהק, he says nevertheless you give it, you announce it, when he himself in this other Rambam says that if it's not a סימן מובהק you don't announce it. So that's the stira, so that's the the she'eilah we have. I guess it depends on the מקום, there's different kinds of מקום. Well, first of all, should have said something, you're leaving it so open. All מקום בכלל is only דרך הנחה. To say מקום is a siman, it's only דרך הנחה. That's the Gemara says anyway in Rav Zevid. So why you announce it? For what? You don't announce it, for what? No, it has no siman. We're talking about something has no other siman, so why should he announce it? It has no siman, the only siman that's possible is מקום, and if he's not going to give it back anyway. So to answer this she'eilah like this: I

have a friend, his name is Rabbi Kalmanzoon. He's a rosh yeshiva from New Haven. He has a sefer, Reshimat Shiurim. And he, in his sefer, tries to answer this Rambam. And this is what he says, listen to what he says. He tries to answer this kashya on the Rambam based on another kashya. The Gemara This what we spoke about was כ״ג עמוד ב, כ״ג עמוד א. כ״ג עמוד ב, the Gemara goes I'll read the Gemara. The Gemara says like this: בעא מיניה רב ביבי מרב נחמן, רב ביבי asked a she'eilah of Rav Nachman: מקום הוי סימן או לא הוי סימן? Is מקום a siman or not? אמר ליה, so he answered him: תניתו, I'll answer you, I'll show you a proof from a beraisa. The beraisa says like this: מצא כדי יין של שמן של תבואה של גרוגרות של זיתים, if you find barrels of wine and oil and תבואה and גרוגרות, you could keep it. Very simple, why? There is no siman, I mean these all look alike. So he says to him, so Rav Nachman says: אי סלקא דעתך מקום הוי סימן, if you think מקום is a siman, so why don't you announce this, ליכרז מקום! Wherever you found it, announce the מקום! And since it says nothing to announce, and since it says you could keep it, so Rav Nachman פסקנט, מקום is not a siman. אמר רב זביד, comes Rav Zevid and says: No, I hold מקום is a siman. אי, the beraisa says you could keep the barrel of wine, why don't you announce the מקום? הכא במאי עסקינן? ברקתא דנהרא. This is talking about if you found the barrels of wine by the port. By the port, every day ships come and people, every person delivers the oil, of wine, so therefore, and he said, because we tell the guy, כי היכי דאיתרמי לדידך, איתרמי נמי לחברך, you dropped a barrel of wine, somebody else could have also dropped, because it's a place where people bring. So only in that case it's not. So this מקום doesn't mean anything because, depends on the מקום. Yeah, but that's, but not that Rambam gives over here. But if it's a regular makom, what does Rav Zevid say? It is. In a regular makom? Right. But by the port it's not. But this, yeah. But Rav Nachman didn't say that. So Rav Nachman paskens that makom is not a siman. Rav Zevid paskens makom is a siman. So we

have a מחלוקת, Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid. So he asks a moradike kashya: If Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid already argued whether makom is a siman or not, what do Rabbah and Rava have to argue about? We learned before that Rabbah and Rava argue whether makom is a siman or not. Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid lived a few generations before Rabbah and Rava. If the earlier amoraim already argued, and we see in the Gemara that Rav Nachman said makom is not a siman and he says it is a siman, so why do Rabbah and Rava argue? Maybe Rabbah paskens like Rav Nachman? So he should say so! Let Rabbah say הלכה כרב נחמן! Let Rava say הלכה כרב זביד! But they're arguing as if nothing happened, how could it be? So he says, ela mai, we must say that they're two separate arguments. And this is how he learns the pshat: Rav Nachman and Rava, and, and Rav Zevid argue whether makom is a siman or not. Rav Nachman says מקום is not a siman, you can't give it, and Rav Zevid says מקום is a siman, it's a סימן מובהק. He holds it's a real siman. And we pasken like Rav Zevid that מקום is a real siman. After we learned like Rav Zevid that מקום is a real siman, comes Rava and Rabbah and argue within Rav Zevid. What's the argument? It's possible, he says, that מקום should be a siman, but nevertheless, you shouldn't give it back because of that siman. Why? Because could be that the owner, because he doesn't know how strong the siman of מקום is, could be he's mitya'esh. So the siman could be in its own right, it could be a סימן מובהק, and it's a good siman, that's what Rav Zevid says. But mitzad the owner, that's the machloket Rabbah and Rava. So Rabbah says it's not a siman, Rabbah says even though be'emet, like Rav Zevid says it's a real siman, but we don't give it back because of that, because the guy's mitya'esh. And Rava says no, we hold like Rav Zevid it's a siman and you takeh have to give it back, it's a regular siman. That's how he learns the peshat. And not only that, he wants to say that Rabbah and Rava go l'shitam, follow their own opinions, because there's another machloket in the Gemara, also between Rabbah and Rava: סימן העשוי לידרס. If there's something that you lost has a סימן, but it's something that would could be stepped on, is that a סימן or not? Rabbah says it's not a סימן, because the guy who lost this thinks even though it has a סימן, someone probably stepped on it. If it's stepped, the סימן will be erased, so he's מתיאש. So when you find something with a סימן, but it's a סימן that could be stepped on, you don't have to return it. And Rava says no, סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן. So here he says we see the same type of machloket. It's really a real סימן. Nevertheless, Rabbah follows that even though it's a real סימן, it's possible that you don't have to give it back, because the guy is מתיאש. Rava says no, if it's a real סימן, you got to give it back. So he wants to say, so he wants to say the same thing here is בנוגע this machloket. We pasken like Rav Zevid that it is a סימן. See, Rav Nachman says it's not a סימן, don't give it, fine. But it is a סימן. Comes Rabbah and says even though Rav Zevid says it's a סימן and I say he's right, but nevertheless, you don't give it back, just like you hold by the סימן that's stepped on that even though it's a real סימן, you don't give it back. מה שאין כן Rava says no, if it's a real סימן, it's a real סימן just like over there. He says סימן העשוי לידרס, it's a real סימן, you give it back. Same thing here, you give back. So that's how he explains the two machloket's. Doesn't it all agree what's a real סימן and what's not a real סימן? What do you mean by that? Well, then the guy who lost it would know the difference. Well, the guy thinks that this is something that he will not get back, he doesn't realize it's a סימן. That's the she'elah. Even though it's a real סימן, he doesn't realize it, that's what Rabbah says, and therefore, he's מתיאש. Why not? Right, well, we don't know, so it's possible he is מתיאש. Now based on this, he'll answer the Rambam. This is how he answers the Rambam. They're both true. If someone will ask, is makom a סימן מובהק or not? Well, if you're looking from the point of view of the object, it's a סימן מובהק. That's why the Rambam says in פרק י\"ג, he says one of the simanim of aveidah is makom. When he says over there makom is not a siman, not a סימן מובהק, that's because that goes after when the guy gives back. Even though he says you got to return it, because he paskens like Rava, but even according to Rava that you have to return it, after all, since Rabbah argues, it shows that it's not really in the eyes of a person a hundred percent. So it's not a סימן מובהק. So it's not, but it's a type of not a סימן מובהק that be'etzem it is a סימן מובהק. And when the Rambam says before that if it's not a סימן מובהק you don't return, which we ask the kashya, so how come here he says you return this makom, with even though it's not very pashut. Which time do you not return if it's not a סימן מובהק? If it's be'etzem not a סימן מובהק. But in this case where the makom is be'etzem, yes, a סימן מובהק, ela mai why is it not a סימן מובהק? Because of the ba'al habayit, that you do return. So that is how he answers the peshat. Sounds very good, it sounds like a good peshat, I just have a few problems. First of all, it doesn't fit in the lashon of the Rambam. Where does the Rambam mention that this is, when he says this is a סימן מובהק, it's from the object; not a סימן מובהק, it's from the person's perspective? That's one thing. Another thing, according to his peshat, let's understand: Rava says that I hold like Rav Zevid, that it is a siman,

nevertheless you do not give it back, because for the owner. So, for what purpose did according to Rava, for what purpose did Rav Zevid say that it is a siman? What do we gain by it? סתם הוציא שפתיו? If Rava holds that צדק רב זביד, what did Rav Zevid mean when he says it is a siman, it's only a סימן בעצם, but you nevertheless never give it back, so what's the purpose of his saying it's a siman? What did he gain by saying it's a siman? I don't understand according to this peshat. הא? No, because if you don't give it back, you can use it. Then I have another shaila: according to his peshat, we pasken like Rav Zevid. And when there's a machloket between Rav Zevid and Rav Nachman, Rav Nachman says it's not a siman, but Rav Zevid said it is, we pasken like Rav Zevid. The rule is that we always pasken like Rav Nachman. הא? 'Cause he said you don't have to. Tosafot here brings even, it says always halacha like Rav Nachman, so some say the halacha is only against a certain opinion, but Tosafot says here, וכרב נחמן קיימא לן לגבי כולי עלמא. So when Rav Nachman argues with Rav Zevid, we should pasken like Rav Nachman. And

according to his peshat, everyone paskens like Rav Zevid, even if there is still was a machloket. So as much as the peshat sounds good, there is... I know. Originally it was, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Therefore, I have a different peshat. I once I did. I I once spoke to I once spoke to him about it. I actually had the shiur written down and I sent it to him. So he I spoke to him about it and he he had nothing to answer him. Yeah, but a siman is only if we assume the guy knows the siman, so he's not מתייאש, so he knows his So, then we do care how much the guy pays attention? הא? Then we do? Sure we care, right? I mean, that's true. But that's why, so then we in a case like that we call it not a siman. Any siman that's there, but we say that a guy is not going to know it, then we don't call it a siman. And here we're saying Rava says that it's not a siman, which means you don't give it back, and it's all based on Rav Zevid who says it is a siman. Ela mai?

It's a siman for the thing, it's a big deal. לגבי what is it a siman? And then also, we pasken like Rav Nachman, he says pasken like Rav Zevid. That's not the money, that's a minyan, that's number, that's amount. A name on money wouldn't be a siman either. No. No, that's surely, because money you give, you could write your name on it and you give it away to others. Okay. I I have I have a different pshat. I have a different pshat and maybe I don't know if it's better or worse. Tell me Uh-huh. Yeah, we have to answer the she'eilah. The she'eilah, what is the difference between machloket between Rabbah and Rava and Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid? So, I'm going to try to turn it around and do it the opposite way. Yeah, it could be. Yeah, yes, something that's not common. But you don't give it away. Ein hachi nami! And I'll tell you that Rebbe's dollar is not called money anymore. Already, yes, it's not money. I I think, I'm not saying lema'aseh, I think it's not muktzeh on Shabbos. Because it's not money, it's not currency anymore. Ah! Okay. הא? I'm saying the Rebbe's dollar. Okay. So, I think the pshat in the machloket between Rabbah and Rava and Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid is this machloket: when Rav Nachman argues and says מקום is not a siman, and Rav Zevid says מקום is a סימן, Rav Zevid says מקום is a siman means that if you find something and there's a מקום that's possible to A מקום, it's a regular siman like any other siman in the world, and you got it's a סימן מובהק, a real siman. Rav Nachman says מקום is not a siman, I think what he means is, not that it's not a siman at all, it's not a regular siman. It doesn't have the qualities of a regular siman. And therefore what's the difference? He also agrees it's a siman, and I'll tell you what the difference could be: two possible differences, two ways of learning. We could say like this: Rav Nachman agrees that if somebody will come and give you the siman of מקום, it's a real siman. And I'll tell you, maybe I'll do that way first, it'll be maybe easier. Why is there a discussion whether מקום is a siman or not? Why is it different than any other siman? Very pashut. Every other siman is a siman in the object. The object itself has a siman, while מקום the object is a regular object. There is a side thing on the outside that's not part of the object that could be a siman. So it's possible to say that because the object itself doesn't have a siman, you don't have to announce it. On the other hand, if somebody would come and give you the siman, you have to return it. Why? Because לפועל he gave you a siman, and the siman shows that it's his. When do you have to announce it? When there is a real, in the thing. So I'm going to use words which don't make sense, but as if the object is claiming, announce me, I have a siman. So you have to announce it. So not only do you have to return it when the guy gives you the siman, there is not only a חיוב להחזיר, to return, there's a חיוב להכריז, it's a different word, to announce. מה שאין כן אבער מקום זאגט רב נחמן לא הוי סימן, what does he mean לא הוי? Not that it's not a siman. It's not the same siman, which means you don't have to announce it, but it's still an almost If the guy comes and gives you the siman, you have to give it back because it's a good siman. So here we have a case of a siman that's only a סימן מובהק when he gives it, but before it's given, we don't look upon it as a siman in order to have to announce it. That's one way you could say. You could go a step further and say, that even what Rav Nachman means even more. Since if the guy gives the siman you have to return it, so there's a possibility you even have to announce it. Because give the guy an opportunity to give the siman. You have to give an opportunity, or else how's he going to give the siman? So you can announce it also. And nevertheless Rav Nachman says it's not a siman, because it's still, and it's still not a regular siman. Why? What would be the difference? The difference is like this: If you say I found a bundle of hay, will come and say 44th. So, so I'm saying, so it's possible that even Rav Nachman who says, again, Rav Zevid says a siman, 100%. Rav Nachman, it's not 100%. So first of all, the not 100% means it's a siman that you have to return, but not 100% that you have to announce. I could say even, you even have to go a step further and announce it. But you know why it's not a siman, in which way it's not a siman? I'll tell you like this. The din is like this by a regular thing which has a siman, and you have to announce, a regular siman and you have to announce it. What happens if you announce it, and no one comes forth? What do you do? You can't keep it. יהא מונח עד שיבוא אליהו. You could, you have to let it, you cannot use the object. That's the din. The Rambam paskent, the Alter Rebbe paskent, it's a clear thing, you cannot use it. But I want to say like this: if the makom is a siman, if no one comes forth, then you could keep it. So I'm learning a new pshat: that Rav Nachman learns, Rav Zevid that it's a full siman, Rav Nachman says it's not a full-fledged siman. And which way is it not full-fledged? So you can learn two ways: or you don't even have to announce it, just if to give it back, for sure. The she'eilah if you have to announce it, he says not. Or you can say you even have to announce it, it's still not a real siman because you don't, you could keep it if no one comes. That, these two ways is a machloket of Rabbah and Rava. They both paskent like Rav Nachman, because halacha like Rav Nachman, and we paskent like Rav Nachman, which means that Rav Nachman says makom is not a siman. But what do you pshat we said now that Rav Nachman says not a real siman? What's the pshat not a real siman? So comes Rabbah and says מקום לא הוי it's not a siman, that you don't even have to announce it. That's the pshat. And Rava comes and says makom according to Rav Nachman who says it's not a siman, it is a siman that you do have to announce it, and it's still I fit to Rav Nachman who says that it's not a siman because it's still not the same thing as a regular siman. So now we have an explanation of what the two machloktan are, because his question was why are they arguing twice? So I'm saying a different machloket. Rambam, second, we didn't get to the Rambam yet, okay, now we're staying for the Gemara. So we understand that Rav Nachman and Rav Zevid are arguing is it a siman, a full-fledged siman or not? Rav Zevid said yes, and Rav Nachman says that it's not, that's what he means it's not a siman. Rabbah and Rava argue within Rav Nachman, if it Not a full-fledged siman, how far is it not full-fledged? Is it not full-fledged that it's not a siman that you don't even have to announce it, that Rabbah says? Rava says it's not full-fledged, but you still have to announce it, הוי סימן. You have to announce it, even though I hold like Rav Nachman that it's not a siman because of. And it doesn't come into at all the the בעל הבית says he's מתיאש to me, so doesn't come into to this. No, that's, it's all connected. If you say it's not a siman, it means you hold that he's מתיאש. You say it's not, everything turns back to that, yeah. So I want to say, this is exactly how the Rambam learns. Now, the halachah is like Rav Nachman, so the Rambam pasak'nt like Rav Nachman. Now, in that gufa, the מחלוקת Rabbah and Rava, the halachah is like Rava. But so we always know the halachah is like Rava, so the Rambam pasak'nt like Rava. So it comes out like this. If you learn like this, what is Rava saying? Rava is saying, like Rav Nachman, that if a guy comes and gives the siman of מקום, it's a full-fledged siman. Before the guy comes, whether I have to announce it or not, I still have to announce it because we pasken like Rava, but it's still not a full-fledged siman, because we hold like Rav Nachman. Even though we hold like Rava that it is a siman, but to announce, it's not a סימן מובהק, not a full siman. Now let's go through all the Rambams and we'll see. Wait, so Rava says that you have to announce? Rava says you have to announce, and still hold like Rav Nachman, because it's still not a full-fledged siman. Now let's go back. Now we'll Who holds that you don't have to give it back to the owner? Rava? No, no, no! If you have to announce it, you have to give it back. No one holds that you don't have to give it back. No, not give back. Give back if nobody comes, I mean. No, that would be Rava. That would be Rava! Well, you could hold רבא עבד, but Rabbah goes even before, you don't even have to announce it. And Rava says that you have to announce it. I just want to give an example. Okay, this is later, this is different. Okay, now we'll go to to see how the Rambam fits. I think, I I think, fits perfectly. I sound like, I I I sound like Someone told me he heard once a shiur from Leizer Silver, you know of Leizer Silver, he was a Anyway, so he spoke about a Yerushalmi, he says, זייער א שווערע ירושלמי, קיין פשט איז נישט גוט. דעם גרא״ס פשט, דער ווילנער גאון, איז א ביסל גוט. מיין פשט איז דער בעסטער, מיין פשט איז דער בעסטער. So anyway, I'm just kidding, kidding. Okay. The

Rambam The Rambam says, the first Rambam we started was that the Rambam when he gives the list of a סימן מובהק, so he says מדה, משקל, מנין. What is he talking about? הסימנים המובהקים סומכין עליהן. The real סימנים, if someone gives the siman, we rely on, rely on. And he says the makom. Why? Because I'm saying now that that's for sure, if the guy comes and gives the siman, it's a סימן מובהק. That's as good because we pasken like Rava, even according to Rabbah, according to everybody, because we פסק׳ן בדיעבד, but even though we pasken like Rav Nachman, but Rav Nachman is modeh that you have to give it back. Because if you give the siman, it's a סימן מובהק. So the Rambam says like this: we rely on the סימן מובהק. For instance, which is a סימן מובהק if the guy gives it we rely? It's it's it's an of מקום. Look at the other halacha. The other halacha, in פרק ט״ו, what was the halacha here? I'll read you. If you find כריכות דרך הנחה, חייב להכריז. Here we talk about announcing. The guy never came yet, we're talking about announcing. So here he says, אף על פי שאין להם סימן, המקום סימן. You have to announce it, because we pasken like Rava. And he adds, אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק. In the meantime, it's not a סימן מובהק yet. כל זמן the guy didn't give it, it's not a סימן מובהק, and still you have to announce it. So this is because he paskens like Rav Nachman and paskens like Rava. So it both fit exactly. Before, he's talking about the guy giving the סימן, that's a סימן מובהק. Here he's talking about you going to announce it, he says it's not a סימן מובהק. And it's no problem the other שאלה, where the Rambam says that if a guy gives a סימן שאינו מובהק you don't give it back to him, that's when it's a real סימן שאינו מובהק. When a guy gives a סימן שאינו מובהק, you don't have to give it back to him. But in this case, I I think it doesn't get worse. And and but here we're talking where where if he gives it, it's a סימן מובהק, that's why you have to give it back. It's not a סימן מובהק when you have to announce it. So it all fits together. And I think this explains another thing: in this Rambam, where he says that you do have to announce it even though it has no סימן, but the מקום is a סימן, why does the Rambam, whichever pshat, why is he interested in adding, even though it's not a סימן מובהק? What's the nafka mina here, even though it's not a סימן מובהק? You said you have to announce it, if anything you have to announce it. He wants to add a halacha: you should know that even though you have to announce it, it's not a real סימן מובהק, and therefore if the guy didn't come, to this, you don't have to give it back, you can keep it! If the Rambam means to teach us that, why doesn't he say it? Let him say it! Because there is a כלל in כללי הרמב״ם, a כלל, that the Rambam does not write any halachot which is not clear in the Gemara. A lot of times he's מרומז. He writes words which is a hint to the halachah, that's exactly what he did here. He wanted to tell you that this is not a regular siman. If the guy comes and gives a siman, it's a regular siman, you got to give it. If he doesn't, till he comes you got to announce it still, but remember, you got to announce it, but it's not the same thing. If the guy If no one will come, you could keep it, but he didn't want to say it outright, so he says you got to announce it, but it's not a סימן מובהק. So if no one came to give it, you're stuck with a סימן שאינו מובהק, so you don't So it's not a regular siman, so you so you're allowed to keep it. So the Rambam does it for that reason. Now, but it's very simple lechora if you read the words, פירוש המילות is very simple. If you're that מדקדק. And this answers the she'eilah I asked on his pshat, that did he make a chiluk between be'etzem or לגבי the person. So I said, ווו ליגט דאס אין רמב״ם? I mean, the Rambam doesn't say that when he says it's אינו מובהק it means it's אינו it's not מובהק because of the person, where he says it is מובהק it's because So you can ask the same she'eilah on my pshat. Where does the Rambam make the difference? No, the Rambam does! It's very clear. Here the Rambam is talking about him giving the siman, and here he's talking about announcing it before he gives the siman. So they're two obvious things! So he definitely doesn't say anything more, so it obviously happened to be very clear. So this answers the Rambam. Okay, come on. Yeah. Well. Yeah. What was the example you wanted to say? I don't remember what. No, no, no, I You told him about it? Yeah, I I once even spoke to I sent him the shiur. What was the example you wanted to say? It belongs to the Rif, it's it's Ah, there I saw it. This is a nice moving in. What you just said, if I found something in the mikveh, and I put it beside, and that means that's my announcement, it's not a סימן מובהק, then I should be able to keep it and I don't have to wait to not use it at all. I don't know if that's a סימן מובהק. Maybe the object has a siman? Well, of course you would have to come to No, but maybe the object has מקום מובהק? You found something. Okay, it's yeah, it's a watch that has a name on it, or it's a type of a watch. So when you're saying it has a siman, because it has any type of siman. There's only something that absolutely does not have a siman intrinsically to itself. Is there anything else you want to say? Huh? You were about to say something. I was going to say the Rif. I You want to continue? Yes, yes. Go ahead. Just as I said, איך האב ליב די פשוטע פשט. You have more compassion, yeah. Okay, I I'll finish out another point here, one second. Encore! Encore! Wait, hold on, let me think. You'll see. Paul Simon. Huh? Paul Simon. Yeah, yeah, Paul Simon, yeah. I got our money's worth. Yeah, Paul Simon is a fight song. Okay. The Rif מוסף, no? The Rif holds makom is a siman, okay? So the Rif says like this, מקום נמי הוי סימן. What's my re'iyah makom is a siman? דקא מקשינן לקמן, he quotes a Gemara on דף כ״ד עמוד ב׳. The Gemara says, there's a Mishnah, that if you find birds next to the gate, and if it looks it's so then you don't touch it, because probably someone put it down. And if someone put it down, if you take it, he'll never get it back. How How are you going to give it back? There is no siman there. So better leave it. Fregt di Gemara, what do you mean there's no siman? Makom is a siman! The Gemara answers, the case is because it can jump, so that it's not a real מקום סימן. Hm? Birds move. He's talking about a bird that's sitting on its feet. No, they're They're sitting kind of on the floor. So he says, since the Gemara asks the kushya, makom is a siman, and we have to find an answer because it's moving, is a re'iyah that makom is a siman. That's the Rif. Comes the Baal HaMaor. The

Baal HaMaor has many times that he questions the Rif so much. And he says, I don't understand this Rif. The Rif himself brought before a shtikel Gemara from before. The Gemara says, אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, Rav Zvid said in the name of Rava, different, it's not the same Rav Zvid, Rav Zvid in the name of Rava, brought a din like this, that if you find כריכות ברשות היחיד. This is similar to what the Rambam said. If you find bundles in a רשות היחיד, if you see it was put down, דרך הנחה, חייב להכריז. You have to announce it. בדבר שאין בו סימן, it has no siman. Why do you have to announce it? Makom. Makom. And he quoted that Gemara before. So he asks the she'eilah, you already quoted the Gemara and you paskent that you have to announce because of makom, so you have a clear re'iyah that it's makom is a siman. Why do you have to kretz yourself and come back later and say I have a re'iyah makom is a siman from the Gemara's kushya by the birds, that the Gemara asked it as a siman? That's it says, I don't I'll read it inside. Kotev Rif מקום סימן דאמרינן לקמן. He says, ולא היה צריך לכל זה, you don't need this, מאחר דפסק כרב זביד משמיה דרבא, since he already pasak't like Rav Zvid in the name of Rava, הלכתא דכריכות ברשות היחיד, the bundles you know, דרך הנחה חייב להכריז בדבר שאין בו סימן, ממילא שמעינן, so we know that makom is a siman. Right. Comes the Ramban in the Milchamot. The Ramban wrote a sefer called Milchemet Hashem. Why did he call it Milchemet Hashem? Because the whole purpose of his is to attack the Baal HaMaor, because he wants to defend the Rif. So he knows that the Rif attacked the Baal HaMaor, so he wrote a sefer to, that's why he called it, it's a milchamah! So he was against the against, are you learning? and against the Rambam? Who, against the Rambam? No, he was to support the Rif. He was to support the Rif. And this is the Ramban who wrote the Sefer Milchamot Hashem'. And what about the Rambam? Didn't the

Ramban have a This is the Ramban, no, this is him. He had an issue with the Rambam? No, that's no, this The Raavad had an issue with the Rambam. No, no. Comes the the the Milchamot, Ramban, and he says I'll answer you what happened here. The first part that he brought, Rav Zevid in the name of Rava, that makom is a siman, is not such a re'iyah. Why? Rav Zevid said halachah is makom is a siman in the name of Rava. Well obviously, Rava is the one that argued, right? What what that's a re'aya that that's the halacha? If you're going to ask Rabba, he'll say the halacha is different. So the fact that he brought, so you want to prove how do I know that the halacha is paskent like that? Because the Gemara later on, so that could say, I have a shtikel question on that gufa, because if that would be the simple pshat, then the the Rif would bring this re'aya right after that piece. B'foal he brings that piece of Rav Zevid in the name of Rava, then he has something else in the middle, and then he goes back and he says makom is a siman from there. Like if this would be really just a continuation to prove what I said before is really the halacha, it should have come right there. Since he wrote it later, it seems that it's not so. So I think the pshat could be a little bit different. There's going to be a shtikel problem with with with this, a shtikel problem, but, and I have no answer, but the Rif does not learn like the Rambam. The

Rif learns that makom is a real siman, like Rav Zevid, like that Rav Zevid over there we learned before. And we'll see why he says it. Makom is a real siman. If you want to pasken that makom is a real siman, Missed that one. Yeah, a real, normal siman. The fact that he brings before the ma'aseh of Rav Zevid there, from from Rava with the כריכות, from there we have no re'aya that it's a real siman. The fact over there that it says that you have to announce it could be that it's like Rav Nachman the way Rava says, right? The way we explained till now the Rambam, that the Rambam learns that Rav Nachman says you have to return, and Rava says you do announce, and Rava says you do have to announce it, it's still not a real siman. So if the Rif would just bring that Gemara before, so it would only prove, the best that you could go is a re'aya that makom is not a real siman, you still have to announce it, and therefore you could keep it. Comes the Rif later on and he says, I'm going to bring you a re'aya that it's a real siman, the halacha is that it's a real siman, from the Gemara over there, that the real halacha is that it's a real siman. How do I know that? Because of that other Gemara. The other Gemara says that the Mishnah says don't touch it. Why? Because rather than picking it up, you won't be able to give it back, there's no siman. Fregt the Gemara, but there is a סימן, מקום. If makom is not a 100 percent siman, would the Gemara ask such a kashya? Would the Gemara ask why do you leave it, take it and rely on the siman of makom? But the siman of makom is not a real siman! The

Gemara wouldn't ask such a she'ela. The fact that the Gemara asked such a she'ela, a siman that the Gemara holds that makom is a real siman. So the Rif says that's why I'm bringing this, to prove that makom is a real siman. So it's all based on what I said before, that from the Gemara of Rabbah and Rava, it's very possible to learn that even at best, like we learn like Rava, it's still not a real siman. So therefore, after the Rif brought Rav Zevid, he comes and he says, I'll prove to you מקום הוה סימן, he says, מקום נמי הוה סימן, I want to tell you I have a re'ayah it's a real siman. What's the re'ayah of a real siman? From the other Gemara. But from this wouldn't be a re'ayah, because this Gemara we could learn like we said before. The only thing that will come out, the strange thing it will be according to this, that the Rif paskens like Rav Zevid, not like Rav Nachman. So which is a problem. אלא מאי, if I say that that the Rif learns that because here we have that other Gemara, we have proof from the Gemara that in this case it's an exception, the halacha is not like Rav Nachman, for the case of the bird. Huh? No, the Mishnah doesn't say anything. The Mishnah says לא יגע בו, don't touch it. No, farkert, the Gemara, no, the Mishnah says don't touch it. In other words, we don't rely on the מקום. But the Gemara explains that be'emet we should rely on the מקום. The only reason we don't rely on the מקום is because it's because it's מדדה, but otherwise we would rely on the מקום. And we'd rely on the מקום so much so that it's better than leaving it. In other words, you could leave it or you could take it and rely on the siman of מקום, that's what the Gemara wants to know. But if מקום is not a real siman, especially you're saying till he takes it, it's not a real siman, why would we rely on that? Because before he is, before the guy comes, it's not a real siman, even though we're saying you have to announce it. So the Gemara would never have asked such a question. Since the Gemara asked the question, a siman that the Gemara holds that מקום is a real siman. That's what the Rif says. But how does he know it? From the Gemara before, from Rava, you wouldn't know it, because there we said you could learn the other way, and the Rambam תאקע learns like that, and he learn like that too. But from the Gemara later, there he says I see, and that's why he brings it. The kashya was, what was the Baal HaMaor's kashya? Why does he bring this story from the Gemara later? What's wrong with just bringing before where he said already מקום הוי סימן? So I'm saying why he brought it late, because before you wouldn't know. He wants to say from that Gemara I see that makom is a real siman. I pasken like Rav Zevid. I pasken like Rav Zevid, so hold that, because I have that that Gemara proves to me that it's a real siman, is a siman. In this case, the Gemara pasken's like Rav Zevid. But you know what the problem is? The first part, if you're going to talk about Rava, you're talking that whole inyan of Rava is only within Rav Nachman. Right. If you hold like Rav Zevid to begin with, what comes first? Yeah, but he's he's talking he's talking lehalacha. Lehalacha is he pasken's like Rava plus. He wants to say we pasken like Rava that you can that you have to return it, and you have to announce it. I just want to tell you, it's even more than Rava. Look at this. When he see, the Rif is not the Gemara. The Rif brings pieces which is lehalacha. Lehalacha, that's right. He brings that halacha. The halacha is that you find something and that it has a siman of makom, you got to announce it. And that Rava said, and he brings it. Right. But then he adds. He's saying, and it's not only because we pasken like Rava, I'm telling you the truth, I have a re'aya that we pasken even more. But he brings that because that's the maaseh what you're supposed to do. But not as if we're saying, I pasken like that, ולא מטעמיה, but not for the same reason as Rava. I go even further. But how do I know it? Only from the other Gemara. From this Gemara, you wouldn't know, because this Gemara you could learn that Rava holds that it's like Rav Nachman, and that it's not a real סימן, and still you have to announce it. That's why he brings the other Gemara. Who makes a difference, the Rif or Rav Zevid? Who's the one who makes a difference by by birds, that מקום is a סימן? That's not Rav Zevid, but it's He wants to prove from that Gemara that we pasken like Rav Zevid. That Gemara has no names. That Gemara is סתמא דגמרא. Yeah, סתמא דגמרא. In the

case of the birds, isn't that another nine yards? Why's it different? Farkert, no, they differ because jumps, but it's not for the jumping, the Gemara feels it would have been a real סימן. Oh, that's a סימן from that Gemara that that Gemara pasken's It's סתמא דגמרא, pasken's like Rav Zevid, because the Gemara says it's a סימן, and it's אף על גב דאיכא סימן that don't leave it. There's a סימן, it's a it's a raayah that it's a real סימן. That's what the Rif says. On a practical level, what's the parameters on the סימן? Everything has a size, a color. Yeah, but all the Gemara's look alike, so it's not a סימן. Because, you know, if one says Bava Metzia and another is Bava Kamma, I can understand. You know how many Bava Metzia's there are? You know how many sets of Shas there are in the world? A hundred thousand sets of Bava Metzia. No, so So there's a hundred thousand Bava Metzia's. So many publishers, different publishers have No, something that's different. How many how many Gemara's did this publisher publish of Bava Metzia? How many have black tape on it? Oh, that could be, yeah. This could be. That could be something in the object That's not the Gemara, yeah, that's a siman, the black tape. The binding is without that's already something else. And the birds, the birds are a certain color, a certain size. There are millions of birds that same color. Seen one crow, you've seen them all. Yeah. Yeah. Alright,

thank you very much. Thanks for the ride. Yeah. Baseball. So many years later, it still comes back.