Obviously, how do I have a... Just know there are simanim that if something has a siman you have to return it. If a person lost an object and it has a siman, so the owner the finder has to return it. If it doesn't have a siman you don't return it. And the reason is very simple, because if he has a siman, the owner is not meya'esh, doesn't give up hope. מה שאינו כן if it doesn't have a siman he gives up hope. It means in other words, even if you know who lost it, but if it has no siman you don't have to return it. Why? Because even if you know who it is, but לפועל when he was meya'esh from it, since it didn't have a siman, so in his mind he sees no way he's going to get it back, how could he get it back? There's no way to identify it. So ממילא מייאש right away. So what's the chance you know that he that whose it is and he would... No, I'm saying let's say you did know, let's say someone came and said, \"I saw this guy drop it.\" I mean, it's a possibility. Why wouldn't he think that somebody saw him drop it? It's something that doesn't have to... Why don't, I don't know... Because he doesn't know where he lost it, but he knows if anyone could... If it's possible that someone could have seen him drop it, then he might think that someone saw him drop it. Therefore why why would he not be... But he has no siman, how could he get it back? Even if he doesn't have a siman. Because it's a far-fetched thing. It's he'll have עדים who saw him drop it? Normally a person is meya'esh. Okay. Then we

have this question of makom. Is makom a siman or not? The object has no siman, but it's found in a certain place. Can we assume that the guy who found it will be able to give the makom as a siman? He'll be able to say later like, \"Oh, it was in this and this place that it was lost.\" And the fact that he... Look at that, the fact that he got the right makom, that should be a siman. So we have a machloket between Rabbah and Rava whether מקום הוי סימן or not. And the halachah is מקום הוי סימן. So, if you remember, we have a setirah in Rambam. The Rambam writes in one place that all the the different he mentions different simanim, different things, and makom among them. So he says, it is a סימן מובהק. It's called a סימן מובהק, it's a real strong siman. Then there's another place in halachah in Rambam where the Rambam says that if someone loses something, and the other guy gives the makom, you have to return it to him, אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק, even though it's not a סימן מובהק. Mamash a contradiction, this two Rambam. Here the Rambam calls it, סימן מובהק means a how do you say מובהק in English? אמתע סימן, a real strong סימן. So here the Rambam says it's a strong סימן, calls מקום a strong סימן, and here he says and what he says that you have to announce... substantial... that you have to return it if it's a strong סימן. So I'll I'll, it's noge'a second to know exactly the way he says it. He says, if a guy gives you a סימן that's a סימן מובהק you return it, and he gives an example of סימן מקום, that you have to return it. And the other place where he says that if you find something and it looks like it was put down, so then he says you have to announce it even though it's not a סימן מובהק. So here he says סימן מובהק, here he says not a סימן מובהק. So the

Maggid Mishneh has this stirah right away, he gives a teirutz. But he asks another shaila the Maggid Mishneh. Not a teirutz, the Maggid Mishneh says it's a mistake. The Rambam never wrote the words אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק. The Rambam, it's a טעות סופר he says, it's a mistake. But he has and the reason he says it is because of the stirah, but because of another kashya. The Rambam says very clearly that if you give a סימן שאינו מובהק you don't return it. He says you only return something if the guy gives a סימן מובהק. If the guy gives a סימן שאינו מובהק you don't return it. So what does the Rambam mean here? Besides the stirah that he somewhere else says a סימן מובהק, look at this Rambam itself! The Rambam says that if the guy, you find something, and you still have to announce it even though there is no סימן on it because מקום will be the סימן, אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק. So he says you have to announce it even though it's not a סימן מובהק, but the Rambam said before that if it's not a סימן מובהק you don't have to announce. So there's like two kashiyot, one that what is מקום, סימן מובהק or not, and the other shaila is besides the stirah, how does the Rambam say that a סימן מקום is not a סימן מובהק, when if it's not a סימן מובהק he shouldn't have to return it? So that's why the Maggid Mishneh says טעות סופר הוא. That's why in our Rambam, in the old print of Rambam it's in sugrayim, it's in parentheses these words, אף על פי שאינו סימן מובהק, because of the Maggid Mishneh, because the Maggid Mishneh says it's not. Yeah, but that's it, to say that it's a mistake is... Is another example of שאינו מובהק acceptable besides makom? That you should return? No, another example. No man, a lot of things are not סימן מובהק. For instance? Yeah. Like... besides makom. If you give some kind of siman which is not 100% strong siman, because if your siman it was brown, maybe some other things were also other people also have brown stuff. I mean, like... Anyway, so

I'm not going to go through the whole shiur from last time, but just so then the nekudah that we explained last time is that there makom is a different type of siman than any other siman, and the difference is makom is a siman that's outside of the object. Other simanim is in the object, has your name on it, has a siman on it. Makom is the thing itself has nothing special about it. Only thing is, it's the place where it was found. And therefore, not to go to the אריכות, so just the nekudah is that makom is if the guy comes and he gives the siman, it's a real good siman. But לפועל ממש to say that it's a regular siman before he gives it, without him giving, then it's not a real siman, because it's not something in the object. And therefore, mimela there's a מחלוקת רבה ורבא whether you have to announce it bichlal. The halachah is that you do have to announce it. But even though you do have to announce it, it's still different than a regular siman. What is the difference? A regular siman, there's a din like this: Number one, if the guy comes and gives you the siman, you have to return it. Number two, when you find it and you see the siman, you have to announce it. What happens if you announce it and no one came? No one came to claim it. You can't keep it. יונח עד שיבוא אליהו, you can't use it, you can't keep it, the gantze dinim. And if it's something that needs to to spend money to keep it up, like you found an animal, so 12 months you have to spend the money, and then when the if the guy will ever come, he will have to pay the money, but after 12 months, you should sell it and keep the money for him, but you can't use it. So anything that has a regular סימן מובהק, a normal siman, the din is that if the guy doesn't no one comes, you still can't keep it. So I

want to say סימן מקום is different. מקום is like this: If the guy comes and gives the siman, because it's a good way of identifying it, it's called a סימן מובהק, and you would have to return it. Not only that, the Rambam holds that you even have to announce it. Announce it only when it's a siman? Yeah, bichlal you only announce. Everything has a מקום, what doesn't have a מקום? Anything has a מקום. No, okay, that's הא וואס פאר א פשט איז דאס? איי, no, the inyan of מקום סימן is only if it looks like it was put down and the guy forgot it. If it looks like the guy dropped it, then there's מקום is not a siman. How does the guy know where he dropped it? So that's why it's usually it's not so usual. It's only it looks like דרך הינוח, he put it down. So the Rambam would hold like this, that מקום is if the guy gives the siman, it's a סימן מובהק. If the guy before the guy gives the siman, since it's not a siman in the object itself, it's a siman on the outside, it's not a real siman. So there is an opinion that you don't even have to announce it. If the guy will give it to you, you'll you have to give it, if the guy will give you the siman you have to return it, but you don't have to announce it. The Rambam holds no, you still have to announce it. Why do you still have to announce it? Because we've got to give the guy an opportunity to know that he should come and give the siman. But l'poal, it's still called not a real siman. And לגבי what din is it called not a real siman? That if no one comes, you could keep it. Now, where do we find such a thing? Because usually, if you say something is a siman, and therefore the din is that you have to return it, and you have to announce it, the din is automatically that if the guy doesn't no one comes, then you can't keep it. We do

find a din like that, and that is בנוגע טביעת עין of a תלמיד חכם. There's a din that even if something doesn't have a siman, if you find it in an area where there are תלמידי חכמים, you still have to announce it. Wait, you just said אבידה של עם הארץ, you can keep bichlal, that's why he says it depends if it's announcing or keeping it. No, they in the Gemara here they bring in, it's not the Gemara, the mefarshim bring in. But the bottom line is that when an if it's a place of talmidei chachamim, even if there is no siman, you have to announce it. Why? Because a talmid chacham is believed when he gives a teviat ayin, not a siman. A siman, everyone is believed. Guy gives a siman, you know he's, how else does he know that there was the $10 there, maybe it was a 12? So it's a siman. But teviat ayin means the guy comes and says, \"I have no siman on it, but I'm looking at I'm looking at it, I recognize it. I'm telling you it's mine, I recognize it.\" So now, talmid chacham is believed. So that's why if you find something in an area, Tosafos uses a lashon here, אם מצא במקום דשכיחי רבנן, in a place דשכיחי רבנן, you even have to announce without a siman, for that reason. Has to give in? Huh? But, no, besides צריך להכריז, because he knows he could give a teviat ayin, but the din by a תלמיד ח- by an by this case, what happens if no one comes? You can keep it. So here we have a din like this: There is a case here where if the guy gives comes and tells you, you have to give it back. Because of that you also have to announce it. And nevertheless, if no one comes, you could keep it. So I want to say the same thing is with makom, that makom is a siman, if the guy gives it, it's a regular siman, it's a clear a good siman. Before the guy gave them, you found it, so the Rambam says you still have to announce it, even though at this point it's not a סימן מובהק. And nafka minah is, so what does nafka minah if it's a סימן מובהק or not? That if no one will come, you get to keep it. And that answers the she'elot. The setirah in Rambam is no more setirah. Why? Because where does the Rambam say it is a סימן מובהק? In the place where it says, we rely on a סימן מובהק, and he gives an example of makom. If the guy gives the siman of makom, the Rambam says it's a סימן מובהק, because it's a good siman if he gives it. The other place where he says that you have to announce it, so Where the Rambam says that you have to announce it even though it's not a סימן מובהק, because at that point before you announce it, it's not a סימן מובהק. And no סתירה in the other Rambam, where the Rambam says that if it's not a סימן מובהק you don't return it, that means when it's a real not סימן מובהק. When it's not a סימן מובהק even if the guy gives it, it's not a real סימן. But here we're talking about a different thing. It's not a סימן מובהק as long as the guy doesn't come. And that's why this is different, and here you would have to announce it, and certainly you would have to return it, because if he comes and gives the סימן, you have to give it. Why does he call מקום a סימן מובהק? He said before... No, I said when the guy comes and gives it, right, it's a סימן מובהק. Because he gave it from his own... Yeah, no, he comes, yeah, he comes and tells you, that's a סימן מובהק. But to say beforehand, when the guy didn't come, to say it has a סימן מובהק, we say it's not a סימן מובהק. L'mai nafka mina? You still have to announce it. A nafka mina would be in this דין that you have to keep it. But this is what I said till now. I want to go further. You know that he put it down. You know that he put it down. Look, you never know, but looks like it. The only time מקום is a סימן בכלל if it's only דרך הינוח. The Gemara says that, the Gemara says here, so I'll read you the Gemara. אמר רבא, הלכתא: כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו. If you find bundles of wheat in the street, you could keep it. If you find it ברשות הרבים, ברשות היחיד, you find it in a private place, אי דרך נפילה הרי אלו שלו. If it looks like it fell, you could keep it. Why? So רש״י says, and one second, אי דרך הנחה נוטל ומכריז, if it looks like it was put there, you announce it. וזה וזה בדבר שאין בו סימן, it has no סימן. So Rashi explains here. It goes like this: If it's דרך נפילה הרי אלו שלו, דלא קא למימר מקום הוי סימן. You can't say מקום is a סימן. Why not? דהא לא ידע היכא נפיל מיניה, you don't know where you dropped it. But אי דרך הינוח, if it looks like it was put down, נוטל ומכריז, you announce it. Why? What do you announce, what's the סימן? מקום. אי, if it looks like the guy left it there, don't take it at all. Leave it. Guy will come back for it. So he says, ולא יניחם שם, don't leave it, שמא ימצאם עכו״ם, because who knows who is going to go by, a גוי might go by, ויטלם, he'll take it. שמא שכחם הבעל, maybe the owner forgot. In רשות היחיד? Yeah, in רשות היחיד. It doesn't mean that the owner is somebody else. It's a field. Maybe, yeah, but it's a place, mainly it's a place that's not רבים מהלכים שם. It's not a place where a lot of people go. Okay, this is what I said so far, so that's fine. This is what I explained. The she'eilah is really, it's not so good so far. It needs a little bit extra sevara, I'll tell you why. Because normally we learn, what is the geder of a siman and not a siman? The geder of a siman is that if it has a siman, the guy is not mitya'esh. And if he's not mitya'esh, then it's still his. That's what it is, it's still his. If he's not mitya'esh, it's still his, so you can't keep it. So what is noge'a the fact that it's a siman in the object or it's not a siman in the object, but it's a side thing, it's a place? Sof kol sof, the owner knows that he's able to give a siman. If he's able to give a siman, he's not mitya'esh. If he's not mitya'esh, so it's always his. So why would the din be, if this is the pshat, why would the din be that because סימן מקום is not a real סימן מובהק, why? Because it's not in the thing itself. If the guy would give the siman, it would be a סימן מובהק, we said. So you got to keep it. I'm saying, why would it be the din like that? If we're saying anything that has a siman, the reason that when something has a siman, what happens here? Then the guy is not mitya'esh. What's the reason, takeh, if you find something with a siman you could have, and no one comes to give the siman, you can't keep it? Why? Because it's still his. As long as he was not mitya'esh, it's still his. That's twelve months? Huh? Where does twelve months come in? No, no, you can't keep it. The only thing you can keep twelve months is if you find something like it looks like it was lost twelve months ago, then you could keep it. But if you found it after he lost it, it could go ten years, you can't... He'll never be mitya'esh. No, then it's ייאוש שלא מדעת. Because if he's mitya'esh later, it doesn't work anymore. We're not going to go through that. Because if you found it without ye'ush, the fact that he's mitya'esh later, it's still his. That's called ייאוש שלא מדעת. ייאוש שלא מדעת means you found it before ye'ush, and later he's mitya'esh, we pasken like אביי, ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש, you can't. Anyway, so... On the yeiush? Huh? There's a time limit? If you found it after twelve months, you found it, then by that time he's mitya'esh. But if you found it before, so you picked it up when he was not mitya'esh yet. So even though later he will be mitya'esh, but that doesn't work. So then there is a mitzvah to give back all that time. No, no. So we're saying, so makom you have to return, and you have to announce it. And what's the peshat? It has a siman. Which one has a siman? It doesn't have a siman, but there is a siman how to get it back. So if it's a siman how to get it back, the whole peshat, it seems like from the whole Gemara, the whole peshat of something that has a siman means that the guy is not mitya'esh, because he feels, \"I could identify it. I won't get them able to...\" So על זה, what is the peshat, why do we would I say that because it's a siman not in the thing itself, then therefore, if the guy doesn't come, I could keep it, why? Sof kol sof, the guy So what? U'meimalei? Weaker doesn't work, it has to be an hasbara here. And here it goes, this is where I'm going to go to give an hasbara. It's not stam, obviously it's weaker, obviously it's something different, but it has to be with a yesod that weaker, weaker stam, so אדער יא, אדער נישט. If it's something that he knows he could give, so let me explain and go into something else. הא? Moved. He might not be able to do it, he doesn't know if this is going to be a siman or not. Mai nafka mina? Maybe it moved. רשות הרבים it moved, נו. Let's go back to the halacha of course. Why כריכות ברשות הרבים you have it's הרי אלו שלו even if it's דרך הנחה, why? People come. People come, they move away. But רשות היחיד you expect not that it should move. Everything could be, a siman could get lost also. But it's that we go on normal. Normally רשות היחיד people don't move it away. רשות הרבים טאקע מקום is not a siman even if it's דרך הנחה. דרך הנחה, even if it looks like he put it down, but the guy's mitya'esh because he knows it's really kicked away. That's why it says in the baraita the Gemara quotes a ברייתא אלומות not small bundles. Big bundles even in רשות הרבים you have to return it. Why? Because it doesn't move. It's too big, it doesn't push. What about an עירוב חצרות? An עירוב תבשילין is a it's a רשות היחיד? You want it to have an עירוב, רשות היחיד, נו? And we're not talking here רשות היחיד, the הלכות שבתדיקע side of רשות היחיד. It's total a place of public people where it's public a lot of people go or not. Like it's מקום שהרבים מצויין שם or not. Okay. So let's go into this whole thing of siman and I want to explain it. Seems like so far what we were saying that the whole concept of a siman is pashut a technicality. If there's a siman the guy knows that he's not going to he's able to identify it, mimeila the guy is not מתייאש. It's a technical thing. Hey, because by מקום also, as long as he knows that there's a way to identify it, he shouldn't be מתייאש. If he shouldn't be מתייאש it should be like a regular siman. What do we care if it's in it or not in it? It must be that besides the technicality which is a it it's some kind of הלכהדיקע ענין that it accomplishes. And therefore this siman does not accomplish that הלכהדיקע ענין and we'll see what that is. Okay. When it comes to simanim I just want to give like a kashya somewhere. When it comes to simanim we know the famous chakira that the Rebbe has, based in a תשובה, the Rebbe in a תשובה, that sometimes we find a siman is only a siman, and sometimes a siman is a siba. It's a cause. It causes it, makes it happen. Lemashal where is the main place where this she'eilah is? The she'eilah is by סימני כשרות, by סימני בהמה טהורה. Pasuk says what's the kashrut of a בהמה? A בהמה is if it has these two simanim: מעלת גרה ומפרסת פרסה, chews its cud and has split hooves. So the chakira is, is this just a siman, that's all, be'emet the reason why they're kosher is for other reasons, whatever. This is just a way to identify it, a

סימן. Or it's because of this, this makes it kosher, this makes this kosher because whatever the Eibershter had in mind, but these two סימנים make it kosher. Mai nafka mina? The Rebbe goes into the nafka mina. He says what happens if a כשרה בהמה gave birth to a בהמה that doesn't have these two סימנים? So the din is that it's kosher. Why is it kosher? If they're if the two סימנים are are סימנים, then this is kosher because it has another סימן that it's kosher: its mother. It's born of a kosher animal so mimela it doesn't need this סימן. If this is גורם it to be kosher, if this is a sibah, this and this doesn't have it how could it be kosher? So it must be a גזירת הכתוב. We learn out from a pasuk so it's not a שכל, it's a גזירת הכתוב. Again the she'eilah, mai nafka mina if it's a גזירת הכתוב פסק, a din the Torah says, or there is a sevara behind it? So the Rebbe says a nafka mina. An interesting thing, just stam it's not נוגע to this inyan, but it says like this, there's a din that you're not allowed to play with a kosher animal. So just to play with it.

Comes the Yerushalmi, asks a kashya. It says לויתן זה יצרת לשחק בו, the Eibershter plays with the לויתן. Leviathan is a kosher fish, how could the Eibershter play with the Leviathan? The Yerushalmi answers that באמת the Leviathan is not a kosher fish. Moshiach kumt and then the Torah will be מטהר it, the Eibershter will be מטהר it, and therefore you're allowed to play with it. It comes out from here that something that בעצם should have been treif and there's a gezerat hakatuv that makes it kosher you're allowed to play with it. So the שאלה would be if an animal that's kosher gave birth to an animal that doesn't have the two simanim, can you play with it or not? If you're going to say the reason why it's כשר על פי שכל, because it doesn't have this but it has another siman, so it's kosher, so you can't play with it. If בעצם it doesn't have it's these simanim are גורם, and this doesn't have it, אלא מאי why is it kosher? A gezerat hakatuv. A gezerat hakatuv, you're allowed to play with, like it says by the Leviathan. Anyway this is just a nafka mina. By the חזיר, it used to be kosher and now what's not not, it's supposed to it's going to be No, because it's going to get it's going to get its simanim. It's going to change its nature. No, another It's going to change it's going to change the nature. It'll get the simanim, whichever way, it'll be kosher, even if it's גדרים it's going to be... So, right now, now it doesn't have the simanim. Only then it'll have the simanim. Now, I just to give another example, where we find that there is a question of a siman or a סיבה. Weird because then, even though it had both both the simanim it's still, if there's a kushya, then it's kosher. No, I mean, it's not a any logical reason to believe... In which way? It's a regular cow, isn't it? No, in which way? סימן סימן or סיבה? Either way, it's it's only because of it is. That's not called an...

Every single misvah's explained, the Eibershter said, why do we put on tefillin? It's a gezerat hakatuv. Well, we don't call it a gezerat hakatuv. A gezerat hakatuv means, anything that fits into the category of halacha, of all the statues, then there's sometimes something that doesn't even fit to this to the standards of Torah. The Eibershter made up such an exception to the rule, that's called a gezerat hakatuv. Whatever the rules are, is because everything's a gezerat hakatuv. Take boxes and put on your head, make sense? Gezerat hakatuv. That's not called a gezerat hakatuv. When we talked about gezerat hakatuv it means that it doesn't even fit into the rules that the Eibershter made up, something that's different than the rules. I'll give you another example. Yom Tov, you're allowed to cook, you're allowed to do melachot. Shabbos you can't, Yom Tov you're allowed. And there are be'emet eleven types of melachot which fall under the category of מלאכות אוכל נפש. So, the Rebbe brings that there's a שאל- חקירה, is it a seiba, the reason you're allowed to do these melachot, because you're going to cook? So, when the Torah is מתיר אוכל נפש, as for cook- as for eating, that's the seiba because you're going to eat and the Torah wants to give you שמחת יום טוב, whatever it is you're allowed. Or it's a siman. The Eibershter wanted on Yom Tov to be מתיר certain melachot. So, instead of giving you the list of which melachot is מתיר, so he gave you a whole rule, anything has to do with food. And so, nafka mina is when it's not done for food. Well, here we'll go to the One second. The nafka mina will be, first, a person fasts on Yom Tov and he's not going to eat. Can he cook? If it's for eating, if the סיב- it's a seiba, it's the cause, the reason is because you're going to eat. So, the guy is not eating, so you can't cook. If it's just a siman, then you're allowed. Then the Rebbe says this is probably a machloket Beit Shammai uBeit Hillel if you say מתוך שהותרה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך. The machloket is, Beit Shammai says that מתוך that you're only allowed to do this melachot if it's for food. Beit Hillel says מתוך שהותרה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך. Since the Torah was מתיר these things לצורך אוכל נפש, for the sake of eating, so you could use these melachot even not for the sake of eating. What's the pshat? What What does Beit Hillel think? I will use this word. It sounds like Conservative. Yeah, that you're since you're מתיר this, you're מתיר this. אלא מאי what's the pshat? So, the Rabbi explains that Beit Hillel holds that it's it's not it's a siman, it's not for because of food. It's melachot that have to do with food, like grinding and things like that have to do with food, so it's a siman. So, it's not davka that it was also mutar for food. And Beit Shammai says we don't say מתוך שהותרה לצורך אוכל נפש שלא לצורך because they hold it's a it's the cause, the reason it's the reason. Anyway, we find like that. Now, the emet is that even if you say a siman is a גורם, is a cause, not just a siman, it's also a siman, right? It taki causes it, but it's we it's also a siman. So, by let's go to simanim of aveidah. The simanim of aveidah are two things. On one hand, it's the cause the the fact that you have this siman on the aveidah is the reason why you can't keep it. Why? It's a reason, because it's a siman, the guy can identify it. Put this a siman that So, memeila if he can identify, he's not מתייאש, that's why you can keep it. It's also a siman also why can't keep it, that's why you can't keep it. It's also a siman. It's a siman that, how do you know it belongs to this guy? How do you know this is the owner? Whoever the owner is, was not מתייאש. But how do you know it's him? He gives the siman, he's a ראיה, he has a siman it's his. So, by the simanim of of here it's it's in the category of sibah, it's a cause, why can't you not can you not keep it, because of the simanim. And it's also a siman who it is. But when it comes to simanim of an aveidah, there's more to it. Why is more to it? It's not only it's a siman, it's a sibah to something else. And I'll just say the words now, and then I'm going to try to explain this. It's a sibah it's a cause The fact it's a siman, it's a cause to make that it's not an aveidah. And that's a halachah that is uh, I just said the words. I'll explain what I mean. I had another question. Sorry. I thought that the whole thing is even if because עד דרוש אחיך it's that that that is um uh he came to make sure he's not a ramai. שלא תהא רמאי, that's the whole thing. You want to make sure this guy's not not a thief, trying to get this thing and he doesn't really own it. Yeah. So, the whole pick it's kind of just uh for the sense Yeah, no. No, no. That's not true. It's not true, that's It's also, that's why I said it's a re'ayah it's his. But besides that, that makes that you have to return it. What happens if it doesn't have a siman and you know for sure it's his? Still don't have to return it. Because he is meya'esh, so definitely, because there is no question has to do with ye'ush, but there is some bit more. Siman has to do with no ye'ush, and not siman has to do with ye'ush, and that's the whole yesod of why you're allowed to keep this and not allowed to keep that. Sure, lifnim mishurat hadin, that's, yeah, that's magalgel, but even if a guy is meya'esh you should return it, lifnim mishurat hadin. Huh? Even an am ha'aretz? But when it says also you're allowed, when it says also you're allowed to make food even if it's not for eating, that's sibah or siman? Sibah, right? No. That's a siman? Yeah, the Torah it's sibah means that it's because of the food. But here you're cooking not for food. But there's a siman which melachot are mutar? It's called melachot that have to do with food. Cooking has to do with food, so it's a מלאכת אוכל נפש. Anyway, so I'm trying to say if that we have a she'eilah like this: chakirah. We have, if someone loses something, does that automatically mean that it's an it's a lost object and he you're allowed to keep it, but if the guy is not meya'esh then you can't? Oder farkert, be'etzem when a guy loses something, it still is. If he is meya'esh, then it's not his anymore. The fact In other words, we have two two dinim here. We have a din of hashavat aveidah. So that means that if someone loses something, you have to return it. Then we have a din that if the guy is meyuash you could keep it. Which is the עיקר and which is the נוסף? Do we say be'etzem if the guy loses something you're allowed to keep? The תורה איז געקומען צו אלא מאי the Torah is mosif a chidush that if the guy is not meyuash you can't keep it? That's what simanim. Oder farkert? Well, obviously, whichever way we're going to learn it's a it's a סיבה, but I'm saying which way is it? Or you could say farkert, if a person loses something, it's still not it's still his. That's you could say, it's still his, and you can't keep it. The Torah is mechadesh that if he's meyuash you could keep. There is a re'ayah to one side, it's not a real re'ayah, but it's a משמעות, that be'etzem it's you could keep it. A re'ayah from a goy. The din is that אבידת עכו״ם מותרת. If you find a lost object of a goy you're allowed to keep. Even with a siman, you're allowed to keep. And the question is why? The din is, and the Rambam paskent very clearly, that גזילת עכו״ם אסורה מדאורייתא. To steal from a goy is אסור מדאורייתא just like from a yid. If we're going to learn the pshat is that if someone loses something it's still his and the reason you

have to return it because it's his thing and you can't take it because you'll be a ganav, so by goy it should be the same thing! A goy you're not allowed to steal, so this is his and it's called stealing, then how come the din by a goy is that you can? If you learn the other way it makes sense. Be'etzem if you steal if a guy loses something, it's not his anymore, and be'etzem you should be able to keep it. Came the Torah and was mechadesh a din that if the guy is not meyuash, then you can't keep it. That chidush did the Torah make it? Not by a goy! The Torah only made a chiddush by a Yid. Memayla a goy you're allowed to keep. How can you say the goy is meyuash? How do you know? A goy is meyuash pshat? Why? Why is he He is a goy. No? No, the Torah says אבידת עכו״ם מותרת. Exactly, like טעות עכו״ם מותר. A goy is meyuash? He doesn't have that that hope that a Yid would have. That's a רוחניותדיקע ענין. Yeah. מיר לערנען דא גמרא, we're talking nigleh, not not not רוחניותדיקע ענינים. I don't know, a גוי האט נישט קיין נשמה, ממילא Yeah, okay, I can tell you other biurim also. The money is shayach to a Yid, but by a goy there is no shaychut b'etzem. What about a What about a katan? A katan can't be meyuash. You can't take it. A din is on a katan. And if he found something he knows it's from a goy, like a גויישע זאך? Yeah, yeah, or in a in a place where there are mostly גוים, רוב גוים. Lemashal, the Rosh says in the beginning of the מסכת, שנים אוחזין בטלית, זה אומר אני מצאתיה. Two people holding onto, this this guy says, \"I found it it's mine,\" and this guy says, \"I found it it's mine.\" פרעגט דער Rosh, what means he found it, it's yours? You have to return it! What they're fighting over? They're fighting over it, it's not theirs, it's a third person's! So the Rosh says, clearly he found it במקום שרובו עכו״ם. Yeah. This one this is mamash I think it's the first words of Metzia. Right? ממש שנים אוחזין בטלית in בבא מציעא, ובמקום שהיא שלו, it's a case where it belongs to the finder, כגון בעיר שרובה כותים. Okay? Oh, cuz כותים are they have No, no, כותים is from the censor. It means עכו״ם. It means akum, but a lot of times they didn't write akum because the censor. No, tallis doesn't mean a tallis, tallis is a garment. It doesn't mean, we call it tallis, nu. Wait, but a katan cannot be meya'esh, so that means you always have It's always his? Yeah. If you know it's from a katan. But how do you know it's from a katan? Usually mostly are not ketanim. Anyway, so if the pshat would be that when you lose something it's still yours, that's how the be'etzem. Be'etzem if you lose something it's yours and All right, the Torah was mechadesh and the Torah said a special din, that if he's not meya'esh, there is a din of hashavat aveidah. Hashavat aveidah is only by a Yid. But if you're gonna learn punkt farkert, that if be'etzem if you lose it, it's still yours, so then why would by a goy be mutar? So that's why there are re'ayot that they bring that by a that be'etzem if a guy loses something, it's it's be'etzem lost, and be'etzem you should be able to keep it. Ela mai the Torah said it that if the guy is meya'esh, then the din is that you that you have to return it. If be'etzem it's lost. No. No, the guy not, the guy not meya'esh, I'm sorry, the guy has a siman, the guy's not meya'esh, then you have to return, but be'etzem you shouldn't, you don't have to. In other words, the pshat is like this: when something has a siman, which means the guy is not meya'esh, what it does is it transforms something which is an aveidah to become no aveidah. When you lose something, it's an aveidah, and if it's an aveidah, you don't have to return it. If the guy is not meya'esh, then it's never an aveidah. Why? Because the inyan of aveidah is that it's lost, it's disconnected from him. Why is it not his? Because he's מסלק himself from it, he pulls himself away. The fact, and the that's din of aveidah. And by an aveidah, it's not his, it's מסלק, so mimela it's not his. Ma she'ein kein if he is not meya'esh, that makes it an aveidah was never an aveidah. Mimela, that's the din of hashavat aveidah because it's it's you have to return it because it's not an aveidah. Somebody'll ask me, but then why do we call it hashavat aveidah? Right. Yeah. That's שם המושאל. That's just saying a גשמיותדיקע thing, a person like, I lost it, no? We call it a lost object. But if we're talking about the halachah of it, we're talking about the halachah of aveidah. That's called אבידה אמיתית. A real aveidah is that the guy is meya'esh. The guy is not Normally, a guy loses, it's an aveidah. If the guy is not meya'esh, you say that aveidah is not really an aveidah, and that's why you have to return this aveidah, because it doesn't have the halachah of an aveidah. Not ownerless. Huh? It's not ownerless, because it's still connected to him. It's על דרך על דרך like because since he's not meya'esh, it's still connected to him. על דרך like the Ramban says, it's a chidush, and we spoke about this one in the shiurim, the Ramban argues with Tosafot, but the Ramban according to it's a chidush, that what happens if you lose something in your own reshut? You lost it in your house, in your own reshut. So, the Ramban said it's not called an aveidah. Even if you're meya'esh. Can't call it lost. Why? Because it's not a lost... No, no. Misplaced. Huh? It's in your reshut. Premises. Misplaced. Yeah. And if it's a חצר שאינה משתמרת? So, even if it Here he says if it's in your house, that's not called lost. What is the sechel behind this? Always going to find it. Not because you're always going to find it, no, it's never disconnected from you. I'm saying imagine I have something in my pocket and I forgot it's in my pocket, and I'm miya'esh from it. It's not a ye'ush. Tosafot argues, but I'm saying al derech, that sevara of the Ramban, the same sevara here, that this inyan of an aveidah is a real aveidah is only when it's lost and you're not you're miya'esh. If so, be'etzem if you lose it, it's disconnected. If you're not miya'esh, the Torah is mechadesh that it becomes it turns into an aveidah. If it transforms into an aveidah, an aveidah, then if if you are miya'esh it turns, but if you're not miya'esh, then it changes it from being an aveidah to not being an aveidah anymore. That's why it's called hashavat aveidah, it's not an aveidah. Yeah, so saying, you have to give back this Why is it called aveidah? Because it's not an aveidah, you have to, but we aveidah is just a שם המושאל. This explains another din, such a the sevara, when it says like this: אבידת עכו״ם מותרת. Aveidah of a goy you don't have to return. Then the Rambam says if there is a chillul Hashem by not returning, then you have to return it. It's mashma that you have to return it בתורת דין of hashavat aveidah. Lechora you should say, hashavat aveidah by a goy doesn't exist, but there's a din of chillul Hashem, so you have to give it back al chillul Hashem. Let's say if a person will not give it back when there's a chillul Hashem, which aveirah which which din is he over? Chillul Hashem. Chillul Hashem! Some are mashma he's עובר השבת אבידה. If you look in the אלטער רבי, the אלטער רבי is mashma even more. The אלטער רבי in הלכות מציאה comes out that by a goy's אבידה you don't have to return, but if there's a chillul Hashem, you're מחוייב מדאורייתא to return it as, comes out from there, as a דין אבידה. לכאורה ווי קומט דאס צו אבידה? It's a it's another din. There's a דין קידוש השם, there's a פסוק ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, then there's a פסוק ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, you shouldn't make a chillul Hashem, so ס'איז א זייטיקע דין. In other words, if the guy doesn't return it in such a case, you're over on the din of chillul Hashem, you're not over here on השבת אבידה. From Rambam it's mashma you're over on the din of השבת אבידה, from the אלטער רבי. Oh, because we're saying normally when it's lost, It's an אבידה, בעצם. And if this din that if he's not meyaesh, it's not an אבידה, is that only by a Yid? But in a case where there's a chillul Hashem and and you have to return it, it's a chillul Hashem, that transformed it, even for an אבידה, it's still connected to you. At first we're saying that it's a goyishe place, it's an ir of עכו״ם. Yeah. So ir of עכו״ם, the finder is also a עכו״ם. Why why is the goy No, we're talking about the finder is a Yid, though. Huh? Fine, the finder found a Yid in the place of a goy. Well obviously, who's arguing with It says, why did the goy say that the Yid found it? Why does that goy doesn't No, better if in a case where there was Okay. And in that case, where the goy found out that the Yid found it, and if he doesn't return it, it's chilul Hashem, so he says you should return it. But, in fact, what din should you return it? Is that a דין חילול השם or is that a דין השבת אבידה? So it seems that it's in השבת אבידה. Why is it השבת אבידה? There's no דין השבת אבידה by a goy. The vort is why is the why is there no דין השבת אבידה by a goy? Because the בעצם זאַך that you lost it, it's disconnected. If it's disconnected, you don't return it. By a Yid, the Aibershter made a chidush that if he's not meya'esh, it transforms that not being meya'esh, that siman, which you're not meya'esh, transforms the object that the object becomes that it's not an aveidah. By a In the case of by a goy, it doesn't work that way. But chilul Hashem, that means that you have to return it, it's a chilul Hashem. The moment you have to return it since it's a chilul Hashem, that there's a connection to the goy, because you have to Automatically, that even by a goy, not an aveidah. And if it's not an אבידה, גזל עכו״ם is אסור מדאורייתא. So there's a din So it's like a heichi timtzi that there's a דין השבת אבידה by a goy. פשטות פשוט, but there's a דין השבת אבידה by a goy. So, what am I all leading up to? So, it comes out like this: that the inyan of a siman, which means that you're not meya'esh, or what we said before, what it does is it makes that you're not meya'esh. According to this, it's more than that. It doesn't just make that you're not meya'esh. What it is is it has a halacha of changing something it's an aveidah into not an aveidah. The object that's lost is an aveidah. If you not if it has a siman, it makes that the object is not an aveidah. It transforms the halacha of the object, that this is halacha of an aveidah. Umemeila, we

can understand what is the difference if the siman is in the object, the siman is outside of the object. We asked a shayla, why did they say if the siman is makom, which is outside of the object, so we're saying, so then it's not a regular siman, even though the guy gives it, you have to give it back, but it's still not a real siman. So, we have to ask, why not? If you have to give it back, so the guy's not meya'esh, it's a regular case. Saying it's not only that, the siman of of an aveidah Normally, when we say a siman, it's more than that. It has a halachadike aspect. Besides the technicality, that since there's a siman, he's not meya'esh, and fine. So, therefore, the chiluk if it's makom, if it's inside or not, there's a din that this fact that there's a siman in it, and it makes that he's not meya'esh, has the koach that this object is transformed from being an aveidah into not an aveidah. If we're talking about the object being transformed, and here there's a difference: when could the object be transformed from not an aveidah into aveidah? Only if the siman is in the object. Right. So, then the object is another type of object. But if the siman is outside of the object, then it's much harder to say that the object is transformed from not an aveidah to aveidah, because the object itself is the same. And therefore, the Rambam will learn that it's called שאינו... So,

what you said the word shvach, it's takeh is because it's a shvacher, but which way is it shvacher? It's shvacher because there's a halacha. If it would be just a technical thing, you're meya'esh or not meya'esh, finish, it's all the same, you have to give it words. But since we're saying the Torah made something that this siman is causes the object to become a different status, it's not only a din in the person, whether the person is miyash or not. Because that person is miyash, therefore it's that. So, if azoy, there's already a makom to be mechaleik between the object is it's a siman in the object, so then takeh the object is a lost object, and if it's a siman something else, the object be'etzem Well, then it's not a lost object if there's a siman. Here that siman doesn't have the koach to transform it. If he gives a siman, he's taking the same thing. It's the same thing makom. If he if he says it's his, so he'll bring it back this, cuz that is a siman, even if he I'm saying that's that's like He's a gorem. It's a gorem, it's not only a siman. It's a gorem, and it's a gorem to a halacha. And if it's a gorem to a halacha, so this is a different halacha, so here the halacha is that it's not that you don't have to return it. It's an etzem that belongs to him. The etzem belongs to him, it's just misplaced. It's not an אבידה, and you call it it's misplaced. Misplaced means it's in another place, a place that he doesn't know where it is, so then place Like it's in his own house. Right, right. Like the So the place becomes important, the place becomes a etzem. Yeah, but the object is but it's not The object is not a different type of object, it's the object is a Although they're not It's not going to affect the object, because It'll affect him, but it's not tofes of an אבידה. Yeah, but we got short sittings today, only 39 minutes. Why don't we split it, why don't we say that it's an אבידה by the guy that's finding it? He sees it as a lost object, because the guy who lost it It's the summer, we don't we don't study It's not a lost object. How do we say that this shows the object perspective I could only burn Right. So, he didn't really lose it. I bought a special program to do it. Right. So if the guy gives the siman, then you have to give it back. But if the guy doesn't give anything, it's still called a lost object. The object is still a lost object. Why? If there's a siman in the thing, the object if it has a siman in it, then it still belongs to the guy he gives the siman. In which case of siman? Not makom. Regular. Regular siman because the guy couldn't give the siman and the object has a siman in it, so the object is not a lost object. So if it's not a lost object, whose is it? His. If it's his, I can't keep it. It has a siman and it's not a lost object. That's all I'm saying. We

say that it's not lost. If it's lost, we could keep it. The fact that you can't keep it, it's not lost. So this object is not a lost object. If it changed, it only changes for the guy who quote-unquote lost it, not the guy who found it. If I found it, it's an אבידה, he has to return it. Once you get a lost, in other words, it preserves it maintains that it's still an אבידה. If it's not in the thing itself, it's still an אבידה. Well, even to the perspective of the guy that found it, I mean the guy that lost it, by which? By siman? Yeah, by siman. No, then then he should be able to keep it. You can't get it off your phone? Which phone you had this morning? So then he shouldn't be able to keep it, and we're saying he is able to keep it, so obviously it's not. Obviously the object remains a lost object. If it's only a few minutes, then you could always send it in, you know, email it, but it's too long, so I can't email it. That was another way to get it off.