Jewish Audio on chabad.org. This שיעור will be in מסכת בבא מציעא דף כג, and we will start the eighth line from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in the middle of discussing the מחלוקת between רבה and רבא, whether סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן or not. If an article has a סימן, but it's a סימן that would be stepped on and would be wiped out, do we assume that the owner gave up hope, thinking that probably the סימן will be wiped out so he will not be able to identify it anyway, and therefore he was מיאש, and the finder is allowed to keep it? Or do we say that he doesn't think that way, and he still hopes that the סימן will remain, and therefore the owner is not מיאש, and the one that finds it is not allowed to keep it, but must announce it? רבה said that סימן העשוי לידרס is not considered a סימן, but רבא holds that סימן העשוי לידרס is considered a סימן. Now the גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you a question. We learn in the משנה: ככרות של נחתום, if you find loaves of bread baked by a baker, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to the person who finds them. And the

reason is because all bakers bake it the same way, so there is no סימן on it. And therefore the person is מיאש, and the finder is allowed to keep it. From here we are מדייק: הא, but של בעל הבית, if they wouldn't be from the baker, if they were from private people, חייב להכריז, you would have to announce it. And רש״י says, really this is written clearly in the משנה later on, that if you find loaves of bread baked by a private person, you do have to announce it. The reason the גמרא doesn't quote that משנה, but rather quotes the first משנה that we learned before, where it says that if you find bread of a baker you don't have to announce it, and we're מדייק that that tells us that if you find bread from a private person you do have to announce it, so רש״י says because the קושיא before that the גמרא asked was taken from the previous משנה, so the גמרא continues by asking a קושיא from the previous משנה. But the question is: של בעל הבית, מאי טעמא? What is the reason that if you find bread baked by a private person you have to announce? Because כיוון דאיכא סימן, since it has a סימן, ומדע ידיע, it's known, because ריפתא דאיניש איניש הוא, the bread of the person is the person himself. From the bread you could tell who is the person that baked the bread. And therefore, when you find this bread, you have to announce it because it has a סימן. ולא שנא רשות הרבים ולא שנא רשות היחיד, נוטל ומכריז. The משנה makes no difference whether you found this bread in the public place or you found it in the public in private place. In both cases, when you find it, you have to announce it because of the סימן. אי, the question is, when this bread is in the street, it is going to be stepped on, so the סימן will be erased, and nevertheless the משנה says that you have to announce it. אלמא, we see, סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן, that a סימן that will be stepped on is still considered a סימן. תיופתא דרבה! Isn't it a קושיא on רבה, who holds that a סימן that will be stepped on is not a סימן? And the גמרא answers, אמר לך רבה, רבה will tell you: התם, over there, והיינו טעמא, this is the reason why it is considered a סימן even if it was in the רשות הרבים, משום דאין מעבירין על האוכלין, because you're not allowed to pass by food without picking it up. It doesn't mean, as רש״י explains, that you're not allowed to step on food, but what it means is that you're not allowed to pass by food and not pick it up. So the person who found the food, who found this loaf of bread, was definitely the first person who saw it, because if anybody else would have seen it, he would have picked it up. So therefore, it is not considered a סימן העשוי לידרס. And since the one that lost it knows this דין, that you're not allowed to pass by food without picking it up, so he assumes that the first person that will pass by will pick it up, so it'll never be stepped on, so the סימן will remain, and therefore he is not מיאש, and therefore the one that found it is not allowed to keep it. But then the

גמרא asks: והאיכא נכרים, but aren't there גוים? גוים do not listen to this דין that you're not allowed to pass by food without picking it up. So maybe the גוים will pass by and not pick it up, and on the contrary they will step on it, and they will erase it. So why doesn't the owner think of that, and he should be מיאש anyway, thinking that the גוים will step on it and erase the סימן? And the גמרא answers: נכרים, גוים, חיישי לכשפים, they're afraid of magic. So a גוי, even though he will not pick up the food, but he will not step on the bread either, because they're afraid that maybe it was put in the street for the sake of magic, that somebody who will step on it will get hurt, so they would not step on that either. So therefore, the owner knows that the גוים will not step on it. The יידן that will pass by, the first one will pick it up, so it'll the סימן will remain, and therefore he doesn't give up hope. But then the גמרא asks: והאיכא בהמה וכלבים, but aren't there animals and dogs? So they would step on it. So why doesn't the owner think of that? So let's Assume that he did give up hope thinking that the animals will step on it and the סימן will be erased. The גמרא answers, באתרא דלא שכיחא בהמה וכלבים. It is טאקע talking in a case where it is not common to have animals, בהמות, or dogs, and therefore in a place like that, if you find the loaves of bread that were baked by private person, you have to return it because that's a סימן that's going to stay, and therefore the owner is not מתייאש. Then the גמרא says, לימא, let us say, כתנאי, that the מחלוקת between רבה and רבא, whether סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן or not, is actually a מחלוקת between תנאים? Because we learned in our משנה, רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, כל דבר שיש בו שינוי, anything that has a change, anything that has something unusual in it, חייב להכריז, you have to announce it. כיצד, for instance, מצא עיגול, if you find this cake of figs, ובתוכו חרס, inside is a piece of pottery, or ככר, if you find a bread, ובתוכו מעות, and inside is money. So רבי יהודה holds that that is considered a סימן, and therefore you must announce it. מכלל, that shows, since the משנה says that רבי יהודה says this, that proves that תנא קמא סבר הרי אלו שלו, that the תנא קמא holds, the first תנא of the משנה, he holds that even if you find something unusual in the bread or in the cake of figs, you're still allowed to keep it. So there's a מחלוקת here between רבי יהודה and the תנא קמא whether in this case you're allowed to keep it or not. Now what is this מחלוקת? So באמת there are three possible ways to explain this מחלוקת. One way to explain their argument is whether סימן הבא מאליו is a סימן or not. A סימן that came by itself, whether it's a סימן or not. If you see something unusual and it's possible that this thing happened by itself, that the person did not do it intentionally, do we consider it as a סימן or not? Do we assume that the person did put it intentionally and therefore it is a סימן, or do we assume that probably it fell in by itself and the person doesn't know about it, and therefore it is not a סימן? This is the way רש״י explains this concept of סימן הבא מאליו. תוספות explains it a little differently. תוספות learns that the שאלה is that definitely it happened by itself, but the question is, does the person realize it happened? Do we assume that when it happened, for instance when the coin fell into the bread, did the person realize it happened, and therefore he already considers it as a סימן, or do we say that since it happened by itself, he probably didn't realize it and he doesn't even know it's there, and therefore it's not a סימן? But whichever way we're going to learn, there is a possibility to say that when a סימן is able to happen by itself, we do consider it as a סימן, or we say it is not considered a סימן. And we could say that this is the מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the תנא קמא. רבי יהודה who holds that when you have the coin in the bread, which is a סימן that comes by itself, it is considered a סימן, because he holds סימן הבא מאליו is a סימן. The תנא קמא who holds that if you find a loaf of bread with a coin inside, it is not considered a סימן, you do not have to give it back, because he holds that סימן הבא מאליו is not considered a סימן. That is one way we could explain the מחלוקת. Another way we could explain the מחלוקת is that they argue whether סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן or not, whether a סימן that will be stepped on is considered a סימן. רבי יהודה who holds that if you find this loaf of bread with a coin inside is considered a סימן, because he holds that even if it will be stepped on, still a סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן. תנא קמא holds that since it's found in a public place and it will be stepped on, so it is a סימן העשוי לידרס, and he holds it is not a סימן, therefore he holds that you do not have to give it back. There's a third possibility to learn that the מחלוקת is whether מעבירין על האוכלין or not, whether you're allowed to pass by food without picking it up. רבי יהודה who says that if you find the loaf with the coin inside, you do have to give it back, he holds that you're not allowed to pass by food, and therefore the person who lost it assumes that no one will step on it because the first person who will pass by will pick it up, and therefore he holds it is a סימן and you're not allowed to keep it. תנא קמא holds that you are allowed to pass by food, and therefore he holds that the owner does give up hope thinking that the סימן will be stepped on, and therefore he holds the דין is that you do not have to give it back. So now the

גמרא says first, סברוה, the תלמידים of the ישיבה thought that what is the מחלוקת? דכולי עלמא, both of them hold סימן הבא מאליו הוי סימן. רבי יהודה and the תנא קמא hold that a סימן that could be came by itself is considered a סימן. So both agree that the coin inside the bread or the pottery that's inside the figs is really a סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין, and both hold that you're allowed to pass by food without picking it up. And what is the מחלוקת? מאי לאו, don't you think, דסימן העשוי לידרס קמיפלגי, that their argument is concerning whether a סימן which will be stepped on is a סימן? מר סבר לא הוי סימן, the תנא קמא holds it's not a סימן, and therefore he holds if you find the coin in the bread, you don't have to return it, being that it is a סימן, but since you're allowed to step on food, it is a סימן העשוי לידרס, and he holds a סימן העשוי לידרס is not a סימן. And therefore, you are allowed to keep it. ומר סבר, רבי יהודה holds, הוי סימן, it is a סימן, since the סימן that came by itself is a סימן. So even though he holds you're allowed to step on the food, but still he says you have to give it back, because even though it is a סימן העשוי לידרס, he holds סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן. So if we learn this way, it comes out that the מחלוקת of תנאים between רבי יהודה and the תנא קמא is really the מחלוקת between רבה and רבא, whether סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן or not. And this is considered a קושיא, because usually when we have a מחלוקת אמוראים, we do not like to find the מחלוקת תנאים in the same מחלוקת, because if we do find that תנאים argue in the same מחלוקת, then why did the אמוראים again have to argue the מחלוקת? All they should have said was that one should have said הלכה is like this תנא, and the other אמורא should have said the הלכה is like the other תנא. Since they argue as if there's a new מחלוקת, we must say that there is no מחלוקת תנאים in the same דין. But here it seems that this מחלוקת between רבה and רבא is the same מחלוקת as between the תנא קמא and רבי יהודה. אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, so רב זביד said in the name of רבא that this could not be their מחלוקת. אי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think, דקסבר תנא קמא, that the תנא קמא holds that סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, that a סימן that will be stepped on is not a סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין, and you're allowed to pass by food without picking it up, and it could come to be stepped on, and that is the reason he says that in this case you do not have to give it back because the סימן will be stepped on, it is a סימן, but it will be stepped on, and therefore he says you're allowed to keep it, ככרות של בעל הבית ברשות הרבים אמאי מכריז? What is the דין, why if you find the bread of the בעל הבית, the loaves that were baked by the private person in the street, why do you have to announce it? Since he holds that סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן, and he holds you're allowed to step on food, so the loaves of bread that the בעל הבית, that a private person baked and it was found in the street, will also be stepped on, so it loses its סימן. So the תנא קמא should say that you should be able to keep it, why does he hold that you have to announce it? So that shows that we cannot say the תנא קמא holds that סימן העשוי לידרס is not a סימן. אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, so therefore רב זביד said in the name of רבא, that the פשט in the מחלוקת is different than what we said before. דכולי עלמא סברי, they both hold סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן, a סימן that could be stepped on is a סימן. רבא is saying this, so רבא is explaining it according to his שיטה, and he holds סימן העשוי לידרס is a סימן, so he explains that they both hold that סימן that will be stepped on is a סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין, and they both also hold that you're allowed to pass by food without picking it up and it could be stepped on. So what is the מחלוקת here? והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קמיפלגי. The

מחלוקת is only whether לכתחילה in the case of the unusual thing that happened to the bread, whether that לכתחילה is considered a סימן or not. Because since it's a סימן that comes by itself, that could be it came by itself, so the מחלוקת is whether that is a סימן or not. דתנא קמא סבר, the first תנא holds סימן הבא מאיליו לא הוי סימן. A סימן that could be came by itself is not considered a סימן. Therefore, he holds if you find the loaf with the coin inside, it is not a סימן because maybe it came by itself. ורבי יהודה סבר, רבי יהודה holds, הוי סימן, a סימן that could be came by itself is a סימן, and therefore he holds that when you find a loaf of bread with a coin inside you have to return it, because it is considered a סימן. But this is explained according to רבא. ורבה אמר לך, רבה will answer, will explain, דכולי עלמא, they both hold סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, that if a סימן will be stepped on, it's not a סימן. Because רבה holds that a סימן העשוי לידרס is not a סימן, so he must say that both תנאים hold that a סימן העשוי לידרס is not a סימן, and both hold ואין מעבירין על האוכלין, that you're not allowed to pass by food without picking it up. So לכאורה, they both should agree that if you find the coin in the loaf of bread, it should be a סימן because no one will step on it, because you can't step on food, you must pick it up. So לכאורה, they both should agree it is a סימן, but והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קמיפלגי. The מחלוקת is whether a סימן that maybe came by itself, whether it is a סימן or not. תנא קמא סבר, the תנא קמא holds, לא הוי סימן. It is not considered a סימן, and therefore, this unusual thing that we found in in the loaf of bread is not considered a סימן. ורבי יהודה סבר הוי סימן, and רבי יהודה holds it is a סימן, and therefore he says that if you find the coin in the bread, you must return it. איכא דאמרי, others learned this different. Others learned this whole discussion differently.

The start of מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the תנא קמא is, דכולי עלמא, that סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, that a סימן that will be stepped on is not considered a סימן. So then לכאורה, they both hold that a סימן that came by itself is a סימן, so this coin in the bread, according to both, is a סימן. According to both also, if a סימן will be stepped on is not a סימן, so automatically this coin in the bread should lose its status of being a סימן because it could be stepped on. So what is the מחלוקת? מאי לאו, don't you think, במעבירין על האוכלין קמיפלגי, the מחלוקת is whether you're allowed to pass by food without picking it up, whether you're allowed to cause it to be stepped on. דמר סבר, the תנא קמא holds מעבירין, that you are allowed to pass by, and therefore the תנא קמא holds that the coin in the loaf of bread is not a סימן, since you're allowed to step on it, and he holds that a סימן that will be stepped on is not a סימן, so therefore, this coin loses its status of being a סימן. ומר סבר, רבי יהודה holds אין מעבירין, you're not allowed to pass by the food, and therefore it will not be stepped on, and therefore he holds it is a סימן. And on this explanation that the תלמידים of the ישיבה said, that's where רב זביד in the name of רבא came. ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, רב זביד said in the name of רבא, אי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think that סבר תנא קמא, the תנא קמא holds סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, that a סימן that will be stepped on is not considered a סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין, and they both hold that you're allowed to pass by the food, ככרות של בעל הבית ברשות הרבים אמאי מכריז, why does the תנא קמא hold that if you find the loafs of bread baked by the private person, if you find it in the רשות הרבים, you have to announce it? Why should you have to announce it, since you're allowed to step on the food, and a סימן which will be stepped on is not a סימן? So food in the רשות הרבים should never be considered a סימן. So why should you have to announce the bread the loafs of bread baked by the private person? אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, so therefore רב זביד said in the name of רבא, דכולי עלמא סברי, they both hold, סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן, that if a סימן will be stepped on is a סימן, and רבא says it that way because that's what he holds. And they both hold ומעבירין על האוכלין, that you're allowed to pass by the food, והכא בסימן הבא מאליו קמיפלגי, and here the מחלוקת is whether a סימן that maybe came by itself is a סימן or not. דתנא קמא סבר, the תנא קמא holds, סימן הבא מאליו לא הוי סימן, a סימן that maybe came by itself is not considered a סימן, and therefore he holds if you find the loaf of bread with the coin inside, it is not considered a סימן, and you're allowed to keep it. ורבי יהודה סבר הוי סימן, רבי יהודה holds it is a סימן, and therefore he says if you find this unusual thing, then you are not allowed to keep it because it is a סימן. אבל רבא אמר לך, but רבא will tell you, דכולי עלמא, they both hold סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, a סימן that could be stepped on is not considered a סימן. That's the way he holds, so he says that both תנאים hold that way, and both hold ואין מעבירין על האוכלין, that you are not allowed to pass by the food without picking it up, והכא בסימן הבא מאליו קמיפלגי, the מחלוקת is concerning a סימן that comes by itself. תנא קמא סבר, the first תנא holds סימן הבא מאליו לא הוי סימן, a סימן that could be came by itself is not considered a סימן, and therefore he holds that if you find the loaf of bread with the coin inside, you're allowed to keep it. ורבי יהודה סבר הוי סימן, רבי יהודה holds it is a סימן, and therefore he says that you're not allowed to keep it. Then the

גמרא says, אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, רב זביד said in the name of רבא, כללא דאבידתא, a כלל, the rule of an אבידה, when is an אבידה, a lost object, considered that the owner was מתייאש from it? כיון דאמר ווי ליה לחסרון כיס, אוי ואבוי is to me for the loss of money that I have, מייאש למניה, then he is מתייאש. When he says that, then we know he is מתייאש. This is the concept of יאוש. ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא, also did רב זביד say in the name of רבא, הלכתא, the הלכה is, כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו. If you find the small bundles in the רשות הרבים, in the public place, they belong to you, you could keep it. ברשות היחיד, if you find it in the private place, אי דרך נפילה, if you found it in such a way that you could tell that it was lost, it fell down accidentally, הרי אלו שלו, you could keep it. אי דרך הנחה, if it looks as if someone put it down intentionally, נוטל ומכריז, you should take it and you should announce it. You

shouldn't leave it there because someone else might come and take it, a גוי might come and take it, and then the owner will lose it. On the other hand, you are not allowed to hold it, you must announce it. But the question is, what will you announce? רבא holds that מקום is a סימן, so the announcement will be concerning מקום. וזה וזה, but this is all talking בדבר שאין בו סימן, something that has no סימן of its own. אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן, but if it's something that has a סימן, so then לא שנא ברשות הרבים ולא שנא ברשות היחיד, it makes no difference whether it was found in the public place or it was found in the private place, בין דרך נפילה ובין דרך הנחה, whether it looks as if it fell down accidentally or it looks as if it was put down, חייב להכריז, you have to announce it. Since it has a סימן, you have to announce it under all circumstances. And the reason is because רבא holds that סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן. A סימן that could be stepped on is still a סימן. So therefore, even if you find it in the רשות הרבים, you still have to announce it since it has a סימן, because even if it might be stepped on, רבא holds that the owner does not give up hope in such a case. Then the

גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, מחרוזות של דגים, if you find strings of fish, so the דין is you are allowed to keep it. The גמרא asks, אמאי, why? וליהוי קשר סימן, why isn't the knot a סימן? And the גמרא answers, בקיטרא דצידא. It is a knot that all the צידים, all the fishermen use, דכולי עלמא הכי מקטרי, that all of the people tie it that way, so therefore it is not a special knot and is not a סימן. Then the גמרא asks, וליהוי מנין סימן, let the amount be a סימן. How many fish were hanging on that string? And the גמרא answers, במנינא דשוין, that there was a fixed amount that all the fishermen hung the same amount on a string, and therefore the amount is not a סימן. Then the גמרא continues, בעו מיניה מרב ששת, the תלמידים asked a שאלה and they בעו it from רב ששת, מנין הוי סימן או לא הוי סימן? An amount, a number, is it a סימן or is it not a סימן? אמר להו רב ששת, רב ששת said to them, תניתוה, we learned it. We learned, if מצא כלי כסף וכלי נחשת, if someone found vessels of silver or vessels of copper, גסטראות של אבר, pieces of broken lead, וכל כלי מתכות, or any metal, הרי זה לא יחזיר, you don't have to return it עד שיתן אות, till the person will give a sign, a סימן, או עד שיכוין משקלותיו, or till he will tell you exactly how much it weighed. So we see here that the weight is a סימן. מידי דמשקל הוי סימן, since weight is a סימן, מידה ומנין נמי הוי סימן, the measurement and the number, the amount, is also considered a סימן. So that was his answer to them, that מנין is a סימן. Then the

גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה, חתיכות של בשר, if you find pieces of meat, you're allowed to keep it. אמאי, the גמרא asks, why? ליהוי משקלא סימן, let the weight be a סימן. And the גמרא answers, במשקלא דשוין, there was a fixed weight that everyone would cut their meat to such pieces that it would weigh the same. ותהוי חתיכה גופא סימן, let the cut itself, meaning the piece itself from which limb it was, let that itself be a סימן. אי דדפקא, אי דאטמא, let him say whether it was from the neck or from the loin! מי לא תניא, didn't we learn in a ברייתא, מצא חתיכות דגים, if you find cut pieces of fish, ודג נשוך, or a fish with a bite in it, חייב להכריז, you have to announce it. חביות של יין, if you find barrels of wine, של שמן, or of oil, ושל תבואה, or of grain, ושל גרוגרות, or of dried figs, ושל זיתים, or of olives, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to you. But in the beginning of the ברייתא we see it says that if you find cut pieces of fish, you have to announce it, and the reason would be because the cut itself is a סימן. So why can't we say the same thing by the meat, that the cut itself, the part of the of the meat that it is, should be the סימן? And the גמרא answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, that here, by the case of the fish, when we say the cut is a סימן, דאיכא סימנא בפסקיה, that there was a סימן in the way it was cut, כי הא דרבה בר רב הונא, just like רבה בר רב הונא, מחתך ליה אתלתא קרנתא, he would cut it in three corners, which means he would cut it like a triangle. That would be a סימן. But if it doesn't have that kind of סימן, we do not consider the part of meat to be a סימן. דיקא נמי, I want to prove to you that the סימן in that ברייתא where it says that if you find cut pieces of fish would be the way it's cut, דקתני. תוספות asks on this גמרא that we just learned, going back all the way to the beginning of מחרוזות של דגים, that the גמרא said that if you find strings of fish, the דין is that you are allowed to keep it because it has no סימן. And תוספות says it doesn't mean only fish, but let's say if you would find strings of meat, the דין would be the same, that it is not considered a סימן, and therefore you're allowed to keep it. But תוספות asks, here it seems And therefore, there is no סימן, but אי בפתוח, if it was open, אבידה מדעת היא, isn't it a loss with knowledge, doesn't he know he's going to lose it? Because if you leave your barrel of wine open, then all kinds of insects and snakes could drink from it. So the

person who left it open gave up hope even before that. So why would the ברייתא have to tell us, if you find such a barrel of wine, you are allowed to keep it, certainly you're allowed to keep it. The person left it open, so he gave up hope for it, because otherwise he wouldn't leave it open. אמר רב הושעיא, so רב הושעיא said, במגופה, it means that he didn't seal it, but nevertheless, he didn't leave it open, he closed it without sealing. So a סימן he doesn't have, but nevertheless, it's not an אבידה מדעת, because the animals cannot drink from it. אביי אמר, אביי said, אפילו תימא אידי ואידי ברשום. That means you could say that the משנה and the ברייתא are both speaking in a case where it was sealed. אי, the question is, if it was sealed, so there is a סימן, so why does the ברייתא say that if you find the barrels of wine, you're allowed to keep it? ולא קשיא, it's no קשיא. כאן קודם שנפתחו אוצרות, כאן לאחר שנפתחו אוצרות. That in the משנה where it says that it does have a סימן is speaking in a case before the אוצרות, the storage houses, were opened. So then, not everyone makes this רושם, and therefore, if there is a רושם, that is a סימן. But in the ברייתא where it says that you are allowed to keep it because it is not a סימן, it is at the time after the אוצרות were opened, after people started selling their wine already. So then, everyone makes this רושם, and since everyone makes this רושם, it is not a סימן. This is the way רש״י learns פשט in this גמרא. תוספות argues on רש״י, and תוספות says that when the גמרא לכתחילה answers that in the משנה where it says that you have to return the jars of wine that you find is because it is ברשום, it is a case where it's sealed, so תוספות learns not like רש״י, that since some seal and some don't, therefore, if it was sealed, it is a סימן, but תוספות learns that when the people used to seal, everyone sealed it differently. So if it was sealed, that seal is a סימן, because you could tell which person sealed it. And then later, when אביי says that both the ברייתא and the משנה are talking in a case where it was sealed, and nevertheless there is no קשיא, because one is talking at the time before they opened the אוצרות and one is talking at the time after the אוצרות are opened, so תוספות learns what אביי meant to say was, that after the אוצרות were opened, which means after the people started selling to the storekeepers, then this special seal is no סימן anyway, because the same person could sell to many storekeepers. So the same kind of seal could belong to many people. So if a person comes and says that it's his lost object, he is the one that lost the barrel of wine, and he will give the סימן of the seal, it is no ראיה really it is his. Maybe it is someone else, because that someone else maybe bought that and also a barrel of wine from the same source as the other person. And therefore, at that time, the seal is no סימן. But if it was a time before the אוצרות were opened, then so then we don't have many people buying from the same source, so then, if it was lost and it has a סימן of the רושם, we know who it belongs to, and therefore, at that time, the רושם is a סימן, and you would have to return it. Now we will continue with the גמרא. The גמרא gives an example. כי הא דרב יעקב בר אבא, just like the story of רב יעקב בר אבא, אשכח חביתא דחמרא, he found a barrel of wine, לאחר שנפתחו אוצרות, after the אוצרות were opened, after people started selling the wine already. אתא לקמיה דאביי, he came to אביי, and he asked him, "Can you keep it or not?" אמר ליה, so he said to him, "זיל גזול, שקול לנפשך, take it for yourself." So we see here that after the אוצרות are opened, you're allowed to keep the barrel of wine. Then the גמרא continues:

בעא מיניה רב ביבי מרב נחמן. רב ביבי asked an איבעיא, a question of רב נחמן: מקום הוי סימן או לא הוי סימן? Is a place considered a סימן, or is it not considered a סימן? If someone gives the סימן only of the place where he lost it, is that an acceptable סימן or not? אמר ליה, so he said to him: תניתוה, we learned it. We learn: מצא חביות של יין, if you find barrels of wine, ושל שמן, or of oil, ושל תבואה, or of grain, ושל גרוגרות, or of dried figs, ושל זיתים, or of olives, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, you're allowed to keep it. ואי סלקא דעתך, if you would think דמקום הוי סימן, that giving the place is considered a סימן, ליכרז מקום! Why doesn't he announce the place? And since we say that he doesn't have to announce it, that shows that מקום is not a סימן. אמר רב זביד, so רב זביד said it is no ראיה. הכא במאי עסקינן, we could say that here we're talking ברקתא דנהרא, at the river bank. And as רש״י explained, when the wine would come to the city with the boats, so then all the people who would want to buy the wine would come to the boats, and they would unload the ship right over there, and all the barrels would be put on the floor right by the river bank, and the people would buy it from there. So if you find a barrel of wine in that area, that is not a סימן, because everyone holds their barrels of wine there. So there's no ראיה from this ברייתא that place is not a סימן. Maybe the reason here, the place of the barrels of wine is not a סימן, because it is a place where everyone holds their barrels of wine. אמר רב מרי, רב מרי said: מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן רקתא דנהרא לא הוי סימן? What is the reason, why did the רבנן say that if you find it by the river bank it is not a סימן? Because אמרינן ליה, because we tell him, the person who's going to come and claim that he lost it in that area, we will tell him: כי היכי דאתרמי לדידך, just like it happened to you, אתרמי נמי ל... לחברך, it happened to your friend, too. Could be your friend lost it in the same place. Normally, we do not say that to a person. When a person comes and says he lost an object in a certain place, we don't say, "Well, maybe you lost it in this place, and another person lost the same object in the same place." It is not common for two people to lose the same object in the same place. But here, since it's a place where everyone puts down their barrels of wine, so could be that two people left their barrels of wine there and forgot them. So, that's why we tell this person that we cannot give it to you. Maybe it's not yours, maybe someone else lost it. And, therefore, they said that if you find it at the riverbank, it is not a סימן. איכא דאמרי, others say that אמר רב מרי, that רב מרי said that his reason that we tell the person, "Just like it happened to you, it happened to someone else," was not said specifically in the case of the riverbank, but it was said generally, that מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן, why did the רבנן say מקום לא הוי סימן, that a place is not a סימן? דאמרינן ליה, because we tell him, the one that comes to give the מקום as a סימן, we tell him כי היכי דאיתרמי לדידך האי מקום, just like this place was found to you, you happened to lose your object in this place, איתרמי נמי לחברך האי מקום, so the same place was found to your friend, too. Maybe your friend also lost his object in this place, and therefore, we say that מקום is not a סימן. Then the גמרא continues, ההוא גברא, there was this person דאשכח כופרא בי מעצרתא, that he found some tar at the winepress. אתא לקמיה דרב, he came to רב to ask him whether he's allowed to keep it. אמר ליה, he said to him, זיל, go, שקול לנפשך, take it for yourself, you're allowed to keep it. חזייה, he saw him דהוה מחסם, he was hesitating. אמר ליה, he said to him, זיל, go, פלוג ליה לחייא ברי מיניה, and divide it with my son חייא. He told it to him in a joking way that I am so sure that you're allowed to keep it that you could even share it with my son, I would allow my son to take part of it. But the גמרא says, לימא, let us say, קסבר רב, that רב held מקום לא הוי סימן, that a place is not a סימן, because if רב would hold that a place is a סימן, why didn't he tell him to announce it? Because the person who lost it could give the winepress as a סימן. אמר רבא, so רבא said, משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה. But here there was a touch of יאוש of the owner, which means here he was sure that the owner was מתיאש. Why? דחזי, because he saw דקדחא בי חלפי, that weeds have grown upon it. So he saw it was very old, so he understood that from when it was lost till now such a long time passed, so definitely the owner was מתיאש, and therefore he said to him, you're allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא continues, we learn in the משנה, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר says, וכו',

etc. In the משנה it said that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said כל כלי אנפוריא אין חייב להכריז, any כלי אנפוריא you don't have to announce. And the גמרא asks מאי אנפוריא, what does אנפוריא mean? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, so רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, כלים חדשים, it means new vessels שלא שבעתן העין, that the person's eye did not notice it enough yet. And therefore, you do not have to announce it, because since the person did not notice it enough, so he would not be able to identify it. But the גמרא asks היכי דמי, what is the case speaking about? אי דאית בהו סימן, if it actually has a סימן, כי לא שבעתן העין מאי הוי, so what if the person's eye did not notice it enough? But after all, all you need is once, and he saw that סימן once, and he'll be able to identify it, so you should have to return it. אי דלית בהו סימן, if it does not have a סימן, כי שבעתן העין מאי הוי, even if his eye would have been satisfied with it, which means his eye would have noticed it enough, still you wouldn't have to return it, because you only return an object if there's a סימן on it. And the גמרא answers לעולם, באמת, דלית בהו סימן, it had no סימן. But the question was, if it had no סימן, what is the difference whether it was new or old? Why do we say that since it was new, you do not return it, as if we would say that if it was old, you would return it? If it has no סימן, you don't have to return it even if it's old. But נפקא מינה, there is a difference לאהדורי לצורבא מרבנן בטביעות עינא, whether we could return it to a צורבא מרבנן who recognizes it just by sight. Because the דין is that if a צורבא מרבנן comes and claims an object and he has no סימן on it, but he says he recognizes this object בטביעות עין, just by sight, we believe him, and therefore we return the object to him. But if the object was a new object, then we would say that we do not rely on his recognition because he didn't have enough time to recognize it. And this is what the פשט is, that in a case where the צורבא מרבנן wants to claim it just by sight, so שבעתן העין, if his eye noticed it enough, קים ליה בגוויה, so then we are sure that he knows exactly that this is it, ומהדרינן ליה, we would return it to him. אי לא שבעתן העין, if his eye was not satisfied with it, he didn't see enough of it, לא קים ליה בגוויה, we say he is not sure in it, ולא מהדרינן ליה, we would not return it to him. דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, because רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, בהני תלת מילי, in these three things, עבידי רבנן דמשנו במיליהו, it is the custom even of the חכמים that they conceal the truth.

What are these three? במסיכתא, means in the גמרא, ובפוריא, in a bed, ובאושפיזא, concerning hospitality. It means that if they ask a תלמיד חכם, "Are you well versed in this גמרא? Are you familiar with this מסיכתא?", he is allowed to say no out of ענוה, out of modesty. Or בפוריא, if they ask him, as רש''י learns, "Did you perform your personal, private duties with your wife?", he's able to say no. Or as תוספות learns, that this is not the פשט, because it is not a custom to ask a person that, but it means if a תלמיד חכם did not come one day to the ישיבה because he was a בעל קרי, and they ask him, "Why didn't you come?", he doesn't have to answer the truth. He's able to give a different reason. He could say, "Because I was sick", or any other excuse. Or another פשט תוספות says, if they ask him, "Did you sleep on this bed?", he's allowed to say no, just in case they will find שכבת זרע, they shouldn't blame it on him. And the third thing is, which is אושפיזא, hospitality, that if he stayed in someone's house, and they ask him, "Did they treat you good?", he doesn't have to say yes, because just in case אנשים שאינם מהוגנים, improper people, will start coming to that person, so he will be the cause for all these people to come to him, and therefore he's allowed to say no. And the גמרא asks, מאי נפקא מינה? What difference does it make? Why do we have to know that a תלמיד חכם is allowed to change in these three things? אמר מר זוטרא, so מר זוטרא said, לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא, whether we're allowed to return to this person an אבידה, a lost object, just by him recognizing it through sight. And we say, אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת, מהדרינן ליה, if we know that this is a person that doesn't say any other lie, only in these three things he doesn't tell the 100% truth, then we would return to him an object just by him recognizing it through sight. אי משני במילי אחריני, if he's a person that changes also in other things, he doesn't say the truth also concerning other things, other than these three, then לא מהדרינן ליה, we do not return him an object just by sight, because he's not in the category of a צורבא מרבנן, and therefore we cannot trust him when he says that he recognizes this object בטביעות עינא. So from here we see that the general דין is that a תלמיד חכם is able to receive his אבידה through recognizing it בטביעות עינא. And that's what the משנה meant, that if it was a new object, then we would not return it to the תלמיד חכם בטביעות עינא, because we say that he didn't have enough time to recognize it, and he is not sure that this is really his object. תוספות asks, when the גמרא says that a תלמיד חכם doesn't have to say the truth concerning מסיכתא, that when they ask him, "Did you learn this גמרא?", he's able to say no, so תוספות asks, the גמרא says in קידושין, that from the פסוק "ושננתם לבניך", we learn out that the word "ושננתם" means שיהיו דברי תורה מחודדים בפיך, that the words of תורה should be sharp in your mouth. The word "ושננתם" also means sharp, it should be clear in your mouth. And the גמרא explains, it means, שאם ישאלך אדם, if someone will ask you something in the גמרא, in learning, אל תגמגם ותאמר לו, do not stammer and tell him, אלא אמור לו מיד, tell him right away. So there we see that if someone asks you, you have to answer right away. And here the גמרא says that you should say that you don't know it! So תוספות answers that if they come to ask you a דין, or someone wants to come and learn something, then you have to teach him. But if someone comes just to test you, he wants to know whether you learned it or not, then you're allowed to change and say that you didn't learn it, even if you did. Then תוספות asks another קשיא. The גמרא says in ברכות, דף נ''ח, אורח טוב אומר, a good guest says, כל מה שטרח בעל הבית, whatever the בעל הבית did, all the טירחא, all the

trouble the host went through, לא טרח אלא בשבילי, he only did it for me. So we see that a person should praise his host. And here the גמרא says that if you ask a תלמיד חכם if he was treated nice by his host, he should say no! תוספות answers that over there it means that he is speaking amongst בני אדם מהוגנים, fine people, and therefore he should praise his host. But here we're speaking if there were אנשים שאינם מהוגנים, people who are not fine. And therefore here you're allowed to change and say that you weren't treated good, so they shouldn't go, but over there, where they are fine people, there you're allowed. Another קשיא תוספות asks, in this גמרא it comes out that there are only three things that a תלמיד חכם is allowed to change. We find another thing: a person is allowed to change מפני דרכי שלום. The גמרא says in יבמות that for the sake of peace, you're allowed to say something which is not really true. And תוספות answers that really that is not a fourth thing, because these three things mentioned here are all because of the sake of peace. So really, when we say a תלמיד חכם is allowed to change for the sake of peace, that is a general expression. Here the גמרא just specifies that it is common that which things would a person change for the sake of peace, it is these three: מסכתא, and פוריא, and אושפיזא. לכאורה one could ask, that if the דין is that you must return an object without a סימן to a צורבא מרבנן through טביעת עין, how could the משנה say that all these cases הרי אלו שלו you could keep it, which means you don't have to announce it, because they have no סימן. Maybe a צורבא מרבנן lost it, and him we would believe with טביעת עין. So you should have to announce it anyway, because maybe a צורבא מרבנן lost it. This is the קשיא the רמב"ן, the רשב"א, and the ר"ן ask. And the answer that is given, the רמב"ן brings, that the truth is you do have to announce these things of the משנה also, but there's a different type of הכרזה than the הכרזה that we say on the things חייב להכריז. Those things that the דין is that you must announce, that means that you have to announce it, as the גמרא will explain later on, in a very official way. But the הכרזה that you would have to announce because of the צורבא מרבנן, you would only have to do it in the שול'ס and the ישיבות, where the רבנן are found. And that's what the משנה means, that after you announce it in the ישיבות, then you could keep it, you don't have to announce it under the regular official way as you would have to announce those things that do have a סימן. And others answer that all the things mentioned in the משנה are not כלים, and therefore there is no טביעת עין. When do we suspect that maybe the תלמיד חכם has a טביעת עין in it? Only if it's a כלי. But things which are not כלים, there is no טביעת עין, and therefore you do not have to announce it. And some say that if you find an object in a place where תלמידי חכמים are מצוי, where it is common for תלמידי חכמים to pass by, that's when you have to announce it because of the תלמידי חכמים. Maybe a תלמיד חכם lost it, and he will recognize it with טביעת עין. But if you find it in a place where תלמידי חכמים are not מצוי, so then you wouldn't have to announce it. And that's why the משנה says הרי אלו שלו, because you do not have to announce normally these objects that do not have a סימן. Only if it was found in a special place, in a place where תלמידי חכמים are מצוי, then you would have to announce it. But under normal circumstances, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to the person who found it. But רבי עקיבא איגר asks a קשיא here on this גמרא. The גמרא explained that when רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said that a כלי אנפוריא, a new כלי you do not have to announce. And the גמרא said, what does that mean? That means a כלי that has no סימן, and if it wouldn't be new, you would have to announce it because of the תלמיד חכם, you would have to return it to the תלמיד חכם if he recognizes it with טביעת עין. But since it's new, we do not have to return it to the תלמיד חכם, we do not believe him with his טביעת עין. So he asks, what forces the גמרא to say that according to רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, we do not believe the תלמיד חכם if he comes and he says that he has a טביעת עין, that it's his? Maybe רבי שמעון בן אלעזר holds that if the תלמיד חכם would come and say that he has a טביעת עין, we would believe him. Why should we not trust a תלמיד חכם? But רבי שמעון בן אלעזר meant that we do not suspect that he will have a טביעת עין. Since it is a new כלי, so we have to assume that nobody has a טביעת עין, no person would be able to say that he recognizes it just by sight, and therefore we assume that nobody will come and claim it. If the תלמיד חכם actually comes and claims it and he says that it's his, we would definitely believe him. It is only that we do not assume that a תלמיד חכם will have a טביעת עין in it, therefore you don't have to announce it. So what forces the גמרא to say that according to רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, if a תלמיד חכם will say that he recognizes it with טביעת עין, we would not believe him, and we would not return it to him? And one of the answers given is that we must say that רוב, in most cases, a תלמיד חכם or any person would not recognize a new כלי with טביעת עין. Because if it would be a 50-50 chance at least that a תלמיד חכם would recognize it with טביעת עין, then the דין would be that you should have to announce it. Because whenever there is a 50-50 chance that you have to announce it, there's a ספק whether you have to announce or not, then the דין is you have to announce. Because we know the דין is if it's a ספק whether it fell from a גוי or from a ייד, if it's a 50-50 chance that it fell from a גוי or from a ייד, you do have to announce it. You have to go לחומרא in such a case. So here too, if it would be a 50% chance that the תלמיד חכם should recognize it with טביעת עין, then the דין would be you would have to announce it. Since he says you do not have to announce it, that shows that it's not a 50-50 chance, but there is more chance that he would not recognize recognizes it בטביעת עין. So it comes out that there is a רוב of a תלמיד חכם not recognizing a new כלי בטביעת עין. So then, when the תלמיד חכם would come and he would say that he does recognize it בטביעת עין, so he is going against the רוב. And that is the reason the גמרא feels that we would not believe the תלמיד חכם because since there is a רוב against what he says, we do not accept his words against the כלל of רוב. Concerning this דין that you return a lost object to a תלמיד חכם if he recognizes it בטביעת עין, there's a חקירה in the אחרונים whether this is only by an object that has no סימן or also by an object that does have a סימן. Because we're able to say that if an object has no סימן, then we trust the תלמיד חכם בטביעת עין because there is nothing against him. The only thing is against him is that the other person found it, so the other person is holding onto it, he is the מוחזק now. But the question is would we believe the תלמיד חכם with טביעת עין against the חזקה of the מוצא? So here we say since the one that found it admits that it's not his really, we just don't know whose it is, so then we say that we believe the תלמיד חכם בטביעת עין and we would return it to him. But what would be if it's an object that has a סימן? So maybe somebody else will come and give the סימן. Do we then also give it back to the תלמיד חכם בטביעת עין? Do we say that in such a case he would not be believed, because there is a סימן that somebody else might come and give, or do we say that since the חכמים made a תקנה that we believe a תלמיד חכם בטביעת עין, so then under all circumstances we would return it to a תלמיד חכם if he says he recognizes it בטביעת עין?