Today's שיעור will be in מסכת בבא מציעא דף כ"ד. We will start fifth line from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא tells a story: מר זוטרא חסידא, מר זוטרא the חסיד, איגניב ליה כסא דכספא דאושפיזא, a silver cup was stolen from his guest. חזייה לההוא בר בי רב, so מר זוטרא חסידא saw this תלמיד דמשי ידיה, he washed his hands, ונגיב, and he dried it, בגלימא דחבריה, on the garment of his friend. אמר, he said, היינו האי, this is the one. He is the תלמיד that stole that silver cup. How did he know that? דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה, since he is not considerate of his friend's money, that shows that he is able to steal. כפתוהו, they bound him, ואודי, and he admitted. Then the גמרא goes back to the ענין we were learning before. The גמרא brought the משנה where it said that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said that if you find new כלים, you do not have to announce it. And the

גמרא explained that we're speaking about a כלי that has no סימן. And the reason you would have to announce it is because maybe a תלמיד חכם will come and he will say that he recognizes it בטביעת עין, just by the sight, and then we were to return it to him. So that's what רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said, that if it's a כלי that's new, שלא שבעתן העין, that the eye wasn't satisfied with it, which means that the person did not get a chance to really get acquainted with it, so then the דין is that you do not have to announce it, because even if a תלמיד חכם will come and claim that he recognizes it, we still wouldn't return it to him because he didn't get a chance enough to be able to recognize it just by sight. So the גמרא says here, תניא, we learned: מודה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר admits, בכלים חדשים ששבעתן העין, that if they're new vessels, but the eye was satisfied with it, the eye had enough sight of it and a person could recognize it, so then שחייב להכריז, that you are obligated to announce. And

תוספות explains that since the גמרא uses the לשון that מודה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר admits in the case of כלים חדשים that the person did recognize it, that you have to announce, is משמע that the ones that argue on רבי שמעון בן אלעזר would say that even if לא שבעתן העין, even if they are כלים that the eye did not have enough sight of, nevertheless you would have to announce it. That's what the לשון of מודה means. When you say that someone admits to the others, that means that in this case he admits, in the other case he doesn't admit to them, but they obviously hold that way. So here, since he says that he admits in the case where שבעתן העין, where the eye had enough sight of it, that you do have to announce, in that case he admits to the רבנן, is משמע that the רבנן would say that even if לא שבעה העין, you still have to announce. And תוספות asks: Where do we find that the רבנן hold that way? We don't find in the משנה בפירוש that the רבנן hold that any כלי that's new and even לא שבעתן העין that the person does not have enough sight of it, nevertheless you have to announce it. And תוספות says that the גמרא knows it from the משנה. In the משנה, it said: כריכות ברשות הרבים, או עיגולי דבילה, או מחרוזות של דגים, או ככרות של נחתום, הרי אלו שלו. They belong to the person who found it. Now, the משנה picked examples of such things that it is not common for a person to have a טביעת עין, for a person to be able to recognize it by sight. So the גמרא feels that the reason the משנה, which is the רבנן, picked these examples to show us that only these things you do not have to announce because there is no טביעת עין, because a person would not recognize it by sight. Obviously, if it would be things that a person could recognize through טביעת עין, the חכמים would say you would have to announce it. So from this משנה, we see that when it's an object that a person is able to have טביעת עין, under all circumstances, you must announce it. So from here we see that the רבנן hold that even if לא שבעתן העין, still you have to announce it. And that's what the גמרא says, that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר is מודה to them that if שבעתן העין, you still you have to announce it. But he would argue that if לא שבעתן העין, if the eye did not have enough sight of it, then he would hold you do not have to announce. And תוספות adds that this דין that we're saying that you have to announce it because maybe a תלמיד חכם will come and say he recognizes it בטביעת עין, is only if you found it in a place where the תלמידי חכמים are מצוי, where the תלמידי חכמים are frequent. But if you find it in a place where the תלמידי חכמים are not מצוי, you would not have to announce. And then the

גמרא continues: ואלו הן כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין, and these are considered new כלים that we assume the eye did not see enough of, that we שאינו חייב להכריז, that you do not have to announce. And the גמרא gives us examples: כגון, for instance, בדי מחטין, poles of needles, וצינורות, and knitting needles, ומחרוזות של קרדומות, and bundles of axes. So these, we assume the eye did not see enough of. And he continues that כל אלו שאמרו, and these too that we said that you're allowed to keep, אימתי מותרין, when are you allowed to keep them? Only בזמן שמצאן אחד אחד, if they are found one-one. אבל מצאן שנים שנים, but if they are found in twos, חייב להכריז, he must announce them. Then the גמרא explains: מאי בדי? What do we mean when we say בדי מחטין? What does בדי mean? And the גמרא answers, it means שוכי. Those are poles, rods. ואמאי קרו ליה בדי? Why are they called בדי? Because דבר דתלו ביה מידי בד קרו ליה. Anything that you hang other things on it, they are called בדים. And he brings a ראיה: כי הא דתנן התם, as we learned concerning the דין of ערבה. Usually when it says תנן, it refers to a משנה, but here the גר"א writes that really it's not a משנה, so really it should have said כי הא דאמרינן. But it says in the גמרא סוכה, concerning an ערבה that you must take along with your אתרוג. So it says there that if the leaves of the ערבה fell off, so there's a מחלוקת in the גמרא. One opinion says that as long as three leaves are left, three fresh leaves, then it's כשר. And some say אפילו if you have עלה אחד בבד אחד, you have one leaf on one pole, that is enough. So from here we see that בד is something that things hang on. And therefore, בדי מחטין would mean the poles that the needles hang on. Then the

גמרא continues: וכן היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר, also did רבי שמעון בן אלעזר say: המציל מן הארי, if someone saves an object from a lion, ומן הדוב, or from a wolf, ומן הנמר, or from a leopard, ומן הברדלס, or from a panther, ומן זוטו של ים, or from the tide of the sea, ומשלוליתו של נהר, or from the flood of the river, or המוצא בסרטיא ופלטיא גדולה, if you find an object in a big highway or in a big square, ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, or anywhere where you have a lot of people, הרי אלו שלו, so you're allowed to keep it in all these cases, מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן, because we are sure that the owner gives up hope, he doesn't expect to find it, and therefore the one that finds it is allowed to keep it. And as רש"י says, this is even if the object had a סימן. Because, but he feels that since there are a lot of people there, he probably will never get it back, and therefore he is מייאש, so the finder is allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא says: איבעיא להו, the question was asked: כי קאמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר ברוב כנענים, did רבי שמעון בן אלעזר say this דין only if it was a place where the majority of the people there were גוים? אבל ברוב ישראל לא, but if the majority of the people there would be יידן, you wouldn't be allowed to keep it? או דילמא, or maybe אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי אמר, even if the majority of people are יידן, רבי שמעון בן אלעזר also said that you're allowed to keep the object you found? And as

תוספות explains that לכאורה, if we would say that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין only if there a majority were גוים, why does he have to give the reason because the owner was מייאש? Without that reason, we would be able to keep it, because if you find an object in the place where the majority of the people are גוים, we assume that it fell down from a גוי, a גוי lost it, and that's why you could keep it. And תוספות says that that is true, but what he's trying to say is that even if we know for sure for some reason that it fell from a ייד, nevertheless you're allowed to keep it if the majority of people there are גוים, because we assume that the ייד who lost it will think in his mind that probably a גוי will find it, and therefore he gives up hope. But then what would be the reason to the other side of the question, that maybe רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין also if the majority are יידן? לכאורה, if it fell down from a ייד, and the majority of the people there are יידן, why should we think that the loser has in mind that he'll never get it back? Why shouldn't we say that he knows that the majority are יידן, and therefore he assumes that a ייד will find it and return it? So תוספות says that the גמרא thought that maybe we assume that the loser thinks that somebody who is not a proper person will find it and will not return it, and because of that, he is מייאש. And those are the two sides of the גמרא: Do we say that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין only when the majority of the people are גוים, or did he say his דין also if the majority of the people are יידן? And the גמרא continues: אם תמצא לומר אם תמצי לומר, if you're going to say, אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי אמר, that רב שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין even when the majority of the people are אידן, he also holds you're allowed to keep it. So the question is now, פליגי רבנן עליה או לא פליגי? Do the רבנן argue against him, or don't they argue? Is this just a personal opinion of רב שמעון בן אלעזר, or does everyone agree to him? ואם תמצי לומר פליגי, and if you're going to say that the רבנן do argue, now in which case would they argue? ברוב ישראל, ודאי פליגי. If there is an argument between the רבנן and רב שמעון בן אלעזר, it definitely is in the case when the majority are אידן, because there there is more reason to say you shouldn't be able to keep it. So if the רבנן hold that you're not allowed to keep it, it would definitely be in the case where the majority are אידן. But the question is ברוב כנענים פליגי או לא פליגי? Do they also argue in the case where the majority are גוים? Would they then also hold that you're not allowed to keep it? ואם תמצי לומר פליגי אפילו ברוב כנענים, and if you're going to say that they argue also in the case where the majority are גוים, הלכה כוותיה או אין הלכה כוותיה? We have a question: Is the הלכה like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, or is the הלכה not like רב שמעון בן אלעזר? Do we פסקן like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, that if you find an object in a place where a lot of people are found, you do not have to return it? Now ואם תמצי לומר הלכה כוותיה, and if you're going to say the הלכה is like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, the question is: דוקא ברוב כנענים, do we פסקן like him only if the majority are גוים, then we say that you don't have to return it, או אפילו ברוב ישראל, or also if the majority are אידן we also say the הלכה like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, that you don't have to return it? The

גמרא continues: תא שמע, come hear, I'll try to answer your question. We learned: המוצא מעות בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, if someone finds money in a שול or in a בית המדרש, in a ישיבה, ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, and anywhere that you have a lot of people, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, the one that finds it, מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן, because the owner definitely is מתייאש, gives up hope. So the גמרא explains: מאן שמעת ליה דאזיל בתר רובא? Who did you hear follows רוב, and here we mean who did you hear that concerning a מציאה says that we look at it if it was a place where a lot of people are there? Not to confuse this with the general concept of whether we go according to the majority or we don't go according to the majority, whether we are חייש למעוטא or not, whether we take the minority in consideration or not. That's a general question. Here we're talking about something else, that who is the one that says that when it comes to the דין of מציאה we follow, we look at if it's a place that has a lot of people? Who was that one that said that? רב שמעון בן אלעזר. It's רב שמעון בן אלעזר. As we said before, רב שמעון בן אלעזר was the one that stressed that if it is a מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, if it's a place where a lot of people come, you're allowed to keep it. So we must say that this ברייתא that tells us the דין of if someone finds money in the שול also goes according to רב שמעון בן אלעזר, because in this ברייתא it says the reason, because it's a מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, it's a place where you have a lot of people. So obviously, this ברייתא was said by רב שמעון בן אלעזר, and here we see, שמע מינה, from here we know, אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי, that רב שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין even when the majority are אידן, because the example that's picked here is if you found money in the שול, in the בית הכנסת or the בית המדרש, and that is definitely אידן. So from here we know that when רב שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין, that if you find it in a place where you have רבים, you're allowed to keep it, it's also if the majority are אידן. And the גמרא says, no, this is no ראיה. הכא במאי עסקינן, maybe here it could be talking in a case במפוזרין, that the money was scattered. And that is the reason you're allowed to keep it, not because it was found in a place that רבים מצויין שם, because as we learned in the משנה, that when you find scattered money you're allowed to keep it anywhere, and that is the reason you're allowed to keep it here. But the גמרא asks: אי במפוזרין, if you're going to tell me the reason you're allowed to keep the money here is because it was scattered, מאי איריא מקום שהרבים מצויין שם? Why does he give the reason, or why does he pick an example, of מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, a place where you have a lot of people? אפילו אין הרבים מצויין שם, the same דין would be even if it wouldn't be a place where you have a lot of people. Because the דין is that if you find scattered money, even outside you're allowed to keep it. So it couldn't be that the reason here is because the money is scattered. Obviously, you must say it wasn't scattered, and the only reason you could keep it is because מקום שהרבים מצויין שם. So we have the ראיה again that רב שמעון בן אלעזר's סברא, that you're allowed to keep the money if it was found in מקום שהרבים מצויין שם, also applies to אידן. So the The גמרא says אלא, but לעולם I could tell you בצרורין, or another גירסא בצבורין, it means that the money was not scattered. It was gathered together. And it does have a סימן. הכא במאי עסקינן, but here we're talking in a case about בתי כנסיות של כנענים. It was a gathering place of גוים. The whole ראיה we had that ר' שמעון בן אלעזר holds his דין also in the case of רוב ישראל was because the example given was if you find money in a בית הכנסת, and that means there were אידן there. But the גמרא says, "No, it means a בית הכנסת of גוים." Not a שול, it is a gathering place of גוים, because the word בית הכנסת could mean a house of gathering, so it was a גויישה house of gathering. But the גמרא asks, that could be concerning the word בתי כנסיות, but בתי מדרשות מאי איכא למימר? What can we say concerning בתי מדרשות? The example picked was also if you found money in a בית המדרש, and that is definitely of אידן. And the גמרא answers, it is בתי מדרשות דידן, it is our בית המדרש, דיתבו בהו כנענים, that גוים are there. And as רש"י explains, they would have גוים watch the place. So it's for the time when the גוים are there. So it's no ראיה from this ברייתא that even if it is a place where the majority are אידן you're allowed to keep the object you found, because maybe that ברייתא is speaking in a case where the majority are גוים, and בית הכנסת means the בית הכנסת of גוים, and בתי מדרשות means our בית המדרש when the גוים are there. And the גמרא says, השתא דאתית להכי, now that you explained that a בית המדרש could mean our בית המדרש, but the גוים are there, בתי כנסיות נמי, you could say the same thing concerning בתי כנסיות. You don't have to say it means לכתחילה a גויישה gathering place, it could mean דידן, it's our בית הכנסת, דיתבו בהו כנענים, that גוים are there. But nevertheless, we did not prove what would be the opinion of ר' שמעון בן אלעזר if it was רוב ישראל. The גמרא continues, תא שמע, come here, I'll try to answer your question from a different place. We learned מצא בו אבידה, if you find an אבידה in it, and as רש"י explains, if it's a city that אידן and גוים live there, so אם רוב ישראל, if the majority of the people in this city are אידן, חייב להכריז, then you have to announce the אבידה that you found. אם רוב כנענים, if the majority of the people there are גוים, אינו חייב להכריז, you do not have to announce it. And the גמרא says, מאן שמעת ליה דאמר אזלינן בתר רובא? Who did you hear that says that when it comes to returning an object, it depends on the majority? ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, that was ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. So obviously this משנה that we just quoted goes according to the opinion of ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, because the משנה says it depends whether you have רוב ישראל or רוב גוים. So obviously ר' שמעון בן אלעזר said this משנה. שמע מינה, so from here we see that כי קאמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, that when did ר' שמעון בן אלעזר say his דין? ברוב כנענים, only if the majority are גוים, because that's what the משנה says, that if the majority are גוים, then you don't have to announce it. אבל ברוב ישראל לא, but if the majority are אידן, he did not say that you're allowed to keep it. And the גמרא answers, הא מני רבנן היא. Really this ברייתא could be the רבנן. It is not ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. So we do not have a ראיה what would be the opinion of ר' שמעון בן אלעזר when you have רוב ישראל. But on the other hand, the גמרא asks, תיפשוט מינה, so if you're going to say that that ברייתא does not go according to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, but according to the רבנן, we could answer one of the other questions that we had before: דמודו ליה רבנן לר' שמעון בן אלעזר ברוב כנענים, that the רבנן are מודה to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case where the majority are גוים. Since you said that this משנה goes according to the רבנן, and this משנה says that if the majority were גוים you're allowed to keep it, that shows that the רבנן hold that if the majority are גוים you're allowed to keep it. One of the questions we had before was whether the רבנן argue against ר' שמעון בן אלעזר by the case of רוב כנענים or not. So here we could prove it, that here we see this משנה is the רבנן, and they say that if the majority are גוים, you're allowed to keep it. That shows that they do not argue against ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים. But right away תוספות asks a קושיא that we can't prove this either. How can we prove that the רבנן admit to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים? As soon as you're going to want to say that, I could tell you that this משנה really is not the רבנן, it is ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. So we can't prove either way. When we want to prove that ר' שמעון בן אלעזר holds that by רוב ישראל you are not allowed to keep it, we'll tell you maybe the משנה is the רבנן, and the רבנן hold that by רוב גוים you're allowed to keep, by רוב ישראל not. Then you're going to tell me if so, let's prove that the רבנן admit to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים, so I'll tell you maybe the משנה is ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. So we have no proof for either thing. So what is The גמרא's קשיא now, that if you're gonna say the משנה is the רבנן, we proved the opinion of the רבנן? We're not sure that the משנה is the רבנן. We're just saying maybe the משנה is the רבנן, so we cannot prove the opinion of ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. The same way we also cannot prove the opinion of the רבנן, because maybe it is ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. And תוספות answers, that this is really what the גמרא means: that ממה נפשך, one of the two has to be answered, or in other words, we definitely know that these two do not go together. We definitely know that we cannot say that according to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, even by רוב ישראל you're allowed to keep it, and at the

same time to say that according to the רבנן, even if they're רוב גוים, you're not allowed to keep it. Because ממה נפשך, if it's ר' שמעון בן אלעזר, automatically by רוב ישראל he says you have to announce; if it is the רבנן, automatically we see that they say that by רוב כנענים you're allowed to keep. So that's what the גמרא means: at least one thing we know, that these two things cannot go together. And that's what the גמרא is saying now, that לכאורה, we should prove from this משנה that these two things cannot go together. And the גמרא says, no, באמת we can't prove anything. אלא לעולם, באמת I could say ר' שמעון בן אלעזר היא, it goes according to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר. And the truth is, ואפילו ברוב ישראל נמי, and ר' שמעון בן אלעזר maybe holds that even if the majority are אידן, you're also allowed to keep it. אי, why does it say in the משנה that if the majority are אידן חייב להכריז? הכא במאי עסקינן בטמון, here we're talking about a case that it was concealed, it was hidden. And therefore, if it was רוב ישראל, it's not considered an אבידה. We assume that someone put it down. And since someone put it down intentionally, you're not allowed to keep it. But then the

גמרא asks: אי בטמון, if it was hidden, which means that it looks as if someone put it down intentionally, מאי עבידתיה גביה, what's it doing by him? How can we have a discussion whether he is allowed to keep it or he has to announce it? He had no right to take it לכתחילה! והתנן, didn't we learn in a משנה later on: מצא כלי באשפה, if you find a vessel in the garbage, מכוסה, if the garbage was closed, לא יגע בו, do not touch it. It's not a question whether you have to announce it or not, you know, לכתחילה not allowed to touch it, because since it was closed, we assume that someone put it away intentionally, someone hid it there, so do not touch it לכתחילה. Let the owner come back and take it. מגולה, if it was open, then נוטל ומכריז, you should take it and announce it. So we see that if it looks as if it was hidden by somebody intentionally, you're not allowed to take it לכתחילה. So how can you say that when the משנה says that if רוב ישראל, then you have to announce it, is because it looks as if someone put it down? If that would be the case, you wouldn't be able to take it לכתחילה. And the גמרא answers: כי

הא דאמר רב פפא, just like רב פפא said concerning that משנה, concerning another קשיא we had. So רב פפא said that באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות, by a garbage that is not normally cleared away, ונמלך עליה לפנותה, and the owner decided to take it away, so in that case, you do have to take the object and announce it. When is the דין that if you find it in the garbage which is closed, you're not allowed to touch it? If it's gonna stay there. But if you see that the owner is planning to take away the garbage, so then you are obligated to take it. And you're supposed to announce it, you can't leave it there, because if you're gonna leave it there, it'll be thrown away or somebody else will take it. And the reason he says is by a garbage that normally is not cleared away, and the owner decided to clear it away, is because if it would have been a garbage that is normally cleared away, then you're allowed to keep it לכתחילה, because the person who put it in the garbage, knowing that it'll be cleared away, intentionally lost it. So then you'd be able to keep it. But when do we say that you're not allowed to keep it, on the other hand you should take it? If normally it is not cleared away. So the person who put it in didn't expect it to be taken away, so he didn't lose it intentionally. And now you see the owner decided to take it away, so if you're not gonna take it, it'll get lost. So here the דין is that you must take it and announce it. So just like רב פפא said it there, הכא נמי we could say here too, that this משנה that says that if it was רוב ישראל you have to announce it, take it and announce it, is also באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות. It's a case of garbage that is not normally cleared away, ונמלך עליה לפנותה, and the owner decided to clear it away, and therefore you should take it, but on the other hand, since it's רוב ישראל, you should announce it. But תוספות asks a קשיא: לכאורה, the גמרא could have answered a much simpler תירוץ. The

משנה the גמרא quoted here in this קשיא, it said that if you find an אבידה in a city that אידן and גוים live in, so the משנה says: if the majority of the city are אידן, then you have to announce; if the majority of the city are גוים, you don't have to announce it. But the משנה did not mention that you found it in a place where רבים מצויין שם, where a lot of people gather. So maybe we could say that over there it's speaking in a case where you found it where not many people are there. And that's why we have to follow the majority of the city: if the majority are אידן, you return it, you announce it; if the majority are גוים, you don't. But it has nothing to do with this מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן אלעזר and the חכמים. The whole מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן אלעזר and the חכמים is only whether we take in consideration this concept that this is a place where a lot of people are there, and therefore, the owner was מיאש. But here, it doesn't say that he found it in a place where רבים מצויין שם, where a lot of people are there. It just says it depends what the majority is in the city. So let's say that here it is talking in a case where not רבים מצויין שם, and therefore, there is a difference whether the majority of the city are יידן or גוים. And תוספות answers that if that would be the case, then why is it important to know whether the majority of the city are יידן or the majority of the city are גוים? Should have said if the place where he found it, that area, if the majority of the people that pass by there, that live there, are יידן, then you have to announce it. If the majority of the people that live in that area are גוים, you don't have to announce it. Why is it important to know the majority of the city? It's משמע that he found it in a place where most of the people from the city travel, come to. And therefore, it is the idea of רבים מצויין שם, and that is the reason why you're allowed to keep it. And that is the reason why the גמרא wanted to prove the opinion of ר' שמעון בן אלעזר from that משנה, or later on the opinion of the רבנן, and the גמרא's status was only that it's speaking בטמון, and for a different reason we say that if it was רוב ישראל, you don't keep it and you have to announce it. But then תוספות asks that after the גמרא answers that it's concealed, and the reason you're allowed to take it is because it is going to be cleared away, so still תוספות says, why are you allowed to take it? The one that will clear it away, he will probably announce it. תוספות says that first of all, maybe a גוי will clear it away, and second of all, maybe he will not see it, the one that will clear it away will not notice it, and he'll throw it together with the garbage outside, therefore, you should take it, but you have to announce it. But then תוספות asks another קושיא: why should you have to announce it? Why couldn't you take it and keep it? Because well the person will come back to find it, he will see it was cleared away, so right away he'll be מיאש, because he doesn't know who cleared it away, so he doesn't know to expect that the ייד who found it will return it, will announce it. He will assume probably that a person who will not return it took it away, so he will be מיאש. So for that reason, the one that found it should be able to keep it. And תוספות says that this probably would be true, but it is יאוש שלא מדעת, because by that time the ייד found it, we don't know whether the owner came back to the place already and realized that it was cleared away. So since we don't know, it's יאוש שלא מדעת, and since יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, therefore, you are not allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא continues: איבעית אימא, if you want, I could answer this משנה differently. That באמת לעולם רבנן, that this משנה that says that if you found it in a place where the רוב ישראל, then you are supposed to announce it, if you find it in a place where רוב גוים, then you could keep it. So באמת it goes according to the רבנן. אי we ask the question that this would prove that the רבנן at least admit to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים that you're allowed to keep it, so we could say no. מי קתני הרי אלו שלו? Did the משנה say they belong to him? אינו חייב להכריז קתני. It just says you don't have to announce it. So what would you do? You would take it, ויניח, and you would leave it. וייתי ישראל ויהב בה סימן ושקל. Let a ייד come and give a סימן and take it, but it doesn't say you have to announce it. In other words, the רבנן maybe don't follow this whole concept of רוב by the case of מציאה. So they say like this: on one hand, since the majority are גוים, that's why you don't have to announce it, because maybe it fell from a גוי. On the other hand, you cannot keep it either, because maybe it fell from a ייד, because the רבנן do not follow this whole concept of רבים. And therefore, they say, if a ייד will come and give a סימן, let him take it. So ממילא we have no proof from this משנה whether the רבנן admit to ר' שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים or not. Then the גמרא continues: תא שמע, come here, I'll try to prove it in a different way.

דאמר רב אסי, רב אסי said: מצא חבית יין, if you find a barrel of wine, בעיר שרובה כנענים, in a city which the majority are גוים, מותרת משום מציאה, as far as the דין of מציאה is concerned, you're allowed to keep it, ואסורה בהנאה, but nevertheless, you can't do anything with it, you can't have any use from it, because since the majority of the people are גוים, we assume that this wine is יין נסך, and therefore you cannot have any use because יין נסך is אסור בהנאה. But אם בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן, if a ייד came and gave a סימן on it, מותרת בשתיה למוצאה, so the one that found it is allowed to drink it. Since a ייד gave a סימן, so we know for sure it belongs to a ייד, so it is definitely not יין נסך, so you're allowed to drink it. On the other hand, you do not have to return it, the one that found it will drink it, because since his דין only in the case when the majority are גוים? Because that's what רב אסי said, that when can you keep it as far as מציאה is concerned, if it was רובא כנענים, אבל ברוב ישראל לא. But if it was רוב ישראל, the majority were אידן, you're not allowed to keep it, because he says clearly that only if the majority are גוים, that's when מותרת משום מציאה. It's משמע that if it would have been רוב ישראל, you wouldn't be able to take it מצד מציאה. So we see clearly that רב שמעון בן אלעזר holds that in the case of רוב ישראל, you are not allowed to keep it. And the גמרא says, "No, לעולם אימא לך רב שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל נמי קאמר." Possible that רב שמעון בן אלעזר himself, when he said his דין, that we follow the רוב, and if it's a place where you have a lot of people, you're allowed to keep it, he meant even if the majority of the people were אידן. ורב אסי סבר לה כוותיה בחדא, רב אסי was the one that said the דין we mentioned before, so he holds like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in one דין, ופליג עליה בחדא, and he argues on רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the other דין. He holds that even though רב שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין in both cases, רב אסי says that I hold like him only in the case of רוב עכו"ם, then we say that you're allowed to keep it. But if it was רוב ישראל, רב אסי says, "I argue, I do not hold like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, and I hold that then you're not allowed to keep it." But in the meantime, the גמרא asks: וכי מאחר דאסורה בהנאה, since we said before that in the case where you found it in a city where the majority are גוים, you're allowed to keep it, but you still can't have any use from it because it's יין נסך, מותרת משום מציאה אלא מאי הלכתא? So concerning which דין did he say that you're allowed to hold it as far as מציאה is concerned? What can you do with it, since it's אסור בהנאה? אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי says, לקנקנים, for the jars. The jars you're allowed to keep because the jars you're able to use, so since we assume it came from a גוי, so you're allowed to hold it as far as מציאה is concerned, and therefore you're allowed to keep the jars. But as far as the wine itself is concerned, there's nothing you could do with it anyway, therefore it makes no difference. But תוספות asks a קושיא: when the גמרא said that רב אסי holds like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in one דין and doesn't hold like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the other דין, the גמרא could have answered differently. The גמרא could have said that רב אסי holds like the חכמים. He argues on רב שמעון בן אלעזר, he holds like the חכמים, and that's why he said that if it would have been רוב ישראל, you wouldn't be allowed to keep it. But תוספות says that if we would learn that way, automatically we would have an answer to the other question. That would prove that the חכמים admit to רב שמעון בן אלעזר by רוב כנענים. If we're going to say that רב אסי's דין, that by רוב כנענים you're allowed to keep it, goes according to the רבנן, that shows that the רבנן hold like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב כנענים. And since the גמרא didn't want to do that, we're trying to show here that we cannot prove these opinions, so therefore the גמרא said maybe he holds like רב שמעון בן אלעזר, and he holds like him in one way, and doesn't hold like him concerning the other case, concerning the case of רוב ישראל. But anyway תוספות says, what we do see from here from רב אסי ממה נפשך is, that the הלכה is like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב כנענים, that at least רב אסי פסקנס like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the case when it's רוב גוים, because that's what he said, and if it was רוב גוים, you're allowed to keep it, and he held like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in this דין, so that shows the הלכה is like רב שמעון בן אלעזר in the case of רוב גוים. Then the גמרא continues:

ההוא גברא, there was this person, דאשכח ארבע זוזי, he found four זוזים, דציירי בסדיניה, that were wrapped around in a cloth, ושדו בנהר בירן, they were thrown in the river of בירן. אתא לקמיה דרב יהודה, so he came to רב יהודה to ask him if he's allowed to keep it or not. אמר ליה, he said to him, זיל אכריז, go announce it, you're not allowed to keep it. So the גמרא asks, why did he say that? והא זוטו של ים הוא? Isn't this considered the tide of the river? And we know from before that if you find something בזוטו של ים, you're allowed to keep it even if it has a סימן, because we know for sure that the owner was מיאש. And the גמרא answers, שאני נהר בירן, that נהר בירן was different, כיון דמיסכר, since there are a lot of obstacles there, לא מייאש, the person is not מיאש, because the people used to put out nets to catch fish there, so there are obstacles that hold the objects back, so the person hopes that this object also will be held back by an obstacle and somebody will find it and will return it. So this is not a regular case of זוטו של ים. But the גמרא asks, והא רוב כנענים נינהו, but weren't the majority of people there גוים? And nevertheless he said that you have to announce it, שמע מינה, doesn't that prove, אין הלכה כרב שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב כנענים, that we do not פסקן like רב שמעון בן אלעזר even in the case where the majority are גוים? Because here the majority were גוים, and nevertheless he said you have to announce it. The גמרא says, "No, שאני נהר בירן, that נהר בירן was different, because דישראל סכרו לה, דישראל כרו לה. That the אידן are the ones that block it up, the אידן were the ones that put the nets there, so the אידן are the ones that block it up and the אידן are the ones that dredge it. So, כיוון דישראל סכרו לה, being that the אידן are the ones that block it, אימר, we say מישראל נפל, probably it fell from a איד because the ones that are involved in working there are אידן. Even if the majority of the people around there are גוים, but the ones that are working in the river are אידן, so we assume it fell from a איד. וכיוון דישראל כרו לה, לא מיאש. And since the אידן are the ones that dredge it, so, therefore, the loser does not give up hope. He feels that the ones that are going to work there later are the ones that are going to find it, and those are אידן, so he hopes that he will get it back. And that's why here he told him that he is supposed to announce it. Then the גמרא continues,

רב יהודה הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דמר שמואל. רב יהודה was following מר שמואל בשוקא דבי דיסא, into a street of whole meal vendors. אמר ליה, so he said to him while they were walking, מצא כאן ארנקי מהו? What would be the דין if someone found a purse here? אמר ליה, so he said to him, הרי אלו שלו. It would be his. He would be able to keep it. And this was a street ורבים מצויין שם, where a lot of people gathered. So, he said that, "Because of that, you're allowed to keep it." Then he asked him, if בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן מהו? If a איד came and gave a סימן, what would then the דין be? אמר ליה, so he said to him, חייב להחזיר, you would have to return it. So, he asked him, תרתי? These two? Don't these two פסקים you just said contradict each other? If you say that you're allowed to keep it, obviously you hold that since דרבים מצויין שם, the owner was מתיאש. So, how come if he'll come and give a סימן, you'll have to return it? If he was מתיאש, even if he gives a סימן, and we know for sure it was his, but since when he lost it he was מתיאש, you do not have to return it. So, how come you said that if a איד will give a סימן, you have to return it? אמר ליה, he said to him, "What I meant was לפנים משורת הדין, more than the requirement of the דין. מצד הדין, you are right that you do not have to return it, because he was מתיאש, but לפנים משורת הדין, more than the דין requires, since you know that it is his, so even though על פי דין you're allowed to keep it, you should return it." כי הא דאבוה דשמואל, just like the story that the father of שמואל, אשכח, he found הני חמרי, these donkeys במדברא, in the desert, ואהדרינהו למרייהו, and he returned it to the owner לבתר תריסר ירחי שתא, after 12 months. And, as רש''י explains, he found them after 12 months that they were lost. So, we have to assume that the owner definitely gave up hope. And, nevertheless, he returned them. And why did he do it? לפנים משורת הדין. It was beyond the requirements of the דין. So, we see from here that in the case of יאוש, even if you know that somebody was מתיאש from an object, but if you know for sure later that it was his, it is proper לפנים משורת הדין to return it to the owner. But תוספות learns this גמרא a little bit different. תוספות asks a קשיא on רש''י. Where do we find that if an object was lost more than 12 months, you don't have to return it? The reason would be על פי פשט, is because we assume that the owner gave up hope since it's such a long time since he lost it. But, on the other hand, why don't we assume that the owner will not be מתיאש, because the owner in his mind will think, "The one that will find it will not know how long ago I lost it. He might think that it was just lost, so he will return it." So then, who says that the owner is מתיאש? So, therefore, תוספות learns that the פשט in the גמרא is different. The דין is that the object that you found, you have to take care of it, and you have to bother with it if it's an animal that works and eats, but only up to 12 months. After 12 months, you're allowed to sell it, and keep the money, put the money aside, and when the owner will come and give a סימן, you will return the money to him. The father of שמואל returned the animals themselves, the donkeys themselves, even after 12 months. And that is לפנים משורת הדין. על פי דין, he didn't have to return the animals themselves, he could have returned money, and he did לפנים משורת הדין, and he returned the donkeys themselves. Then the גמרא continues, רבא הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב נחמן בשוקא דגלדאי. רבא was following רב נחמן in the street of the skinners, of those that work with leather. ואמרי לה, others say בשוקא

דרבנן, in the street of the רבנן. ואמר ליה, he said to him, מצא כאן ארנקי מהו? If someone found a wallet here, what would be the דין? אמר ליה, he said to him, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him. בא ישראל ונתן בה סימן מהו? If a איד would come and give a סימן, what would be the דין then? אמר ליה, he said to him, הרי אלו שלו, it's still his. So he asked him, והרי עומד וצווח, but isn't he standing and screaming? The reason we say you're allowed to keep it is because he is מייאש, but here he is screaming and saying he is not מייאש. So how come you don't have to return it? So he answered, נעשה, it became, כצווח על ביתו שנפל, like someone screams when his house is falling and he screams "I'm not מייאש." That's a joke, whether he likes it or not, it's definitely going to be lost. So even if he screams "I'm not מייאש," still he is מייאש. או על ספינתו שטבעה בים, if his ship is sinking in the river, in the ocean, and he's standing and he's screaming, he's saying he's not מייאש, it doesn't help because it's definitely going to get lost, so he is automatically מייאש. Same thing here, since he lost it in a place where רבים מצויין שם, where a lot of people are, so we assume for sure he is מייאש, no matter what he says, whether he screams he's מייאש or not, we are sure that he is מייאש, and therefore he said the דין is that you do not have to return it. Then the

גמרא continues, ההוא דאה, there was this bird, this vulture, דשקל בישרא בשוקא, that picked up meat in the street, ושדיה בציניתא דבי מר מריון, and it threw it among the palm trees of מר מריון. אתא לקמיה דאביי, so מר מריון came to אביי to ask him whether he's allowed to keep this meat or not. אמר ליה, אביי said to him, זיל, go, שקול לנפשך, pick it for yourself. You're allowed to keep it. The גמרא asks, why was he allowed to keep it? ורובא דישראל נינהו, most of the people there were יידן, so why did he say you're allowed to keep it? שמע מינה, can't we prove from here הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל, that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in the case where the majority are יידן? And that is the reason why he said to him you're allowed to keep it, even though the majority were יידן, because obviously he held like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר, and רבי שמעון בן אלעזר holds that even if the majority are יידן you're allowed to keep it, that's why he said there that he's allowed to keep it. But

the גמרא says no, it's no ראיה. שאני דאה, the vultures are different, דכי זוטו של ים דמי, that is similar to the tides of the river. That just like by זוטו של ים we say that you're always allowed to keep it even if there is a סימן, because the owner is definitely מייאש, so too, if you see the vultures take away your meat, the person is definitely מייאש, and therefore the one that found it is allowed to keep it, but not because it was a place where רבים מצויין שם. That's why you're allowed to keep it, and then we would prove that even if it was רוב ישראל you're still allowed to keep it. It is for a different reason, because it is זוטו של ים. But then the גמרא asks a different question. He told him you're allowed to keep it, which would mean that he's allowed to use this meat, eat this meat. והאמר רב, didn't רב say בשר שנתעלם מן העין אסור, that if meat was covered from the eye you're not allowed to eat it? If a person leaves meat unwatched, without a סימן, where there is a possibility that maybe someone changed it, you're not allowed to eat it, because we're always afraid, since you weren't watching it, maybe it was exchanged for non-כשר meat. So here too, since the meat was at one point not watched by a ייד, it was taken away by the vulture, so how come he said you're allowed to keep it, which meant he's allowed to eat it? The גמרא answers, בעומד ורואהו, he was standing and watching it. He saw the vulture come down, take it from the butcher shop, pick it up, and his eye was watching it the whole time, and he saw him drop it into his field. So he knew for sure it came from the יידן, so it was כשר meat, and it wasn't נתעלם מן העין, it wasn't hidden from the eye at all. That's why he said that you're allowed to eat it, and it's not considered בשר שנתעלם מן

העין. Then the גמרא continues, רב חנינא מצא גדי שחוט בין טבריא לציפורי. רב חנינא found a goat that was געשחטן between טבריא and ציפורי, והתירו לו, and the חכמים were מתיר him that he's allowed to take it and he's allowed to eat it. אמר רב אמי, רב אמי explained, התירו לו משום מציאה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר, the reason they said you're allowed to take it and you don't have to return it as far as the דינים of מציאה are concerned, because of what רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said, that if it's a place where רבים מצויין שם, you're allowed to keep it. משום שחיטה, and the reason they allowed him to eat it and they weren't afraid maybe it was not כשר meat, but they assumed it was slaughtered properly, the reason for that was כרבי חנניה בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי. That follows the opinion of רבי חנניה the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, הרי שאבדו לו גדיו ותרנגוליו, if someone lost his goats or his chickens, והלך, and he went, ומצאן שחוטין, and he found them slaughtered, רבי יהודה אוסר, רבי יהודה says it's אסור, you can't eat it. You don't know who שחט it, and you don't know maybe it was exchanged for non-כשר meat. ורבי חנניה בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי מתיר, רבי חנניה the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי is מתיר, says it's allowed. ואמר רבי, רבי said, נראין דברי רבי יהודה כשמצאן באשפה. The opinion of רבי יהודה sounds to be right if you found it in the garbage. So then we assume probably it's not כשר, because what's it doing in the garbage? Obviously when they שחט'ed it, they saw it wasn't כשר, so they threw it away. That's why it would be אסור. ודברי רבי חנניה בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי כשמצאן בבית. But I think that the opinion of רבי חנניה, the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי, is right in a case where you found it in the house, because then we assume it's כשר, and that's why they kept it in the house. So this is the reason why they allowed רבי חנניה who found the גדי slaughtered between טבריה and ציפורי, they allowed him to eat it because they accepted the opinion of רבי חנניה, the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי. But from here the גמרא says, מדאתירו ליה משום שחיטה, since they said that you're allowed to eat it, and we assume it was slaughtered כדין by a ייד, that proves רובא ישראל נינהו, that that was an area where the majority of people were יידן. And nevertheless, they said that you're allowed to keep it as far as the דינים of מציאה are concerned. שמעת מינה, can we prove from here דהלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל, that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even if the majority are יידן? Because this is a case where the majority were יידן, and nevertheless, they said that you're allowed to keep it. אמר רבא, so רבא said, no, רוב כנענים, the majority of people were גוים. And the reason why they allowed him to eat it, and they assumed that it was slaughtered by a ייד, because ורוב טבחי ישראל, because most of the שוחטים, most of the butchers or most of the people who killed the animals were יידן. And that's why we follow the רוב, and we say probably it was געשחט'ן by a ייד. Then the גמרא continues,

רב אמי אשכח פרגיות שחוטות בין טבריה לציפורי. רב אמי once found some slaughtered pigeons between טבריה and ציפורי. אתא לקמיה דרב אסי, he came to רב אסי, ואמרי לה, some say, לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, he came to רבי יוחנן, ואמרי לה, some say, בבי מדרשא, he came into the בית המדרש. אמרו ליה, and they said to him, זיל שקול לנפשך, go take it for yourself, you're allowed to keep it. רבי יצחק נפחא אשכח כיבורה דאזלא באזלויי. רבי יצחק נפחא, he was a blacksmith and that's why he was called רבי יצחק נפחא. So he once found a ball of string which were used for making nets, and it was found in a place where many of these people who make these nets were found. אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן, and he came to רבי יוחנן, ואמרי לה, some say, בבי מדרשא, he came to the בית המדרש to ask whether he could keep it or not. אמרו ליה, they said to him, זיל, go, שקול לנפשך, take it for yourself, you're allowed to keep it. From the previous case, the case of רב אמי, that he found those pigeons געשחט'ן, and they said to him that you're allowed to keep it, the ראב״ד wants to learn out that we פסק'ן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in a case of רוב ישראל. Because here we see they told him you're allowed to keep it, and there they were רוב ישראל because they said you're allowed to keep it and eat it. So obviously we assumed the שחיטה was done through a ייד, so obviously it must have been רוב ישראל, and nevertheless, they said to him you're allowed to keep it. And he explains why here we cannot say, as the גמרא said before, that maybe it was רוב גוים, just רוב שוחטים were יידן. So he explains why this would not apply to the case of the pigeons. And since you cannot say that, we have a clear ראיה that להלכה, we פסק'ן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in a case where רוב are ישראל. But other ראשונים, the רשב״א, the ר״ן, other ראשונים say that it's no ראיה from here. They פסק'ן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר only by רוב גוים, but not by רוב ישראל. And the ראיה that the ראב״ד brings from this גמרא, they say that we're able to say that באמת they were רוב גוים, but the רוב of the hunters, they were יידן, and the custom was that as soon as they would catch a pigeon, they would שחט it right away because they would be afraid it would fly away. So then we do follow the majority of the hunters, and since the majority of the hunters were יידן, that's why you were allowed to eat it. But the reason he was allowed to keep it was because it was רוב גוים. But the מהר״ם שי״ף asked בכלל a קשיא on the ראב״ד. The ראב״ד wants to bring out from this case that the reason he was allowed to keep it was because we פסק'ן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in the case of רוב ישראל. Who said to רב אמי that he was allowed to keep it? רב אסי said. So it comes out that רב אסי holds, according to the ראב״ד, that we פסק'ן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in the case of רוב ישראל. Doesn't this contradict the גמרא earlier? The גמרא earlier quoted רב אסי that said that if you find barrels of wine in a city which the majority are גוים, you're allowed to keep it. And the גמרא was מדייק before that he holds like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר only in the case of רוב גוים, not in the case of רוב ישראל. So there's a contradiction between the way the גמרא quoted רב אסי before, and then the way the גמרא brings from רב אסי here. So that itself proves that the reason רב אסי said here to רב אמי that he's allowed to keep it was not because we פסקן like ר' שמעון בן אלעזר ברוב גוים, but it must be for a different reason, because it must have been רוב נכרים as we said before. But the מהר"ם שי"ף says that the ראב"ד must have been גורס ר' אבא instead of רב אסי. And others say that we know תוספות says in different places that there is ר' אסי and there is רב אסי, and therefore they could be two different people. So the previous one was by רב אסי, this דין is by ר' אסי, and he פסקנס like this דין, not like the previous דין, because previously when they quoted רב אסי, רב אסי just said a דין. Here, it was a מעשה that happened, and רב אסי פסקנד הלכה למעשה. When we פסקן הלכה למעשה, that's what we follow, and that's why he would פסקן like this דין of ר' אסי, and not like the opinion of רב אסי that was quoted in the גמרא before. Another important thing in this גמרא here is, the גמרא before told two stories. One story was the vulture that grabbed the meat and dropped it amongst the palm trees of בר מריון, and אביי said he could keep it. And the גמרא asked a קשיא: how was he allowed to eat it, isn't it בשר שנתעלם מן העין? And the גמרא answered that he was standing the whole time and was watching it. Then the גמרא brings another story, the story that ר' חנינא found a goat that was געשאכטן between טבריא and ציפורי, and they allowed him to keep it, and they allowed him to eat it. And from here the גמרא wanted to be מדייק that we פסקן like ר' שמעון בן אלעזר even in the case where רוב are ישראל, because it must have been רוב ישראל, because otherwise, how was he allowed to eat it? How do we know that it was געשאכטן כדין? Since we said you could eat it, obviously it was רוב ישראל. And they said you're allowed to keep it, that shows that even if it's רוב ישראל, we פסקן like ר' שמעון בן אלעזר that you're allowed to keep it. The רשב"א in חולין quotes the בעל העיטור, and the בעל העיטור says that if you find a chicken that was געשאכטן, so then you're allowed to keep it, because the fact that it was געשאכטן the way we שעכט, and you could tell by the throat that it was געשאכטן the way we אידן שעכט, that shows that it was געשאכטן by a איד, because the גוים nowadays, he says, they don't שעכט that way. And he proves that from our גמרא. Since, by the case of the גדי שחוט that ר' חנינא found, the גמרא does not ask a קשיא that לכאורה how was he allowed to eat it, isn't it בשר שנתעלם מן העין? And since the גמרא didn't ask that question—the גמרא only asked the question before with the vulture that grabbed the piece of meat, but when he found a complete goat that was געשאכטן, the גמרא didn't ask the question—obviously the גמרא holds that it's not considered בשר שנתעלם מן העין, because since you could see that it was געשאכטן, so the בית השחיטה itself is a סימן. That's the ראיה that the בעל העיטור brings to his דין. But the רשב"א asks on the בעל העיטור, לכאורה, from our גמרא, it seems just the opposite: if we're going to assume like he says, that if you see the בית השחיטה, that's a סימן, so what is the ראיה that the גמרא brings that from here we see we פסקן like ר' שמעון בן אלעזר also in the case of רוב ישראל? And how did the גמרא know there was רוב ישראל? Because otherwise, how was he allowed to eat it, maybe a גוי שעכט it? לכאורה, let's say it was not רוב ישראל, באמת could have been רוב גוים, and that's why he was allowed to keep it, and the reason they allowed him to eat it was because they saw the בית השחיטה, and according to the בעל העיטור, a בית השחיטה is a סימן, that's the סימן that it was געשאכטן כדין. And since the גמרא does bring a ראיה from here that it must have been רוב ישראל, otherwise he wouldn't be able to eat it, we wouldn't know the שחיטה was כדין, that shows that the בית השחיטה is not a סימן. So the—so the רשב"א brings a ראיה from this גמרא just the opposite, against the opinion of the בעל העיטור. But the חתם סופר answers that the בעל העיטור himself did not mean that the בית השחיטה is a סימן that you're allowed to send the chicken that was געשאכטן with a גוי, just because it has a בית השחיטה, and it already would not be considered בשר שנתעלם מן העין. All he meant was that in a place where most of the שוחטים are אידן, so as far as the שחיטה is concerned, we know for sure it was done by a איד because of the רוב. The only חשש that is possible is of בשר שנתעלם מן העין, so that's what he says: when we have a שאלה of בשר שנתעלם מן העין, the בית השחיטה is enough סימן. That's like a חותם, that's like a seal that's enough that it should not be בשר שנתעלם מן העין. But לכתחילה, whether to know it was געשאכטן through a איד or not, if it was not רוב ישראל, the בית השחיטה itself, even according to the בעל העיטור, would not be enough סימן. And that's the בעל העיטור's ראיה: since in the גמרא, in the case of ר' חנינא who found this גדי שחוט, the גמרא does not ask a קשיא that it's בשר שנתעלם מן העין, like the גמרא asked the קשיא before in the case of the vulture, that shows that as בשר שנתעלם מן העין, we do not need any better סימן, the בית השחיטה itself is a סימן. But as far as knowing that it was געשאכטן through a איד, for that, we definitely have to have רוב should be ישראל. And that was the גמרא's ראיה, since over there they allowed him, not only because of בשר שנתעלם מן העין, they allowed him and accepted that probably it was געשאכטן through a איד, that proves that it must have been רוב ישראל, because we would not assume it was געשאכטן through a איד just through the בית השחיטה. You must have רוב ישראל. But as far as בשר שנתעלם מן העין is concerned, for that, it would definitely be enough, according to the בעל העיטור, if the בית השחיטה is there, because the בית השחיטה is a סימן. Another thing important to mention here is, when the גמרא quoted the דין that if someone lost his goat or his chickens and he found them געשאכטן, so there's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and רבי חנינא the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי. רבי יהודה says you're not allowed to eat it, and רבי חנינא the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי says that you are allowed to eat it. We assume that this is your chicken that was געשאכטן כדין, it was געשאכטן כשר. So תוספות says that this is not only if you lost your goat or your chicken, it's also if it was stolen. But then we might think, since it was stolen, so the person who took it definitely was not careful with מצוות, he was עובר on לא תגנוב. So we should suspect maybe that he also was עובר on איסור נבלה and he didn't שחט it כדין. So תוספות says we don't have to say that. Possible that a person is עובר on לא תגנוב, but nevertheless, he would not be עובר on the איסור of נבלה. And תוספות quotes that in תוספתא it says בפירוש that הרי שאבדו או נגנבו, that if it was lost or stolen, and then we have the same דין that according to רבי חנינא the son of רבי יוסי הגלילי, you're allowed to eat it. And the reason why the גמרא here quotes only אבדו and doesn't mention that the same דין would apply if it was stolen, so תוספות says, because it is more common that it should be lost, it's not common that it should be stolen. But in הלכה the same דין would be if it would be stolen. But the רא״ש says that when is this דין that if it was stolen we also would say that it was געשאכטן כדין? Only if most of the גנבים in the עיר, in the city, were יידן. תוספות doesn't mention that, so it's משמע that תוספות holds that even if most of the גנבים, of the robbers in the city, are גוים, you're still allowed, because as the פלפולא חריפתא says, because most people, even though גוים that steal, they give it to the שוחטים to שחט and to sell. Some say that from the גמרא itself we see that even if it was stolen you're allowed, because the case of רבי חנינא that found the גדי שחוט, how do we know it was lost? Maybe it was stolen and then it was thrown there? So it's משמע from here that even if it was stolen, you still rely it was געשאכטן כדין. On the other hand, some say there's no ראיה from this גמרא, because why should we suspect was stolen? When we know it was stolen, then maybe you're not allowed to eat it later, because the person who stole it, who says he שחט it כדין? But if you find it, why should we suspect was stolen and then thrown away? We assume probably it was lost, and therefore the דין is you're allowed to eat it. But from the גמרא there's no ראיה that if it was stolen the same דין would apply. But nevertheless, תוספות says that in the תוספתא it says בפירוש that even if it was stolen would be the same דין.