Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today we will be in מסכת בבא מציעא דף כ״ה. We will start on דף כ״ד עמוד ב׳, two lines from the bottom of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. And this משנה is a continuation from the first משנה. The first משנה started off by saying אלו מציאות שלו ואלו חייב להכריז. These are the מציאות, the objects that were lost and found by somebody that you're allowed to keep, and these are the objects that if they were found, you have to announce them. And that משנה just mentioned those that are שלו, those that you're allowed to keep, and this משנה mentions the other part, those מציאות that you have to announce. The משנה starts: ואלו חייב להכריז, and these are the מציאות that you must announce: מצא פירות בכלי, if you find fruit in a כלי, in a vessel, או כלי כמות שהוא, or a vessel by itself, since generally a vessel has a סימן. So if you find a vessel and it has a סימן, so you must announce it. The same if you find fruit in the vessel, so the סימן of the vessel will also be the סימן for the fruit, and the one that will give the סימן on the vessel will automatically get the fruit, too. מעות בכיס, or money in a wallet, או כיס כמות שהוא, or a wallet by itself, for the same reason, because a wallet has a סימן. So the person who will give the סימן for the wallet will take the wallet, and if there was money in the wallet, he will get the money of the wallet, too. ציבורי פירות, bunches of fruit, ציבורי מעות, bunches of money, gathered fruit together or gathered money together, שלשה מטבעות זה על גב זה, three coins, one on top of the other, so this again is a סימן. כריכות ברשות היחיד, if you find small bundled sheaves in a private place. The first משנה had said that if it was found in a רשות הרבים, in a public place, then you could keep it, but if it was found in a private place, then you have to announce it. וככרות של בעל הבית, bread baked by a private person, homemade bread. If it was bread made by a baker, so they all make it alike, so there is no סימן, but if the bread was made by a private person, so this loaf has a סימן, so you have to announce it. וגיזי צמר, fleeces of wool, הלקוחין מבית האומן, that come from the craftsman's workshop, so then it has a סימן. In the first משנה it said that if they came מגיזתן, they came raw, then it has no סימן because they all look alike, and you don't have to announce it. But if the גיזי צמר were brought from the craftsman's workshop, so then it has a סימן, therefore you would have to announce it. כדי יין, jars of wine, וכדי שמן, or jars of oil, הרי אלו חייב להכריז, all these you have to announce. And now the גמרא will explain the משנה.

טעמא דמצא פירות בכלי מעות בכיס, so first the first case of the משנה is that if you find fruit in a כלי or money in the wallet, the דין is you have to give the money and give the פירות because the סימן that will be given on the כלי or on the wallet will prove that the fruit in the כלי or the money in the wallet also belongs to the same person. So the גמרא is מדייק: הא כלי ולפניו פירות, כיס ולפניו מעות, but if you found a כלי and fruit, or a wallet and money, but the fruit were not in the כלי, the money were not inside the wallet, they were just in front, so then the דין would be הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him. When do we say that you give the fruit to the one that gives the סימן on the כלי, you give the money to the one that gives a סימן on the wallet, only if the fruit were in the כלי, the money was in the wallet. But if you found a כלי and next to it were fruit, you found a wallet and next to it was money, so then the one that gives the סימן on the כלי gets the כלי, the one that gives the סימן on the wallet gets the wallet, but he doesn't get the fruit and he doesn't get the money, because we say who knows if the fruit came from this כלי or the money came from this wallet, and therefore by giving the סימן on the כלי and the wallet, it doesn't prove that the money or the fruit is his. The גמרא says: תנינא, this teaches us להא דתנו רבנן, the same thing as the רבנן learned in a ברייתא. In other words, this דיוק in the משנה tells us the same דין that the רבנן in the ברייתא told us clearly. So it says in the ברייתא:

מצא כלי ולפניו פירות, if you find a כלי and in front of it are פירות, כיס ולפניו מעות, a wallet and in front of it is money, הרי אלו שלו, that belongs to him. So we see clearly in this ברייתא that the דין is if you find the fruit in front of the כלי or the money in front of the wallet, you're allowed to keep this. Then the ברייתא continues: מקצתן בכלי ומקצתן על גבי קרקע, if part of it is in the כלי and part on the ground, you find a כלי and there is some fruit in the כלי and some fruit outside of the כלי in front of it, and the same if מקצתן בכיס ומקצתן על גבי קרקע, you find a wallet with some money in it, and there is some money outside of the wallet in front of it, so here the דין is חייב להכריז, you have to announce the whole thing. And when a person will come and give a סימן on the כלי, so he will get all the fruit, even the fruit that was outside of the כלי, he will also get. Since some of the fruit was in the כלי, so we assume that just like the fruit in the כלי came from the כלי, the fruit outside of the כלי also came from the כלי. It just spilled out, so some stayed and some fell out. And the same with the money, that the one that will give the סימן on the wallet, he will get the wallet, plus the money in the wallet, that's obvious, and he will also get the money in front of the wallet, because we say that since some money was inside, that shows that the money came from the wallet, just it spilled out, and some stayed inside and some fell out. Then the גמרא says,

ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learn in a ברייתא, מצא דבר שאין בו סימן בצד דבר שיש בו סימן, someone finds two things, one thing which has a סימן, and right next to it was an object that has no סימן, חייב להכריז, you have to announce the whole thing, which means that when a person will come and he will give a סימן on the object that has a סימן, he will automatically get the object that has no סימן that was laying next to it, because we assume that they both go together. But if בא בעל סימן ונטל את שלו, if the person came and gave a סימן on the object which has the סימן, and claimed that the other object doesn't belong to him, then automatically, זכה הלה בדבר שאין בו סימן. So then the finder is זוכה, keeps the other thing that has no סימן, because since it doesn't belong to the person who gave the סימן on the other thing, and this itself has no סימן, so automatically he's able to keep it. But here in this ברייתא it says clearly, that if you find an object that has no סימן next to an object that has a סימן, so when the person will come and give a סימן on the object, he will automatically get the object that has no סימן. So how come we said before, that if you find a כלי and next to the כלי you have fruit, or you find a wallet and next to the wallet you have money, the דין is that the person who finds it is allowed to keep the money and allowed to keep the פירות? But here we see that if you find two objects, one with a סימן, one without, so when he gives the סימן on the object with the סימן, he keeps the other one. So the דין should have been that if the person comes and gives a סימן on the כלי or on the wallet, should automatically keep the fruit and the money, the things which have no סימן. The גמרא says,

אמר רב זביד, so רב זביד answered, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. הא בכובא וכיתנא, one is speaking in a case of cask and flax, הא בצנא ופירי, and one is speaking in a case of a basket and fruit. And as רש״י explains the פשט, that in the case of the cask and the flax, if the flax would have come from that cask, so then definitely some of it would have been left inside. And since nothing was left inside, that shows that it didn't come from that כלי. And the same רש״י says would apply by a wallet and money, that if the money would have come from the wallet, then definitely some of the money would have been left inside. So since we do not see any money left inside, there is no flax left inside the cask, so that's why we know that it didn't come from there, and that's the reason why it says that the one that found it is able to keep it. You would only give back the כלי to the one that gave the סימן, but the flax you would be able to keep, the money you would be able to keep. And therefore the משנה where it says that you're allowed to keep it, we're מוקי it that if it was in front of it you're allowed to keep it, so there it is because we assume it didn't come from the כלי. So when it says a כלי and פירות, those פירות are really flax, and the תוספות explains that we do find that flax should be called פירות. And the same is with a wallet and the money, that when it says in the משנה that if you find the money in the wallet then you return the money to the person, but if the money is outside of the wallet, then you do not return it, because we assume that if the money would have come from the wallet, then some of the money would be left inside. But in this ברייתא where it says that if you find something which has a סימן next to something which has no סימן, you return them both to the person who gives the סימן, that's the case of צנא ופירי. That's a regular basket with fruit. And here we say that probably the fruit came from the basket. And the reason there is no fruit left in the basket, because it is common for all the fruit to roll out. And therefore, we cannot say that if the fruit would come from the basket, why don't we find any fruit left in, because it is common for fruit to roll out of the basket. This is the way רש״י learned פשט in the גמרא. But

תוספות argues and תוספות learns just the opposite. תוספות learns that the משנה where it says that if you find fruit in front of the basket, or money in front of the wallet, you do not have to return it, that is in the case of a basket and fruit. Because since פירות are not מחובר, each fruit is individual, So, therefore, we say that if it would have come from the כלי, some of it would have been left inside. Because one fruit falls out doesn't mean they all fall out. So, if they would come from the basket, we would have assumed that some of it should be left inside. And since we find nothing inside, that shows that it didn't come from there. And therefore the משנה says that if you find fruit in front of the basket, the דין is that you do not have to return it. On the other hand, in the ברייתא where it says that if you find an object with a סימן next to an object without a סימן, you have to return them both to the person who gives the סימן, that's in the case where it was a cask and flax. Because since flax is one big piece, so if it fell out, then automatically the whole thing would fall out. So, we have no ראיה by the fact that there was nothing left inside that it didn't come from there. Maybe it did come from there, but it fell out, and then as soon as it starts falling out, the whole thing falls out. And that's why there we say it probably did come from the כלי. So, when a person gives the סימן on the כלי, he also gets the flax that's on the side. רב פפא אמר, רב פפא says: הא והא, we could say that both cases are in the case of a basket with fruit, ולא קשיא, and it's still no קשיא. הא דאשתייר במידיה - one case is that there was something left inside, והא דלא אשתייר במידיה - and the other one is where there was nothing left inside. In the ברייתא where it says that you do not return the פירות to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי is if there were no פירות left inside. Then we have no ראיה that this fruit came from that כלי, and therefore, we do not give it to the owner of the כלי. But in the ברייתא where it says that you do return the object without a סימן to the person who gives the סימן on the object with the סימן, so there it is a case where the fruit, for instance, were left inside, too. So, since there's some fruit left inside and some fruit outside, so we assume the fruit from the outside also came from the inside, as we see some fruit inside. And therefore, a person gives the סימן on the כלי, he will also get the fruit from the outside. And רש״י adds even more that the fact that there is no fruit outside in a case where there were no fruit outside, that itself shows that it didn't come from the כלי. Since most כלים have borders, so if the fruit would have come from the inside, some of it must have stayed inside. And since none of them stayed inside, that itself shows that the fruit did not come from the inside, and therefore, you do not return the fruit to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי, while if some fruit were left inside, then you would return it to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי. איבעית אימא, the גמרא says, if you want, I can give you another explanation. הא והא דלא אשתייר במידיה - both cases are speaking that there was nothing left inside, ולא קשיא, and there's still no קשיא. הא דמהדרי אפיה לגבי פירא - in this case where it says that you must return the פירות without a סימן to the person who will give you the סימן on the כלי, is the case where the כלי was facing the פירות. So then we assume that the פירות fell out of this כלי. Therefore, we give the פירות to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי. הא, but the place where it says that we do not give the פירות to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי, because that is speaking in a case דלא מהדרי אפיה לגבי פירא, that the כלי was not facing the פירות. So here, we do not say that probably the פירות came out of this כלי, because if it would, how come the כלי is not facing the פירות? And therefore, we give the כלי to the person who gives the סימן on the כלי, but we do not give him the פירות. And the גמרא says, איבעית אימא, if you want, I can answer you: הא והא דמהדרי אפיה לגבי פירא, that both cases, the כלי is facing the fruit, ולא קשיא, still no קשיא. הא דאית ליה אוגני מוצלנא, הא דלית ליה אוגני מוצלנא. One case is that the כלי has borders, and the other case is when the כלי has no borders. When the כלי has borders, so then we know for sure the fruit did not come from the כלי, because if it would have come from the כלי, the borders would have blocked it, and some of it would have stayed inside. Since there is nothing inside, that shows that it did not come from the כלי. So, therefore, that in that case, you give the כלי to the person who gives the סימן, but he does not get the פירות. In the ברייתא where it says that you do return the object without a סימן to the person who gives the סימן on the object with the סימן is a case where there is no border on the כלי. So, here we say, since the כלי is facing the פירות and there is no border, so probably the פירות fell out of this כלי, and therefore when we return the כלי to the person who gives the סימן, we give him the פירות, too. Then

the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה: ציבורי פירות וציבורי מעות, if you find bunches of fruit and bunches of money, that is a סימן and you have to announce it. The גמרא says, שמעת מינה, from here we know that מנין הוי סימן, that the מנין, the amount, is a סימן. Why in the world should we return the bunches of fruit or the bunches of money? Probably because there is a סימן of how many bunches were there, so therefore, we have to announce it. So, we see here clearly that a number, an amount, is considered a סימן. But the גמרא says, no, it is no ראיה. We learn ציבורי פירות. Maybe even though the לשון of the משנה is ציבורי פירות, bunches of פירות, but it doesn't mean that you found many bunches of פירות. Even if you find one bunch of פירות the same דין. When he says bunches of פירות, it refers to many people who found it, but not that each person found many bunches. Could be it means that you found one bunch of פירות. But then, what would be the reason why you have to return it? שמע מינה, don't we know from this, מקום הוי סימן, that the place is a סימן. What would be the other סימן? There's only one סימן left. Probably the place that it was found, that would be the סימן. So here at least we see that מקום is a סימן. The גמרא says, no, again that's no ראיה. To me, maybe we could learn ציבורי פירות, maybe it טאקע means that you found many bunches of fruit, and the סימן would be the amount. So we know one thing for sure, that one of the two is a סימן, because otherwise we don't know why would we have to announce the bunch of fruit. But we cannot prove either, because if you're going to want to prove that מנין is a סימן, we'll say maybe it's מקום. If you're going to want to prove מקום is a סימן, we'll say maybe it's מנין. But it is definitely one of the two. Then the גמרא continues, we

learn in the משנה, שלשה מטבעות זה על גב זה, three coins, one on top of the other, that is a סימן, and that you have to announce. אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה, that יצחק מגדלאה said, and as some מפרשים say, the reason he was called רבי יצחק מגדלאה was because of this statement that he's going to say. What did he say? That this דין, that when you find three coins, one on top of the other, you must announce it because it is a סימן, והוא שעשויין כמגדלין, it is also, only if it was made like a pyramid. The way the coins were laying, one on top of another, were like a pyramid. As the גמרא will explain later, that there was the wider coin on the bottom, then the middle-sized coin on top of that, and the smallest coin on top of that. So that is a real סימן. That shows that someone put it down intentionally, and therefore, if you find it that way, you have to announce it. The גמרא continues, תנינא נמי הכי, we too so learned in the ברייתא. We learned, מצא מעות מפוזרות, if you find scattered money, הרי אלו שלו, then he's allowed to keep it. עשויין כמגדלין, if it's made like a pyramid, חייב להכריז, then you have to announce it. And he explains, ואלו הן עשויין כמגדלין, and this is what we mean that it is like a pyramid, שלשה מטבעות זה על גב זה, when you have three coins, one on top of the other. So we see clearly here that when is it a סימן, when they're three on top of the other, only if they're like a מגדל, like a pyramid. But then the גמרא asks a קושיא

on the ברייתא itself. גופא קשיא, isn't the ברייתא itself contradicting itself? אמרת, you say in the beginning, מצא מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו, if you find scattered money, then you're allowed to keep it. It is right away משמע, הא משלחפא ושכוכי, if it is not spread out, not scattered, but it is laying one on top of the other, חייב להכריז, you have to announce, because only if it is scattered you could keep it. But if it's not scattered, then you have to announce it. That's what is משמע from the beginning. אימא סיפא, but look right away into the end: there it says עשויין כמגדלין חייב להכריז, that only if it's like a pyramid, then you have to announce. אידך משמע, הא משלחפא ושכוכי, if it's laying one on top of the other, but not like a pyramid, הרי אלו שלו, you could keep it. So it's a contradiction. What would be the דין if it's laying on top, one on top of the other, but not like a pyramid? From the רישא is משמע that you have to announce it, from the סיפא is משמע that you're allowed to keep it. The גמרא says, תני, we learn, כל שאין עשויין כמגדלין, as long as it's not made like a pyramid, מפוזרות קרי להו, he calls it scattered. It's like an explanation. He says if you find scattered money, you could keep it. Then he says, what is not considered scattered? If it is like a pyramid. But if it's not like a pyramid, even if it's one on top of the other, it is considered scattered, and therefore, you would be

able to keep it. אמר רב חנינא, רב חנינא said, לא שנו, this was not said, אלא של שלשה מלכים, that when we say that you put one coin on top of the other, that is the סימן, only if there were three coins from three kings. Each king had his own picture and his own symbol on the coin. So if it were three coins from three separate kings, then we say it's a סימן. אבל של מלך אחד, but if the three coins were from one king, אינו חייב להכריז, then you don't have to announce it because that is not considered a סימן. And the גמרא asks, היכי דמי, what is this talking about? אי דעשויין כמגדלין, if these three coins are laying like a pyramid, אפילו של מלך אחד נמי, even if they are all three from one king, the דין still should be that you should have to announce it. ואי דאין עשויין כמגדלין, and if it's not made like a pyramid, אפילו של שלשה מלכים נמי לא, even if it would be from three kings, you also shouldn't have to announce it. So what does he mean that you only have to announce it if it's from three kings? אלא אי איתמר, הכי איתמר. So he says, if they did say something, if this was learned, it was learned as follows. What he meant to say was like this: לא שנו, this דין was not said that you have to announce it, אלא של מלך אחד כעין שלושה מלכים, if it was from one king, but like as if it was from three kings. היכי דמי, what does that mean, that it's from one king like three kings? דעשויין כמגדלים, that it's made like a pyramid. What does that mean? רווחא לתתאי, the very wide one on the bottom, ומציעא the middle kind עילויה on top of that, וזוטא and the smallest one עילויה דמציעא on top of the middle one. So then דאמרינן we say, אנוחי אנחינהו. It was put down, someone put it down intentionally. And therefore, it is a סימן and you have to announce it. אבל של מלך אחד, but if it was from one king, meaning really from one king, from one king not like as if it was from three, דכולהו כי הדדי, meaning they're all the same size, so here, אף על גב דמנחא אהדדי, even though they're lying one on top of the other, הרי אלו שלו, you're allowed to keep it, היינו because we say, איתרמויי איתרמי בהדדי ונפול, they just happened and they all fell together and one fell on top of the other. But if the bottom one was the widest, and the middle one was next to it, the middle size, and then on top was the smallest, that is very hard to say that it just happened to fall that way, and that is

definitely a סימן. But רבי יוחנן אמר, רבי יוחנן says, אפילו של מלך אחד נמי מכריז, that even if the three coins are from one king, which means they are all one size, you also have to announce. But the גמרא asks, מאי מכריז? What would you announce? What kind of סימן is there? And the גמרא answers, מניין, you announce the amount. In other words, the person would announce that I found three coins, or whatever amount that it would be, and then the other person would come and say that the סימן is that they were laying one on top of the other, and that would be enough to return it. But then the גמרא asks, if you announce the amount, מאי איריא תלתא, why is this דין only by three? אפילו תרי נמי, the same דין would be by two! If two coins were laying one on top of the other, he could announce that he found two coins, and then the person would come and he would say that they were laying one on top of the other, and that could be a סימן. Why does the משנה say only if they were שלושה מטבעות זו על גב זו, three coins one on

top of the other? אמר רבינא, so רבינא said, טבעא מכריז. You don't announce an amount, you announce, "I found coins!" And the person would have to come and say how many coins were there. And since when you say plural, סתם, without saying a number, מיעוט רבים שנים, we assume it's two. So when you announce coins and a person will come and say they were two there, that is no סימן, because just by saying that they were coins, automatically it means they were two. The only time that it could be a סימן if it would be more than two. So then when he comes and says they were three or whatever it was, that is a סימן. And that is the reason why only if they were three coins one on top of the other we return it, you have to announce it, but if they were less than three, there is no reason to announce it. Then the גמרא says, בעי רב ירמיה, רב ירמיה asked a בעיא, asked a question, כשיר מהו? What would be the דין if they were laying in a circle? כשורה מהו? If they were laying in a straight row? כחצובה מהו? If they were laying in a triangle way, like a סגול, like רש״י shows. כסולם מהו? If they were laying ladder-wise, like steps, one on top of the other, what is the דין? The גמרא says, פשוט מיהא חדא, at least one of these questions we're able to answer. דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה, because רב נחמן said in the name of רבה בר אבוה, כל שאילו מכניס לו קיסם ביניהם ונוטלו בבת אחת חייב להכריז, that when you have three coins laying in such a way, that if you would put a chip under them and you would be able to pick them all up at the same time, that is a סימן and you have to announce it. So we answered a question of כסולם. One of the questions was if it was like a ladder, it was like steps, what is the דין there? But in a case like that, if you would put the toothpick under them all you would be able to pick them up, and he said that if you're able to put a chip and pick them all up, you have to announce it. So we know at least that if it was laying like a ladder, you have to announce.

Then the גמרא continues, בעי רב אשי, רב אשי asked a question, a בעיא, כאבני בית קוליס מהו? If they were arranged like the stones of קוליס? And רש״י says קוליס is a name of עבודה זרה, it is known as מרקוליס, so if it was laying in such a way as the stones of this עבודה זרה מרקוליס, what would be the דין? And the גמרא will soon explain what was the shape. The גמרא answers, תא שמע, come hear, I'll answer your question, דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, מצא מעות מפוזרות, if you find scattered money, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, you can keep it. כאבני בית קוליס, if you find them arranged like the stones of מרקוליס, חייב להכריז. you have to announce it. So the ברייתא says clearly that you have to announce it, it is a סימן. ואלו הן אבני בית קוליס, and this is the arrangement of the stones of בית קוליס: אחת מכאן ואחת מכאן, one on this side and one on the other side, ואחת על גביהן, and one on top of them both. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, המוצא סלע בשוק, if you find a סלע, a coin in the street, ומצא חבירו, and his friend found it, ואמר לו, and he says to him, שלי, it's mine, and he wants to give him a סימן: חדשה היא, it happens to be new, נירונית היא, it is a coin that is from the king נירון that has his seal on it, or של מלך פלוני היא, or for whatever other king it is, and it is true that that coin had the seal of that מלך, nevertheless, לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything, we ignore him, we don't return it to him. ולא עוד, not only that, but more than that: ואפילו שמו כתוב עליה, even if his name is written on it, לא אמר כלום, he said nothing, we ignore it, לפי שאין סימן למטבע, there is no such thing as a סימן by a coin, because we're able to say, דילמא אפוקי אפקה, he spent it. Money is made to spend, so could be he wrote his name on it and he spent it, ומאיניש אחרינא נפלה, it fell from the other person. So even if he has a סימן, a very strong סימן like his name written on it, it doesn't mean anything because money is spent, so we are afraid maybe he spent it and someone else lost it. But תוספות asks a קושיא on the previous גמרא. The גמרא asked a סתירה in the ברייתא. The ברייתא had said that if you find scattered money you're allowed to keep it; if it's made like a pyramid, then you have to announce it. So the גמרא asked there is a contradiction from the רישא to the סיפא: from the רישא is משמע that you only are allowed to keep if it's scattered, but if it's one on top of the other, you have to announce it, even if it's not like a pyramid, as long as it's not scattered. And the סיפא is משמע that only if it's like a pyramid you have to announce it, but if it's one on top of the other, you're allowed to keep. So it's a contradiction between the רישא and the סיפא. So תוספות asks: Why didn't the גמרא ask the same קושיא on the משנה? Why did the גמרא ask this קושיא only on the ברייתא? לכאורה, we could find the same thing in the משנה. In the משנה, it says if you find ציבורי מעות, bunches of money, you have to announce it. And then the משנה says if you find three coins one on top of the other, you have to announce it. So לכאורה, we have a contradiction between that part and that part. First is משמע that as long as it's not scattered and it just gathered together in a bunch, you have to announce it. And here it says that if you have three coins one on top of the other, that's when you have to announce it, but if it was just bunched together, not scattered, it is not enough and you're allowed to keep. תוספות answers that in the משנה it's no ראיה. In the משנה we could learn that the words שלושה מטבעות זו על גב זו, the three coins one on top of the other, is only an explanation to the words before. You read it together: ציבורי מעות, if you find bunches of money, and he explains, what do we mean bunches of money? If there were three coins one on top of the other, then you have to announce it. So we have no contradiction. But in the ברייתא, there's a definite contradiction. It starts off saying that only if it is scattered you could keep it, and later it says that only if it's like a מגדל, like a pyramid, you have to announce it. And that's why the גמרא only has a קושיא on the ברייתא and didn't have the קושיא on the משנה. Concerning the גמרא שאלה that if it is like the stones of בית קוליס, what is the דין? So as mentioned before, רש״י says that this was the עבודה זרה מרקוליס. Why was it called קוליס? So תוספות explained that the גוים used to call it קילוס. The word קילוס means שבח והודאה, it means praise. So they called it קילוס to show that it was praised, that it's a something important, it's a חשוב'ע thing, it was their god. But the חכמים changed it and they called it קלס. It comes from the word לעג וקלס, which is just the opposite of praise, that is from the לשון גנאי. And the word מר means change, so מרקוליס means that it was changed into קוליס, changed from קילוס into קוליס. And now we'll continue with the משנה. The משנה starts: מצא אחר האשפה או אחר הגדר גוזלות מקושרים, a man finds behind a fence, behind a fence or a wall, tied-up birds, או בשבילין שבשדות, or in the pathways that go through the fields, הרי זה לא יגע בהן, you shouldn't touch them. Because since this is a place which is שמור a little bit, it could be guarded there, so it is very possible that a person put it down intentionally, and therefore you shouldn't take it. The דין is not only that you are not allowed to keep it, but you could take it and announce it. The דין is don't even touch it, because we don't know, maybe the person will come back and he is going to take it. מצא כלי באשפה, if you find a כלי in the garbage, אם מכוסה, if it was covered, לא יגע בו, do not touch it, for the same reason Because it was probably put down by somebody intentionally and he is going to come back and take it. אם מגולה, if it was uncovered, open, נוטל ומכריז, then you should take it, and you announce it, you're not

allowed to keep it. גמרא asks, מאי טעמא? What is the reason that if you found these birds tied up behind a wall or behind a fence, you shouldn't touch it? דאמרינן, because we say, הני איניש אצנעינהו, a person hid them הכא, here. ואי שקיל להו, if you will take them, לית ליה למראייהו סימנא בגוייהו, the person doesn't have a סימן. Therefore, he will not be able to claim them. הלכך, therefore, לישבקינהו, you should leave it עד דאתי מראייהו, till the owner will come ושקיל להו, and he will take it. Then the גמרא asks, ואמאי? Why do you say that it doesn't have a סימן, therefore we should leave it just in case he'll come back? Because if we take it, he won't be able to claim it, ליהוי קשר סימן! Let the knot be a סימן! It says here that they were tied birds, so there was a knot. So let him give the סימן how the knot was tied, and we will return it with that סימן! אמר רבא בר רב זבדא אמר רב, said רבא בר רב זבדא said in the name of רב, במקושרין בכנפיהן, they were tied by their wings, דכולי עלמא הכא מקטרי להו, that all the people tie it that way. So therefore it is not a סימן. But then the גמרא asks, וליהוי מקום סימן, let the place be a סימן! He will be able to tell which place he put it down, and then because of that סימן we will return it to him! אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא, said רב עוקבא בר חמא, במדדין, we're talking about birds that could hop. Therefore he could not give מקום סימן, because maybe he put it down someplace else and we found it someplace else because they hopped here. So there is no סימן of מקום, and therefore we should not take it. But then the גמרא asks, אי במדדין, if they hop, מעלמא אתו, they probably came from someplace else, ומותרין, and they're allowed! The whole reason we said why you can't touch it is because it looks as if a person put it down and he's going to come back and look for it. But if it could hop, maybe it hopped from someplace else! So no one even put it down! Maybe someone put it down someplace else, or someone lost them, and the reason they are here because they hopped here. So why is the דין that you're not allowed to touch it? אדרבה, you should be able to take it, because we assume that the person did not put it down here where we found it! The גמרא says like this: איכא למימר, we could say מעלמא אתו, that it came from someplace else, it's true. But ואיכא למימר, we also could say איניש אצנעינהו, and a person hid it over here. We don't know. הוי ליה ספק הינוח, so it's a ספק whether it was put down intentionally here or not. אמר רבא בר רב זבדא אמר רב, and רבא בר רב זבדא said in the name of רב, כל ספק הינוח, anytime there's an object which there is a ספק, a doubt that maybe it was put down intentionally, לכתחילה לא יטול, so לכתחילה you're not allowed to take it. ואם נטל, but if you did take it, לא יחזיר, don't return it back here and you're allowed to keep it. If it's something that has no סימן, then you're allowed to hold it after you took it. But לכתחילה you're not allowed to take it, because maybe it was put down intentionally. So here too, since it's possible that it was put down intentionally, therefore you're not allowed to touch. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה, מצא כלי באשפה, if you find a כלי in the garbage, מכוסה, if it was covered, לא יגע בו, do not touch it. מגולה, if it was uncovered, נוטל ומכריז, you take it

and you announce it. גמרא says, ורמינהו, I'll ask you a קשיא: we learned in a ברייתא, מצא כלי טמון, if you find a hidden כלי באשפה, in the garbage, נוטל ומכריז, you take it and you announce it. And the reason the ברייתא gives, שכן דרך אשפה לפנות, because the custom of garbage is that it will be cleared away. So therefore, to save the person that he shouldn't lose his object, so take it before it is cleared away and announce it, and the person will give a סימן and you will return it. So here we see that when you find it covered in the garbage, you should take it! And in our משנה it said that if it was covered in the garbage, you're not allowed to take it! אמר רב זביד, so רב זביד said, לא קשיא, there's no קשיא. הא בכובי וכסי, in one place it is speaking concerning casks and cups, והא בסכיני והמניק, and the other place is speaking about knives and forks. And he explains, בכובי וכסי, in the case of the casks and the cups, לא יגע, then you shouldn't touch. Because since these are big כלים, we don't assume that they were lost, that just fell into the garbage by mistake, so probably someone put them in. So therefore do not touch it, the person will come back and take it. But בסכיני והמניק, by knives and forks, since they are small, it is possible that when they clean the table or something like that, they fell into the garbage by mistake. So here the person did not put it in intentionally, so he will not come back to take it. So here, since it has a סימן, נוטל ומכריז, you must take it and announce it. רב

פפא אמר, רב פפא says, no, הא והא בכובא וכסא, it could be that both cases are speaking about flasks and cups, ולא קשיא, still no קשיא. כאן באשפה העשויה לפנות, in one case it's speaking about a garbage that the owner usually clears it away, כאן, in one case it is באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות, and the other case is in a garbage where the owner does not usually clear it away. In the case with a garbage where the owner does clean it away, then you should take it and announce it, because if you won't announce it, then the owner will clear away the garbage, and the person who put his object in that garbage will lose it. So, to save his object, you should take it and announce it. But in the case where the garbage is not usually cleared away, then you should leave it there, because the owner will come back for it. But then the גמרא asks, אשפה העשויה לפנות, if it's a garbage that the owner clears away, אבידה מדעת היא, it is an intentional loss, why should you have to take it and announce it? You should be able to take it and keep it. A person puts an object in a garbage and he knows that it will be cleared away, obviously he doesn't need it. He is מפקיר it, he gives up his ownership over it. So the דין should be in a case like that, you should be able to take it and keep it. אלא, therefore, the גמרא answers, it's באשפה שאינה עשויה לפנות, it's a garbage that normally the owner does not clear it away, ונמלך עליה לפנותה, but he decided, he changed his mind, he decided to clear it away. So, therefore, we say like this: as far as the person who put it in is concerned, it is not called an אבידה מדעת, it is not called that he intentionally lost it, because he thought it wouldn't be cleared away. On the other hand, the person who found it is not allowed to leave it there, because now he knows it's going to be cleared away, so the person is going to lose his object. Therefore, you have to take it, and not allowed to keep it, but you must announce it. Then the גמרא asks a קשיא, בשלמא לרב פפא, we understand according to רב פפא, היינו דקתני, that is the reason why the ברייתא adds the words שכן דרך אשפה לפנות, because the custom of a garbage is to be cleared away. The ברייתא said that the reason why when you find a כלי that's hidden in the garbage, you must announce, because the garbage will be cleared away. So, according to רב פפא it makes sense, because the reason why you have to take it is because it will be cleared away. If not for the reason of the garbage being cleared away, then you shouldn't take it, you should leave it there, because the owner will come back for it. The only reason you should take it is because the garbage will be cleared away. אלא לרב זביד, but according to רב זביד, that he says that the reason why the ברייתא says that you take and you announce it is because they are small כלים, and the owner did not put it there, and he doesn't know he lost it, and therefore he will not return for it. So that's the reason why you have to announce it. מאי, what does the ברייתא mean with the words שכן דרך אשפה לפנות, that the custom of garbage is to be cleared away? That has nothing to do, even if it's a garbage that's not cleared away, still you should take it and announce it, because the owner doesn't even know he lost it. גמרא answers, what does the ברייתא mean? שכן דרך אשפה לפנות לה כלי קטן, it is a custom that into a garbage, a person would put small כלים in. By mistake, accidentally, small כלים fall into the garbage. And that's what the ברייתא means, that if you find a כלי hidden in the garbage, you have to take it and announce it. Why? Because it is possible, it is common, for a person to lose, to drop into a garbage small כלים, and therefore we assume this is what happened, and the owner doesn't even know it's there. That's why you should take it and announce it. In this דף there are a few things which is כדאי to

go into. In the beginning, the גמרא brought a ברייתא, where it says that if you find an object that has no סימן next to an object that does have a סימן, so you must announce it, meaning that after you announce it, and the person comes and gives a סימן in the object that has a סימן, you also will give him the other object that has no סימן, because since they were laying together, we assume they belong to one person. And then the ברייתא says, but if בא בעל סימן ונטל שלו, if the one that gave the סימן on the object that has a סימן came and he gave his סימן and he took his, זכה הלה בדבר שאין בו סימן, so the other one is automatically זוכה in the object that has no סימן. And רש"י explained that what does that mean? That, for instance, if you have a wallet and money next to the wallet, and the person comes and says that the wallet is mine, but the money is not mine, so automatically, the person who found it is able to keep the money. But the פני יהושע and other אחרונים ask that לכאורה, what is the חידוש of the גמרא? Why would we think that if the person comes and says that the wallet is his and the money is not, the person who found it should not be able to keep it? Obviously, since he admits it's not his, and the money has no סימן, so obviously, the one that found it is able to keep the money. Why does the ברייתא have to tell

us that? And the פני יהושע answers, because the ברייתא is telling us a חידוש. We would think that since they were laying one next to each other, so definitely They, they fell from one person, that's how we have to assume, and since this person comes and gives a סימן in the wallet, and says that the money is not his, so probably he is lying. And since he is lying, we should not return to him the wallet either. We should still announce it till somebody else will come and give a סימן, and he will say the money is his, and we'll return both objects to him. So that's why the ברייתא has to tell us we don't say that, that if he says that the wallet is his and the money is not, and he gives a סימן in the wallet, you give him the wallet, and you do not say that since the money is not his, that shows that the wallet is not his either, that he still keeps the wallet, and the one that found it, he keeps the money. But באמת this תירוץ is hard to understand, because why would we think that because he is מודה, he admits that the money is not his, he should lose out? After all, he gives a סימן in the wallet, and the דין is that when you give a סימן, you get your object back. Just because he admits that the money is not his, we should think not to give him the money? לכאורה this is also

no חידוש. And for another reason, this תירוץ is hard to accept, because according to this תירוץ, the חידוש of the ברייתא is that you do return the object with the סימן to the one that gives the סימן. But from the לשון of the ברייתא, it's not משמע that way. From the לשון of the ברייתא is משמע that the חידוש is that זכה הלה בדבר שאין בו סימן, that the one that found it is able to keep the object that has no סימן. And according to this פשט, there is no חידוש in that part of the ברייתא. But there is another תירוץ given: that we would think that since בשעת the person picked up, let's say the wallet and the money next to it, and since the דין is that after the person gives the סימן in the wallet, you have to give him the money too, so the person that picked it up had in mind to return the money to the person who will give the סימן for the wallet. So automatically, when he picked it up, he didn't intend to be קונה the money that he picked up. Now that the person comes and gives a סימן on the wallet, says that the money is not his, so we would think that if somebody else would come in between and grab the money away, that third person would be able to keep it, because it doesn't belong to the one that's claiming the wallet, it doesn't belong yet to the one that found it, because when he picked it up, he didn't intend to keep it, so he's not קונה it, so the third person who grabbed it is able to keep it. That's why the ברייתא has to tell us no, that as soon as the בעל סימן comes and takes his wallet, automatically the one that's found it is able to זוכה in the money, because we don't say that he wasn't זוכה just because he intended only to give it to him. The reason he intended to give it to him was because he thought that it belongs to him, but now when we find out that it doesn't belong to the one that's claiming the wallet, automatically it is his because of the קנין that he made. And this is a חידוש of the ברייתא. Another thing

in this סוגיא: The גמרא says that if someone finds a סלע in the street, and his friend comes to him and he said it's mine, and he gives him a סימן, that it's new, it is a coin minted from this and this king, we don't accept his words. And not only that, even if he has his name written on it, we don't accept his words, because there is no סימן for a coin, because we say could be he spent it and it fell off, down, from somebody else. So some of the ראשונים, the רי״ף, the רשב״א, etc., ask a קשיא: If we're חושש that he gave it out and it was lost from somebody else, so the same thing could apply to any אבידה. Anytime you find an object, and someone comes and gives a סימן, why don't we say maybe he sold it to somebody, maybe he gave it away as a present to somebody, and that other person lost it? So why should we return it to him? So some of the ראשונים answer that only by money, which is להוצאה ניתנה, we know that money is made to use, to spend, so there we say that maybe he spent it. But by an object, there is no reason for us to suspect that a person sold the object or gave the object away. So therefore, since we know for sure that it used to be his, because after all he's giving a סימן, so he has a חזקת בעלים, he has a חזקה over it, so there is no reason for us to suspect that it was sold, and therefore we return the object to the person that gives the סימן. Other ראשונים say that even in this case of the money, it's not the פשט that we suspect that he is lying, that he didn't lose the coin, because why should we suspect a person that he's lying? But what we're afraid of is maybe he had a few coins, and they all had his name on that, and he gave some of the coins to other people, he spent it, and he lost a coin with his name on it, and the other person also lost the coin with his name on it. And therefore we don't know for sure that this coin is his, maybe the coin is somebody else's. And therefore we cannot return the coin to this person. Well, it's self-understood that according to this פשט, it is only if the name is written on it, then we say that we cannot return it to him because maybe more of them had his name on that that was spent and given to others. But what if he has a different סימן on it? For instance, if he has a סימן that it was cracked or something else, so then, since we do not suspect he's lying, and we do not suspect either, obviously, that he had many coins that had the same crack and he gave them to others, so therefore, we would return it to him with the

סימן of the crack. Concerning the דין that רב אבא בר זבדא said in the name of רב, that כל ספק הינוח לכתחילה לא יטול, that anytime when there is a ספק on the object, maybe it was put down intentionally, לכתחילה you're not allowed to take it, ואם נטל לא יחזיר, if you did take it, do not return it. רש"י says do not return it because you have nobody to return it to, because it's a object that has no סימן, so therefore there is nobody to return it to. Or the way תוספות says, that you're not allowed to return it to the place where you took it from, or because you already are מחויב in the מצוה of השבת אבידה, so you're not allowed to return it to the place where you took it from, or because maybe the owner came already to look for it, and by the time you bring it back he's not going to come again, and therefore you shouldn't return it there. But whatever it is, what should you do with the object? So the way רש"י says later on on דף כ"ז עמוד ב', is that it should be מונח עד שיבוא אליהו. You keep it, you hold it, but you're not allowed to use it. It is not yours. But you have nobody to give it to, so it stays in your possession till אליהו הנביא comes, which means till משיח comes, till we will be מברר who it belongs to. But it is משמע that a person himself is not allowed to use it. He is not זוכה, it is not הרי אלו שלו it

is. But the רמב"ם writes in in פרק ט"ו of הלכות גזילה ואבידה, הלכה א', and the same he writes later in הלכה ו', that ואם עבר ונטלה, if the person did take it when it was a ספק הינוח, אסור לו להחזירה לשם, you're not allowed to return it there. ואם היה דבר שאין בו סימן, and if it was something that has no סימן, זכה בה, he is זוכה, he's allowed to keep it, ואינו חייב להחזירה, you don't have to return it. So many אחרונים ask a קשיא on the רמב"ם: why does the רמב"ם say that if you did take it you're allowed to keep it? Isn't it באיסורא בא לידו? Didn't it come to his hands באיסור? Since he received it before יאוש, so even though later on when the owner will come and see it's not there, knowing it has no סימן he will be מתייאש, but it is יאוש שלא מדעת. And we פסקן like אביי that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש. So therefore here too, the יאוש that the owner will be מתייאש after he took it should not help, and therefore he should not be able to keep it. He טאקע can't announce it because it has no סימן, so what should he do with it? So he should be מונח עד שיבוא אליהו, but how does the רמב"ם say זכה בה and he's allowed to keep it? The כסף משנה answers that this דין that we say that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, that means that you're not allowed to take it. But if a person did take it in the case of יאוש שלא מדעת, he is זוכה, he's allowed to keep it, because after all, he doesn't know whom to return it to, because there is no סימן. To take it back to the place where he found it, there is also no reason, so what else should happen to it? So therefore you are זוכה. איי, why don't we say יהא מונח עד שיבוא אליהו? So the רמב"ם holds that only in a case where the גמרא says בפירוש that in such a case is מונח עד שיבוא אליהו, that's when we say this דין. But on our own, we do not say יהא מונח עד שיבוא אליהו. So the רמב"ם holds, according to the כסף משנה, that in the case of יאוש שלא מדעת, if you did take it, you are allowed to keep

it. The ש"ך in סימן ר"ס, סעיף קטן כ"ו writes that this whole דין of יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש means that when you will find out who lost it, you will have to return it to him. But as long as you didn't find out who lost it, you're allowed to keep it. And that's what the רמב"ם means: that even though it is יאוש שלא מדעת, זכה בה, you are allowed to keep it. But the נתיבות asks a קשיא on the ש"ך, that on what basis does the ש"ך say that a person would be able to use it since it's not his? Since the דין is that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, that means that you are not זוכה and you're not קונה, so on what basis are you allowed to use it? Plus he says that you cannot say that this is what the רמב"ם means, because the לשון of the רמב"ם is זכה בה, that means that he is זוכה, that it becomes his. And according to the ש"ך, it doesn't become his, it is only that in the meantime till the person will come and claim it, he's allowed to use it. Another תירוץ that is given, is that the רמב"ם will hold like the רמב"ן. The רמב"ן says later on on דף כ"ו עמוד ב', the reason why יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, which means that if the person found the object before the owner was מתייאש, he's not allowed to keep it, and he gives the reason: because when the person finds the object and the owner wasn't מתייאש yet, so it's as if the finder becomes the שומר of the בעלים. Since it still belongs to the owner, the owner wasn't מתייאש yet, so the one that finds that becomes like a שליח of the owner to watch it. Later on, when the owner is מיאש, it's as if he is מיאש while the object is still in his own רשות. And יאוש ברשות doesn't help. When a person is מיאש from an object, and the object at that time is in his own רשות, it is not lost from his רשות, so then that יאוש doesn't help. And every time a person is מיאש after the other person found it already, it is considered יאוש ברשות. Because when that person found it, it didn't leave the first person's רשות yet because he wasn't מיאש yet. So the second person is like in the place of the first. He's like the שליח of the first to become a שומר, a watchman, for the object of the first. So when the שומר is holding the object for the other person, it is considered as if the object is still in the possession of the other person. So later when he is מיאש, it is יאוש ברשות. Now according to that, when would we say that it is considered יאוש ברשות? Only in the case where it is ודאי יאוש שלא מדעת, so then we would say it's לא הוי יאוש because it's יאוש ברשות. But here we're talking in a case of ספק הינוח. The reason he wasn't allowed to take it was that it was a ספק. We're not sure that it was definitely put down. As the גמרא says, since they were hopping, it's possible that it came from someplace else. Possible that a person put it down, so it's only ספק הינוח. So by ספק הינוח, we would not say that it is called as if the one that found it is in the place of the person who lost it, and he becomes his שומר. So in a case like that, it would not be considered יאוש ברשות, that later on when the person is מיאש, it is not considered that he is מיאש while the object is still in his רשות, in the רשות of the one that is watching it for him. And because of that, we would not say that his יאוש doesn't help. Because the only reason יאוש doesn't help by יאוש שלא מדעת is because it's יאוש ברשות. And since this is not considered יאוש ברשות, so יאוש would help, and therefore the רמב״ם says that if he did take it by ספק הינוח, he is זוכה, and he doesn't have to return it, and he's allowed to

keep it. But the פני יהושע gives a different reason for the רמב״ם. And he says that the reason why the רמב״ם says you're allowed to keep it is like any other ספק. Whenever we have a ספיקא דדינא, there's a ספק in דין concerning ממון whether we're allowed to keep it or not, so we say that from a ספק, based on a ספק, we are not allowed to be מוציא the money from the hand of the מוחזק. If somebody is מוחזק in ממון, and he's holding on to money, and he is the מוחזק, and we have a ספק, maybe it belongs to him, maybe it doesn't belong to him, so we have no right, based on the ספק, to be מוציא ממון from the מוחזק. And therefore here too, since it is only ספק הינוח, we are not sure it was put down, so could be he had a right to take it, could be he didn't. So if he did take it, now we have no right to take it away from him, and therefore the רמב״ם פסקנ'ס that he is זוכה, he is allowed to keep it. איי the question is that we see by other ספיקות the דין is different. For instance, if it's a ספק if it fell from a גוי or fell from a ייד, where in the case where it's 50-50, then we say you go לחומרא? So he says there the reason is, since there is a way to verify it. Since you could announce it, you'll find out if it fell from either from a גוי, because if it did fall from a ייד, the ייד will come and give the סימן and will take it. So in a case where you're able to verify it, the חכמים made a תקנה that you should verify it. As תוספות also says in דף כ״ג עמוד א׳. But in a case where you cannot verify it, like in the case of ספק הינוח, since it doesn't have a סימן, so there is nothing you could do, you can't verify it, so here the דין is that we cannot be מוציא from his חזקה. איי we see by the regular דין of יאוש שלא מדעת, if it is only a ספק still we have to be מחמיר, as we see that in the beginning in the סוגיא of יאוש שלא מדעת the גמרא asks all the קושיות on אביי who holds לא הוי יאוש from the משנה, from all the cases of the משנה where it says you're allowed to keep it. And the גמרא asks how do you know that the person already knew that he lost it and he was מיאש already? איי לכאורה we טאקע don't know, but it's not for sure. So we see from the גמרא that even if it's a ספק of יאוש שלא מדעת you're not allowed to keep it. איי we just said that in a case where you cannot be מברר, and that's what the case of יאוש שלא מדעת is, because it's speaking in a case where there is no סימן, as the גמרא explains there, so you cannot be מברר, so the דין should be that you should be זוכה! But the reason is because over there there is a חזקה. Since the person knew about it before, so as long as we don't know for sure that he was מיאש, we assume that he wasn't מיאש yet. So there is so to speak like a חזקה that he wasn't מיאש. But in the case of ספק הינוח, here the whole ספק is whether he put it down לכתחילה or not, so there is no חזקה to say that probably he did put it down. And therefore here we say that because of this ספק, we cannot be מוציא ממון from the person who found it, and therefore the רמב״ם פסקנ'ס that the one that found it is זוכה, and he doesn't have to return it.