Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא מציעא דף כו. We will start on דף כה עמוד ב, five lines from the bottom of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. And the משנה says: מצא בגל, if a person found an object in a pile, there was a pile of debris, of stones and things like that, and in that pile he found an object, ובכותל ישן, or in an old wall, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, he's able to keep it. And the גמרא will explain why. מצא בכותל חדש, if he found it in a new wall, and as רש״י explains, this is a wall that was in between the street, the רשות הרבים, and on the other side was inside the house, and there are holes in the wall, holes that go through and through from the street into the house. So the דין is that if you find it מחציו ולחוץ, from half to the outside, which means in the outside half, שלו, it belongs to him, to the one that found it. מחציו ולפנים, if you find it in the half towards the inside, של בעל הבית, it belongs to the owner. And the reason is because we assume that the owner of the house put it in. But if you find it in the outside half, then there is a possibility that a person in the street put it in and he forgot about it, so therefore, if you find it, you're allowed to keep it. But

רש״י and תוספות ask a קושיא, that לכאורה, the גמרא said before that אפילו ספק הינוח לא יטול. If you find an object that there is a possibility that maybe it was put down intentionally, then you're not allowed to take it. And here, it is not ספק הינוח, it is ודאי הינוח. Here it is not a ספק maybe someone put it down intentionally, here definitely someone put it down intentionally if it's in the hole in the wall. So then the דין should be you shouldn't be able to take it. So how come the דין is that you're allowed to take it? And תוספות adds even more: that here, the מקום should be a סימן. It's not a דבר שאין בו סימן, there is a סימן here. The place that it was put in should be a סימן. So then the certainly the דין should be that you shouldn't be able to keep it. And another קושיא תוספות ask, that from the גמרא is משמע that we're talking here in a case where there is a סימן. So if there is a סימן, certainly you shouldn't be able to take it. And רש״י and תוספות answer that the גמרא later on will say that here the case is that it was found to be very rusty. So then we have a ראיה that it's there for a long time, so we assume that definitely the owner who put it down came to look for it and he couldn't find it, and therefore you're allowed to take it because definitely he was מייאש, and even if it has a סימן he was מייאש, because we could tell that it was there for a long time. And the reason why if you found it in the inside half you're not allowed to keep it, if it is the case that it was very rusty, so why shouldn't we be able to keep it even if it was found inside, even if the owner from the house put it in, but nevertheless he definitely was מייאש? So תוספות says, because an owner in a house that puts something in the house is never מייאש, because it's a strong possibility and it happens many times that a person leaves something in a house and forgets about it and later on finds it. So therefore, if you find it inside, so then you're not allowed to keep it. But if you find it in the outside half, so somebody from the street put it down, and since it's rusty we assume he probably came to look for it and for some reason didn't find it, so he was definitely מייאש, and that's why you're allowed to keep it. Then the

משנה continues: אם היה משכירו לאחרים, if it was a house that was rented out to others, אפילו מצא בתוך הבית, even if he found it inside the house, הרי אלו שלו, it belongs to him. Because since he rented it out to many people, so we don't know which of the people lost it, so therefore the owner doesn't expect to get it back because he assumes that the one that will find it will not know whom to return it to, so therefore the owner is מייאש, and that is the reason why the one that finds it is allowed to keep it. And the גמרא says, תנא, a תנא learned, what is the reason why if you find it in a pile of stones or you find the object in an old wall, you're allowed to keep it? מפני שיכול לומר לו, because the one that found it is able to tell the owner of the wall or the owner of that גל, של אמוריים הן, that these objects are from the אמוריים that used to live in ארץ ישראל before the יידן entered ארץ ישראל, since it's an old wall or an old גל, and therefore I don't have to return it to you. But then the גמרא asks, אטו אמוריים מצנעי, ישראל לא מצנעי? Only אמוריים, only the גוים, they hid objects in the wall, and the יידן did not do it? Why can't the owner of the wall claim that I put that object in the wall? For instance, if he found the object in the inside half of the the wall, but what do we care if it is an old wall? Nevertheless, why can't the owner of the wall say that I put it in? Only the אמוריים used to put in objects in the wall, and the ייד does not put in objects in the wall? Why can't he say that? And the גמרא answers, לא צריכא, it comes to tell us that this is a case דשתיך טפי, that the object is very rusty. So therefore we do not assume that the owner put it down. So it probably came from before, and that's why the דין is that the one that found it is allowed to keep it. But

תוספות asks a קושיא, why doesn't it belong to the owner of the wall anyway? Because the דין is that חצר is קונה. An article, an object, which is הפקר, which has no owner, comes into the domain of another person, that other person is קונה. The חצר, the domain, the רשות that belongs to that person is automatically קונה that object, acquires that object for the one that owns the חצר. So here too, since we assume that this object came from the אמוריים, so anybody who would find it would be able to keep it, and since it is found in the רשות of this person, since it's his wall, so why shouldn't the חצר be קונה for him and it becomes his automatically? Why is the דין that the one that finds it is allowed to keep it? And תוספות answers that this דין that חצר is קונה is not said by an object that we... it is a possibility that maybe it'll never be found. Only in a normal case where an object comes into his רשות, which under normal circumstances will be found eventually, so then the חצר is קונה for this person. But if it's a small object or a type of thing that might never be found, so then the דין is that חצר is not קונה. And therefore, here too, since it's hidden in the wall, there's a possibility that this owner of the wall will never find this object, therefore the דין is that חצר is not קונה. And since the חצר is not קונה for the owner, so the one that finds it is קונה, and therefore we say הרי אלו שלו, he's allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא continues, we said in the משנה: if you find it בכותל חדש, in a new wall, so the דין is מחציו ולחוץ שלו, if you find it in the hole, in the half that's towards the outside, it belongs to him, to the one that finds it; מחציו ולפנים של בעל הבית, if you find it in the inside half, in the half that's towards the inside, then it belongs to the בעל הבית, to the owner of the house.

אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי says, סכינא, by a knife, בתר כתא, we follow its handle. That if the handle is facing towards the inside, then we know it was put in from the inside, and therefore, even if it would be in the half of the hole towards the outside, it still would belong to the owner of the house, because we assume that he put it in. וכיסא, by a purse, בתר שנצי, it follows its straps. That if the straps are towards the inside, then we know it was put in by the person from the inside, and you wouldn't be able to keep it even if it is found in the half of the hole towards the outside. If the straps are towards the outside, so then we assume it was put in by somebody from the outside, so then the דין would be that even if it was put in to the half towards the inside, still, if you find it, you're allowed to keep it. But then the גמרא asks: ואלא מתניתין דקתני מחציו ולחוץ שלו, מחציו ולפנים של בעל הבית, if in the משנה where it says that if it was found in the outer half, it belongs to him, if it was found in the inner half, it belongs to the owner of the house, in which case did the משנה say that? ולחזי, let us see, אי כתא לגאו, אי כתא לבר, whether the handle is in the inside or the handle is towards the outside; אי שנצי לגאו, אי שנצי לבר, the same with the purse, let us see, are the straps towards the inside, or are the straps towards the outside? Because we said before that it makes no difference in which half it's found. We look at the handle of the knife, or we look at the straps of the purse. So let us see: if the handle is towards the inside, so it makes no difference in which part of the hole it is, it still should belong to the בעל הבית; if the handle is towards the outside, it should belong to the finder no matter in which half it was found, and the same is with the purse. And the גמרא answers: מתניתין, the משנה is talking in a case באודרא ונסכא, in a case of a piece of cotton or a bar of metal, that these have no way of telling whether it was put in from the inside or put in from the outside. That's where the דין is that we have to look in which part of the hole it was put in. If it's laying in the inside half of the wall hole, then we assume it was put in by the בעל הבית and he keeps it. If it was in the outside half of the hole, then we say הרי אלו שלו, it belongs to the person who found it. And the גמרא continues:

תנא, we learned: אם היה כותל ממולא מהן, if the whole wall was full of it, חולקין, then you divide it. You take everything that's in the half towards the inside and that goes to the בעל הבית, and everything that's in the half towards the outside would belong to the one that found it. גמרא asks: פשיטא? That is certain, that is self-understood, because since we say it depends on which half it's found, and if the whole thing is full, so we divide it in half, and we give the inside half to the one that's inside, and the outside half we give to the one that found it. Why do you have to tell us that? And the גמרא answers, לא צריכא, it doesn't have to tell us only in a case דמשפע בחד גיסא, that the hole slopes to one side. דמהו דתימא I would think, אשתפולי אשתפול, that the object slid down to that side, and maybe לכתחילה it was only on one side. The reason why now it's on both sides is because it slid down, because on one side it slopes, and therefore we should only give it to the one that it's sloping down from. קא משמע לן, that's why it has to tell us that nevertheless you give it to both of them. Since now the whole hole is full of the objects, so we say we divide it. Part of it, the one that's inside, goes to the owner of the house, and the part that's towards the outside goes to the one that found it. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה: אם היה משכירו לאחרים, if the owner of the house used to rent out his house to others, אפילו מצא בתוך הבית, so even if you find in the house, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him. And as תוספות explains, this is only in a case where it's obvious that it was lost, because otherwise, since it's in the house, how can you take it? It belongs to the owner of the house. A person can't walk into someone's house and say, "I found an object in his house." But תוספות says it's speaking in a case where you could see that it was lost. So there we say that since he rented out the house to other people, we don't know who it belongs to and you're allowed to keep it. The גמרא asks: ואמאי, why should you be able to keep it? ליזיל בתר בתרא, let's follow the last one. And as תוספות explains, it doesn't mean the last tenants, but it means the בעל הבית himself, the owner himself. Since usually the בעל הבית would live together with the people, he lives in the house and he also rents out that other people could live in the house. So when the people left, he is always the last one to stay, because he always lived there. The גמרא's קשיא is: Why do we say that the one that found it is allowed to keep it? Why shouldn't he have to give it to the בעל הבית, who's always the last one? We don't assume that it was lost by any of the previous tenants, because the מנהג is, it is common that before a person leaves the place that he rents, he looks around, searches the house, to make sure that he didn't leave anything behind. So we assume that if one of the previous tenants would have lost it, he would have found it before he left. So therefore we have to assume it probably fell from the last one ממש, who's still there, that is the בעל הבית. And the בעל הבית is definitely not מיאש. Since he knows that at this point there's nobody else in the house with him, so definitely he will find it. There's nobody else that's able to find it, so he should give up hope? So we assume that he didn't give up hope. And that is the גמרא's קשיא: Why don't we follow the last one and give it back to the בעל הבית? And the גמרא is going to prove it. מי לא תנן, didn't we learn in a משנה, and from this משנה we're going to see this concept that we always follow the last one? In a case where we have reason to say that the previous ones took it away, like in our case, where we have reason to say that a person, the previous tenants, before they left definitely searched the house and took all their belongings, so in a case like that we have to follow the last one. And we're going to prove it from the משנה the גמרא is going to bring. And this is a משנה that deals with the דין of מעשר שני. The דין is that in the first and second and fourth and fifth year of שמיטה you must take off מעשר שני. You must take off a tenth of your crop, and that tenth is מעשר, is holy. You cannot eat it outside of ירושלים. You must bring it up to ירושלים and eat it under certain conditions. And the דין is that if a person is not able to take all of his מעשר שני to ירושלים because it's too much, so you're allowed to redeem it wherever you are. And the money that you pay for that becomes מעשר שני and has the קדושה of מעשר שני. And that money is supposed to be taken to ירושלים, and in ירושלים you would buy food with that money and the food would be eaten with the same קדושה as the מעשר שני. And normally what people would do is they would buy cattle and they would bring them as קרבנות, and the meat would be eaten in ירושלים. But since there would be a lot of money, so it would take a person very long till he would finish using up all his money of מעשר שני, so what the people would do, they would distribute the money or they would distribute the meat that they would buy with that money to other people, to friends or to poor people in ירושלים, and they would eat. Therefore the

משנה says that מעות שנמצאו לפני סוחרי בהמה, in ירושלים if you find money in front of the cattle merchants, לעולם מעשר, anytime of the year you find it, you assume it's מעשר, because that's what people would do. They would take the מעשר money, go buy animals, cattle with it, and use them as קרבנות. So if you find money in front of these merchants, we assume that this money was מעשר, because most of the בהמות in ירושלים were bought with the money of מעשר. But if you find money בהר הבית, on the mountain of the בית המקדש, חולין it is חול. It is not מעשר. And this too is all year round. It makes no difference whether it's during the רגל, during the יום טוב of פסח, שבועות, and סוכות, or any other time of the year. Even though there is more reason to say that during the time of יום טוב it should be considered מעשר, because יום טוב so many people come up to ירושלים, and many of these people come up with money of מעשר, so we should assume that it fell down from one of these people, and that money would be מעשר, nevertheless we say, since most of the year the money that falls on the הר הבית is not מעשר, so we do not say that even during יום טוב it is מעשר. We follow the רוב, we follow the majority, and since the majority of the time it is not מעשר, so we say that whenever you find it, it is not מעשר, even if you find it during יום טוב, because we do not know when the money fell. It is possible that the money fell before, before יום טוב, and therefore it is not מעשר. So the דין is that whenever you find the money on the הר הבית, it is חול, not מעשר. But ובירושלים, if you find it in ירושלים other than the הר הבית, in other places in ירושלים, so the דין is that בשאר ימות השנה, other times of the year, חולין it is חול. בשעת הרגל, but if you find it during the יום טוב, הכל מעשר, all of it is מעשר. The reason why if you find it during the other times of the year it is חול, because most money there is חול. It is only if you find it in front of the cattle merchants that we say it's מעשר, because they would buy with the money of מעשר, they would buy בהמות. But if you find the money not in front of the cattle merchants, other places in ירושלים, so during the year, why should we assume that it's מעשר? Most of the money was not מעשר, and therefore we do not assume it's מעשר. But in during the יום טוב, since so many people come up to ירושלים that have a lot of money of מעשר with them, so there we assume that it is מעשר, and when you find the money then, you have to act with it with the קדושה of מעשר.

ואמר רב שמעיה בר זירא, and רב שמעיה בר זירא said, מאי טעמא, what is the reason, why if you find money in ירושלים during the יום טוב we assume it's מעשר, because many of the people that came up then had money of מעשר with them, but how do we know that this money fell down during the יום טוב? Maybe this money fell down before the יום טוב, and before the יום טוב we say it is not מעשר. So he said, הואיל ושוקי ירושלים עשויין להתכבד בכל יום, because the streets of ירושלים are swept every day, so if the money would have fallen before, it would have been found already by the person who swept the street before. So therefore we say that if you find money during יום טוב, it probably fell down during יום טוב, and since during יום טוב there's a lot of money of מעשר in ירושלים, therefore we assume that it is money of מעשר. So we see, אלמא here we see, אמרינן that we say, קמאי קמאי אזלו, the first ones left, והני אחריני נינהו, these are different. So we see that since we sweep the streets of ירושלים every day, so we always assume that the first ones went away, that the money that fell down before יום טוב was taken away, and the money we find now, that probably came now. So just like we say that there, הכא נמי here too, concerning the house that was rented out to other people, and later on a person finds an object in the house, why don't we say, קמא קמא אזל, that the first ones went away, והני, and this that you found now, דבתרא הוא, it is from the last one? Because this is ממש similar to the case over there. Just like by the case of the money in ירושלים, we say that since it's swept every day, the money that was there before was taken away and this is new, the same we have here. Since it is common that a person before he leaves his hotel, he leaves his room that he rented, he would search around to see whether he left any belongings behind, so therefore it is similar to the case of the sweeping, that before he leaves, as if he swept everything, he took everything with him. Now

when you find an object, we have to assume it came after it was swept. It came after, in this case, after the tenant left already. So then it probably came from the last one. And the way תוספות explains, it means the the בעל הבית himself. So why should the דין be that the one that found it is able to keep it? Because we assume it fell from one of the tenants, and he doesn't know who find it, and therefore he gave up hope, why don't we assume it didn't fall from one of the tenants? The tenants took their things away, the object or the money that you find now belongs to the last one, to the בעל הבית, and therefore you shouldn't be able to keep it. אמר ריש לקיש משום בר קפרא, so ריש לקיש said in the name of בר קפרא, כגון שעשאו פונדק לשלשה ישראל, that the case here is that he made it into a hotel, he rented it out to three יידן at the same time. And it seems from תוספות that it means in addition to the בעל הבית. And תוספות also explains that it means that they are still there. These three tenants did not leave yet. So there is no such thing as the בתרא, as a last one, because there is no last one, all three together with the בעל הבית are all still there. And then someone finds it. So here the דין is that you're allowed to keep it. Since he lost it amongst many people, in a public place so to speak, so therefore the one that lost it assumes that one of the other people found it, and therefore gives up hope, and therefore the one that finds it is able to keep it. And then the

גמרא says, according to this, שמע מינה, doesn't this prove הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו ברוב ישראל, that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר even in a case where the majority are יידן? רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said earlier in the גמרא that if a person finds an object in a public place where a lot of people are found, he's allowed to keep it. And the גמרא asked a question, whether רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין only if there are a lot of גוים, majority of the people are גוים, but if the majority of the people would be יידן, you wouldn't be able to keep it? Or did רבי שמעון בן אלעזר say his דין also if the majority are יידן? And then the גמרא continued that even if we're going to say that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין אפילו ברוב ישראל when the majority are יידן, but when it comes to the הלכה, do we פסקן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר only in the case where the majority are גוים, or would we פסקן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר in the case too where the majority are יידן? But the גמרא here says, since you told me that the reason you're allowed to keep the object you found in this case here was because there were three יידן there, and therefore the one that lost it gave up hope, so obviously we're following the ruling of רבי שמעון בן אלעזר. And that is the reason why we say the person who lost it is מייאש since he lost it in a public place. And since you said the case is that there were three יידן there, that proves that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין also in the case where there are three יידן, where the majority are יידן, and also that we פסקן like him in the case where the majority are יידן. Because here we're פסקנינג like him, we're saying that the פשט in the משנה where the פסק דין is that you're allowed to keep it is because this is a public place, there were three people there, so we see we פסקן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר. And since you said that it's the case where there were three יידן, that shows that we פסקן like רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אפילו in the case where the majority were יידן.

אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said no, it doesn't have to be דוקא three יידן, כגון שעשאו פונדק לשלשה עובדי כוכבים. Could be that he made it into a hotel, he rented it out to three גוים. And therefore there is no ראיה that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר says his דין also when there are רוב ישראל, because it could be the case where there are three גוים. The reason we say three דוקא, so תוספות says, because if it would be less than three, it wouldn't be considered a majority of גוים, or wouldn't be considered a place where there's a lot of people, and therefore the גמרא has to say three גוים. רש״י on the other hand says that the reason the גמרא picks three is because when it spoke about יידן, the גמרא picked three יידן, that's why by גוים it also mentions three גוים. But really, if it would be one גוי, could be the same דין. If we know that this one גוי was the last one, then the דין would be that you don't have to return it, because we assume it fell from this last one, the גוי, and therefore we do not have to return it. But this does not fit to תוספות's פשט, because תוספות learns that the last one here in the גמרא is the בעל הבית himself. And the only reason you're allowed to keep it is because it fell in a public place. And since we do not want to prove that רבי שמעון בן אלעזר holds his דין also by the case of רוב ישראל, so we have to say it's רוב עכו״ם, רוב גוים. Therefore the גמרא must say that it was three גוים, because less than three is not called a public place. But obviously רש״י learns that when the גמרא asks the קושיא, let's look at the last one and give it back to the last one, the גמרא does not mean the בעל הבית himself, the גמרא means just the last tenant, and therefore, according to רש״י, when the גמרא says that he rented it out to three גוים, the גמרא didn't have to say three גוים. The גמרא could have said that the last one was a גוי, and then that is the reason why you do not have to return it, because even if we do follow the last one, since he was a גוי, the דין is that you do not have to return a lost object of a גוי. So why did the גמרא say that it's speaking in a case where he rented it out to three גוים? So that's why רש"י says that since by יידן we had to say three יידן, because otherwise it wouldn't be considered a public place, so therefore by גוים too, when the גמרא says that it's speaking by גוים, the גמרא says שלושה, that it was three גוים. But really, if the גמרא would have said that the last one was a גוי, it would have been enough to know why you're allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא continues, but רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה,

but רב נחמן said in the name of רבה בר אבוה, אפילו תימא לשלושה ישראל, באמת you could say that he rented out his room to three יידן, and the reason you're allowed to keep it is because when it fell down, the person who lost it assumes that it'll be found by one of those people and he'll never get it back, he's מייאש. But then the גמרא said before, doesn't this prove that רב שמעון בן אלעזר said his דין אפילו ברוב ישראל? So he says, no, באמת it doesn't have to go דוקא according to רב שמעון בן אלעזר. This is a special case where even the רבנן would be מודה that the one that found it is allowed to keep it. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? ההוא דנפל מיניה מייאש, he is מייאש. מימר אמר, he would say, מיכדי, let's see, איניש אחרינא לא הוה בהדי, no other person was here with me, אלא האני, only the few, two other tenants. אמרי קמייהו כמה זימני ולא הדרו לי, I mentioned few times in front of them they should give it back to me, ולא הדרו לי, they didn't give it back. והשתא ליהדרו? Now they'll give back? אי דעתייהו לאהדורה, if they would have a mind to return it, אהדרו ניהלה, they would have given it back to me. והאי דלא אהדרו לי, and since they didn't give it back to me till now, בדעתייהו למיגזלה, they definitely have in mind to steal it. And therefore he is מייאש.

When is there a מחלוקת between רב שמעון בן אלעזר and the חכמים? In a case where a person lost something in a public place. He doesn't know which people are there. So then רב שמעון בן אלעזר holds that the person is מייאש, while the רבנן hold that the person is not מייאש. He hopes it'll be found and returned to him. The one that will find it will announce it, and he will return to him. But רב שמעון בן אלעזר says, no, since it's in a public place, the person gives up hope. And that's where we had a שאלה according to רב שמעון בן אלעזר, what would be the דין if the majority of the people would be יידן. But here it's a different case. Since the one that lost it knows exactly who was there with him, and nevertheless they haven't returned it to him even after they heard that he lost it, so here he thinks in his mind, I know who was here with me, so definitely that one of these people found it. And still they didn't give it back to me, that shows that whoever found it doesn't intend to give it back, and therefore he is מייאש. And that is the reason why in a case like this, even the רבנן would admit that the one that found it is allowed to keep it. And the גמרא continues, ואזדא רב נחמן לטעמיה, and רב נחמן goes according to his own reasoning, to his own דין. דאמר רב נחמן, because רב נחמן said, ראה סלע שנפלה משנים, if a person sees a coin that fell down from one of two people, חייב להחזיר, you must return it. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? ההוא דנפל מיניה לא מייאש, the one that fell from is not מייאש, will not give up hope. מימר אמר, he will say, מיכדי, let me see, איניש אחרינא לא הוה בהדי, there was no other person with me, אלא האי, only this one. נקיטנא ליה, I will take him, ואמינא ליה, and I will tell him, את הוא דשקלתיה, you are the one that took it. And as רש"י holds, it means he will make him swear. He will make him swear a שבועת היסת. He feels in his mind that he is still able to get it back. He's going to tell him, you definitely took it. He's going to have a טענת ודאי, he's going to have a definite complaint against him saying that he definitely took it, and he'll make him swear and he'll get it back. So therefore he doesn't give up hope. And as רש"י adds, even if later on he will give up hope, but still by the time the person found it, the original owner did not give up hope yet, because he still hoped that later on he would get it back from the other fellow that was walking with him. And since the one that found it found it before he gave up hope, it is יאוש שלא מדעת. It is יאוש that was done after the person found it. And we said before the הלכה is like אביי that יאוש שלא מדעת is not called יאוש, and therefore you have to return it. But that is only if you saw it fall from one of two people. But if בשלושה, you saw it fall one of three people, אינו חייב להחזיר, you do not have to return it. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? ההוא דנפל מיניה, because the one that fell from, ודאי מייאש. מייאש, is definitely מייאש. מימר אמר, he says to himself, מכדי חד הוה בהדאי, seeing there was one person with me, אי נקיטנא להאי, if, so he feels that he's definitely going to get it back from him. He's going to make him swear because he's going to טענה a טענת ודאי. When he's going to say that the other person took it, he will be accusing him בוודאי, saying, "I am sure you took it." So then the other person will have to swear. So then he feels he will get it back. But if there are two people, as רש''י explains, his accusation will only be a שמא, a doubtful one. So the דין is that you cannot make a person swear when you only have a טענת שמא, so you can't make that person swear. So none of the two will have to swear, and each one will deny it. So he doesn't hope to get it back, and therefore he is מייאש. And that is the reason why the one that found it doesn't have to return it. But רש''י asks, when he saw that coin fall out of one of the three people, and he picked it up, לכאורה, it is יאוש שלא מדעת, because when he picked it up, the owner wasn't מייאש yet. So even though we assume that the minute he'll find out that he lost it that he will definitely be מייאש, because he knows it in his mind that since there are two more people with him, he'll never get it back, but why isn't it in the category of יאוש שלא מדעת, since when he found it, the owner wasn't מייאש yet? So רש''י says we assume that by the time he picked it up, the owner was מייאש already. As the גמרא said earlier, that רב יצחק said a person always feels around in his purse, in his pocket to see whether his money is there, so usually when you pick up the coin that he lost, he already knows that he lost it, and therefore it is not יאוש שלא מדעת, it is יאוש מדעת. And that's why the one that found it is allowed to keep it. So here we see that רב נחמן follows this logic, that when a person knows that by accusing other people he won't get it back anyway, he is definitely מייאש. So the same thing he said in the case of our גמרא here, that when the room was rented out to three אידן, and the one that lost it mentioned it to them already that he lost it, and nevertheless they didn't give it back, so we assume that he is מייאש, because he thinks that if they would have in mind to give it back, they would have given it back already, and since they didn't, they probably don't intend to give it back, so the owner is מייאש. And therefore the one that finds it later is allowed to keep it. And this has nothing to do with the מחלוקת between ר' שמעון בן אלעזר and the חכמים, whether we say that if you find something in a public place you're allowed to keep it or not, because this is a special case. This is a case where there is more reason to say that the person is מייאש, and the רבנן also would admit that the one that lost it was מייאש, and therefore the one that found it is allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבא, רבא said, האי דאמרת, בשלשה אינו חייב להחזיר, what we said that if you see the סלע fall down from one of three people, you do not have to return it, לא אמרן, this was not said, אלא, only, דלית בה שוה פרוטה לכל חד וחד, that there is not a פרוטה enough for each one, that the coin that you found is less than three פרוטות. There is not one פרוטה for each of them, therefore the דין is that if you find it you're allowed to keep it. אבל אית בה שוה פרוטה לכל חד וחד, if there is a פרוטה for everyone, there is more than three פרוטות in that coin that you found, חייב להחזיר, then you do have to return it, even if you saw it fall from one of three. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? אימר, we could say, שותפי נינהו, they are partners, ולא מיאשי, they're not מייאש. Maybe these three people are partners in this coin. And since they're partners, they're not מייאש. The whole reason we said why we are sure that the one that lost it is מייאש, because he feels that he'll never get it back from them. Since there are two more people with him, each one will deny it, and therefore he assumes he will never get it back, and that's why he is מייאש. But maybe all three are partners in this one coin, and that is the reason that the one that lost it is not מייאש, because he feels that his other partner found it probably, and he's only playing a practical joke on him. Really he found it, and he plans to return it. Since it's his partner, he is not חושד, he doesn't suspect his partner of wanting to steal. That is the nature of a person, that partners are not מקפיד on each other. A person does not suspect that his partner is stealing from him. The reason he's not returning it is because he's just playing a joke on him, and eventually he will give it back. And therefore it is not so sure that the person who lost it is מייאש, because maybe they are partners. So how could we say the דין would be that the one that lost it is definitely מייאש and therefore you do not have to return it? Maybe they are partners and he's not מייאש, so you would have to return it. So if there would not be a פרוטה for each one, then ממה נפשך you're allowed to keep it. If they are partners, so then there is not enough of a פרוטה for each of the people, so there's There is no השבת אבידה לכתחילה. The whole דין of השבת אבידה that you must return a lost object is only if the object is worth at least a פרוטה. Now since here we have three partners in this one סלע, and this coin does not have a פרוטה for each, so you do not have the מצוה of returning the object לכתחילה. If they are not partners, then also you don't have to return it. Then we definitely assume that the one that lost it is מייאש, because he feels that the other one of the other people found it and he'll never get it back. So ממה נפשך you're allowed to keep it. But if there is a פרוטה for each one of the three, so then if they are partners, we know that the person is not מייאש. And since there is a possibility that they are partners and there is a חיוב השבה, there is an obligation to return it because there is a פרוטה for each person, so then the דין is that you have to return it because we assume that the person was not מייאש. איכא דאמרי, but others say that רבא said it differently. אמר רבא, רבא said, אף על גב דלית ביה אלא שוה שתי פרוטות, that even if it only has the worth of two פרוטות, not a פרוטה for each one, but there are two פרוטות there, חייב להחזיר, you also have to return it. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? אימא, we could say, שותפי נינהו, maybe they are partners, וחד מינייהו אחולי אחיל למנתיה לגבי חבריה, and one of them gave up his share to his friend. So now the two פרוטות only belong to two people, so there is a חיוב השבה. There is a חיוב of returning it even if there are two פרוטות and there are three people here, because one person gave up his share to his partner. So now we have only two people owning this coin, and since it has two פרוטות, there is a פרוטה for each one, and therefore there is a חיוב השבה. And therefore we cannot say the ממה נפשך, that if they are not partners, then you don't have to return it because there is no חיוב השבה. But here we can't say that. Maybe two of them are partners now in this coin and the third one gave up his share. So now you have a פרוטה for each, and there is a חיוב השבה. So since there is a חיוב השבה, and on the other hand, the one that lost it doesn't necessarily give up hope because maybe he is his partner and he feels that his partner is going to return it to him later, so he is not מייאש. And therefore the דין would be that you do have to return it even if there are only two פרוטות there. This is the way רש״י learns this גמרא, that the difference between one and two, if you see the סלע fall from two, the דין is that you do have to return it, and if you see it fall from three, you don't have to return it. Because in the case of two, it is a טענת ודאי. When he's going to suspect that he took it, he will be suspecting בודאי, he will be claiming for sure that he took it, and therefore he would make him swear. But in the case where it fell out of one of three, the one that lost it knows that he won't be able to make him swear, because his טענה will only be a טענת שמא. When he's going to suspect either of them that they took it, it'll only be שמא, because maybe the other one took it. So he won't make him swear because the דין is you can't make a person swear שבועת היסת for a טענת שמא, and therefore he is מייאש. And רש״י adds that this דין that we said that by two you have to return it, that's even if לפועל later on you heard that he was מייאש, still you would have to return it. Since לכתחילה he's not מייאש, so even if later he is מייאש, it is יאוש שלא מדעת, because when the one that found it, at that time the one that lost it wasn't מייאש yet. As we said that in the case of two, he hopes he'll get it back through making him swear. So even if later he is מייאש, it is יאוש שלא מדעת, and the הלכה is like אביי that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש. But תוספות says that the reason why in the case of two he is not מייאש is not because he feels he'll be able to make him swear, but תוספות says it's speaking in a case where after he lost this, they were both looking for it. So while they were looking for it, the one that lost it feels that probably at that time his friend who was helping him look for it found it, and he doesn't want to return it. So he feels, later on when I'm going to come and I'm going to embarrass him in public, he is definitely going to return it. And that's why he is not מייאש in the case of two. In the case of three, since each one is going to be able to deny it, so he feels that even if he later on is going to embarrass him in public, still he won't admit. Therefore he is מייאש right away. But in the case of two, since there's only one other person with him, and the other person helped him search for it, so he's definitely sure that the other person found it, so he hopes, later on when I'll get a chance, I'll get it out of him, and therefore he is not מייאש. And תוספות explain why they don't learn like רש״י. First of all, why in the case of two is it considered a טענת ודאי? When he is going to suspect his friend that he took it, still it is not a ודאי, he's not sure he took it. And רש״י gives the reason because he'll be able to make him swear because it'll be a טענת ודאי, while in the case of three it'll be a טענת שמא. But תוספות says this is not considered a טענת ודאי. But nevertheless תוספות says maybe we could answer that since there was

no one else with him, it is like a טענת ודאי, it is as if he is saying for sure that he took it. But nevertheless תוספות says there is another reason why we can't say that this whole thing is based on this whole idea of being able to make him swear or not being able to make him swear, because who said this? בר קפרא. In the time of בר קפרא, there was no תקנה yet of a שבועת היסת. And therefore we cannot say that his whole reasoning is based on this דין that he will be able to make him swear a שבועת היסת. And that is the reason תוספות says that it's not based on a שבועה, it is based on the logic of a person. Since in the case of two, he feels that he will eventually get it out of him somehow, he will embarrass him in public and he'll force him to give it to him, he will get it, so he's not מייאש. In the case of three, since it is harder to get it out of them because each one will be able to deny it deny it much easier, because there is another one that's there and he'll be able to say the other one took it, and therefore, the person is מייאש מעיקרא. And תוספות also says that what רש״י connects this דין to ייאוש שלא מדעת, by saying that in the case of two, even if later on the person was מייאש, you still have to return it, because by the time he lost it, he wasn't מייאש yet. So later on when he is מייאש, it is ייאוש שלא מדעת, and the הלכה is that ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש, and therefore you've to return it, so תוספות says, it doesn't fit here because here we see later in the גמרא that רבא explains these words of רב נחמן, that this is only in the case where there was no שוה פרוטה for each, but if there was, the דין would be differently. So since רבא explains this דין of רב נחמן, obviously רבא holds like this דין, and רבא holds that ייאוש שלא מדעת הוי ייאוש. So how can we say that this is connected to the דין of ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש? And תוספות adds that it's hard to say that רבא changed his mind after he heard what אביי said, and after we פסקנ'ד the דין that ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש, רבא changed his mind and admitted that ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש. That is a דוחק, and therefore we have to assume that רבא still holds his opinion that ייאוש שלא מדעת הוי ייאוש, so we cannot bring in the דין of ייאוש שלא מדעת into this case. Then the גמרא continues,

ואמר רבא, also did רבא say, ראה סלע שנפלה, if a person sees someone drop a סלע, נטלה לפני ייאוש על מנת לגזלה, if a person would pick it up before the owner is מייאש intending to steal it, עובר בכולן, he's עובר on all of the following לאוין, all of the following עבירות. He's עובר משום לא תגזול, for the עבירה of stealing, because he picked it up in order to steal it, so he stole it, so he's עובר on לא תגזול. ומשום השב תשיבם, since now he took it to steal, not to return it, so he's עובר on the עבירה of השב תשיבם, there is a דין that you must return a lost object, and since he intended not to return it, so he's עובר on this עבירה of השב תשיבם. ומשום לא תוכל להתעלם, and also for the עבירה that you're not allowed to close your eyes, look around, make yourself as if you don't see it. Since you picked up the אבידה in order not to return it, so you did not plan to return a lost object, so you're עובר on the עבירה of not returning a lost object. And he adds even more, ואף על גב דאחזרה לאחר ייאוש, even if you did return it after the person was מייאש, מתנה הוא דיהיב ליה, you're only giving him a present, ואיסורא דעבד עבד, and the עבירה that you did, you did, you can't fix the עבירה that you did. But that is only if when you took it you intended to steal it. But if נטלה לפני ייאוש על מנת להחזירה, you took it before the owner was מייאש intending to return it, ולאחר ייאוש נתכוון לגזלה, and after the owner was מייאש, that's when you decided to steal it, עובר, you're only עובר משום השב תשיבם, you're only עובר on the עבירה of the חיוב of returning a lost object. You're not עובר on the עבירה of לא תגזול, of stealing, because the דין of גזילה is only if you take it in a form of stealing, but here is a case that you took it בהיתר, when you picked it up you intended to give it back, so your taking it was בהיתר, so you didn't take it in the form of גזילה, and when you decided later to keep it, that is not considered the לאו of גזילה. You're also not עובר on לא תוכל להתעלם, that is only a לאו if you do not pick up an object to return it, but when you picked up the object in order to return it, you're not עובר on לא תוכל להתעלם. The only עבירה you're doing is, the תורה says you have to return a lost object, and you want to steal it, not to return it, so you're עובר on the עבירה of the חיוב of returning a lost object. המתין לה עד שנתיאשו הבעלים ונטלה, if what happened was he didn't pick it up before the owner was מייאש, he saw the person drop it, he didn't pick it up, he waited for the owner to be מייאש, and afterwards ונטלה he took it, אינו עובר אלא משום לא תוכל להתעלם בלבד, he's only עובר on the עבירה of לא תוכל להתעלם בלבד. He's not עובר on גזילה, because when he picked it up, it already was לאחר יאוש, after the owner was מיאש, so you didn't steal it. You're not עובר on the עבירה of השב תשיבם that you have to return it, because when you picked it up it was after יאוש, so you are not obligated to return it. But the עבירה you are עובר is, there's a דין that when you see someone lose an object, you're not allowed to look away, you must pick it up and return it. Since you looked away, you didn't pick it up, so you're עובר on the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם. And

תוספות explains that concerning the first case, where the person picked it up before יאוש intending to steal it, where you're עובר on all עבירות, on לא תגזול, and on השב תשיבם, and on לא תוכל להתעלם, and the גמרא said that even if you return it after יאוש, it's only a present that you're giving him, but the עבירה you did you did, so תוספות explains that this is only concerning the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם that we say that you do not fix up. The לאו of לא תגזול, the לאו of stealing you do fix up, because the דין by stealing is that there is an עשה of השבת הגזילה, that if you stole something, you must return it, and when you return it, you are מנתק the לאו, you fix up the לאו. So therefore, concerning the לאו of גזילה by returning, you definitely fix up. Even concerning the דין of השב תשיבם, of returning a lost object, you do fix up because after all you returned it, so since you returned it, now you are not עובר anymore on השב תשיבם. The only עבירה that stays, that you cannot fix up even if you return it after יאוש, is on לא תוכל להתעלם. Since when you picked it up you intended to steal it, so you didn't pick it up in order to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה, so you were עובר on the לאו of לא תוכל להתעלם, and that לאו could never be fixed up. But the דין of the איסור of לא תגזול and the מצוה of השב תשיבם, that you do fix up by returning it later. Also תוספות asks, in the second case, where you picked it up intending to return it, and after יאוש you decided to keep it, so then תוספות, גמרא says you're only עובר on השב תשיבם, but you're not עובר as we said before on לא תגזול, because you didn't actually take it in a form of stealing it, and you are not עובר on לא תוכל להתעלם, because when you picked it up, you picked it up in order to fulfill the מצוה of השבת אבידה, so you didn't look away from the lost object. The only thing you're עובר is on השב תשיבם because there is a דין that you must return it, and you intend to keep it, so you're עובר on this מצוה of returning a lost object. So

תוספות asks, why shouldn't you also be עובר on לא תגזול? Don't we find a דין that if a person does not pay his worker, he holds back the salary of his worker, he's also עובר on לא תגזול, and there too he did not take anything away from him, so why are we עובר on לא תגזול? And since we're עובר on לא תגזול there, we should be עובר on לא תגזול here, even though it came to him בהיתר. And תוספות answers, that in the case of holding back the salary of the worker, when you intend not to pay him, he wasn't מיאש yet, and therefore you are עובר on the לאו of לא תגזול. But here, he picked it up before יאוש, and then he intended to return it. When did he decide to steal it? After יאוש. After יאוש it's not גזילה anymore, that's why you're not עובר on the לאו of לא תגזול, and the only thing you're עובר is on the מצוה of השב תשיבם. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, האי מאן דחזי דנפל זוזי מחבריה בחלתא, if someone sees a coin fall off out of his friend and falls amongst the sand, ואשכחין he found it, ושקלי and he took it, לא מיחייב לאהדורי ליה, he doesn't have to return to him. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? ההוא דנפל מיניה מיאש הוא, because the one that fell from is מיאש. Since money has no סימן, so he is definitely מיאש. And he adds even more, אף על גב דחזייה דאייתי ארבלא, even if you see him bring a sieve, דקא מרבל and he is sifting, so here we see that he's not מיאש because he's looking for it, obviously he hopes to find it, so we say no, he is definitely מיאש. The reason he is looking for it is, מימר אמר, he's saying to himself, כי היכי דנפל מינאי דידי, just like a coin fell from me, הכא נמי נפל מאינש אחרינא, maybe a coin fell from somebody else, ומשכחנא מידי, and I will find something. He doesn't intend to find his own coin, he says since here people could lose things, so maybe I'll find something else. So that's why he sifts, he looks for something, but it doesn't mean that he hopes that he will find his coin, and therefore, if anybody else finds it, he's allowed to keep it.

Continuing with the משנה, משנה says, מצא בחנות, if you find an object in a store, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to the person who found it. And רש״י explains that we're talking here about an object that has no סימן, and therefore, the one that lost it is definitely מיאש. He knows that a lot of people enter the store, so he doesn't know who will find it. Assuming that he will never get it back, he is מיאש, and therefore, the person who found it is able to keep it. However, the רא״ש learns that we're talking here also in a case That it does have a סימן, and nevertheless we assume that he was מיאש. And the reason is because he thinks in his mind that probably the storekeeper found it, cuz he's the one that's always there. He doesn't think that the people who will enter the store will find it. Probably the first one that will find it will be the storekeeper. Since in most cases he probably came back to the store to look for it, and nevertheless the storekeeper didn't give it back to him, so now he says to himself, "Probably the storekeeper intends to steal it, intends not to give it back," so he is מיאש. It's a similar argument as the גמרא said before, that when a person shows that he lost it in front of the other person that he thinks probably found it, and nevertheless the other person doesn't return it to him, he is מיאש. So too here, if he comes back to the store and says he lost it, and nevertheless the storekeeper doesn't give it back to him, he in his mind is מיאש because he thinks that the storekeeper probably found it and doesn't intend to give it back, and therefore he is מיאש even if it has a סימן. Then the משנה continues: בין התיבה ולחנווני, if you find it between the box and the storekeeper, then של חנווני, it belongs to the storekeeper, because we assume it fell down probably from the storekeeper. לפני שולחני, if you find money in front of a money changer, then הרי אלו שלו, it belongs to him, to the one that found it. בין הכסא ולשולחני, if you find between the chair and this money changer, the שולחני, the chair that the chest, the box of the money was on, so if you find it in between that chair and the money changer himself, then the דין is הרי אלו של שולחני, you have to return it to the שולחני, to this money changer, because we assume it fell from him. הלוקח פירות מחבירו, if you buy fruit from your friend, או ששילח לו חבירו פירות, or if your friend sends you fruit, ומצא בהן מעות, and you find money in it, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, to the one that has it, the one that received the fruit. But אם היו צרורין, if it was tied up, נוטל ומכריז, then you must take it and announce. And the reason is because it has a סימן, like רש"י says, or the knot would be a סימן, or the amount that's tied together would be a סימן. But if it's not tied together, then there is no סימן, then the one that received the fruit, whether he bought it or received it as a present, is allowed to keep it. The גמרא says:

אמר ר' אלעזר, ר' אלעזר said, אפילו מונחין על גבי שולחן, that this דין that we said, that if you find it in front of the שולחני, if you find it in front of the money changer, then the דין is you're allowed to keep it. So he says, not only if you found it on the floor in front of the person, but even if you found it on his table, the דין is also that you're allowed to keep it. Then the גמרא asks: תנן, we learned in our משנה, לפני שולחני הרי אלו שלו. If you find it in front of the שולחני, it belongs to him, to the one that found it. And in front usually means on the floor in front of the שולחני. So from here we could be מדייק: הא על גבי שולחן, but if it was not in front of him on the floor, but it was on the table, דשולחני, it belongs to the שולחני. So how could ר' אלעזר say that even if it was on top of the table it belongs to the one that found it? From the משנה is משמע only if it was in front of the שולחני on the floor you're allowed to keep it, but if it was on the table it's משמע that you cannot keep it. So the גמרא says: אימא סיפא, let's look into the סיפא. In the סיפא it says: בין הכסא ולשולחני של שולחני, that if you find it in between that chair and the שולחני, it belongs to the שולחני. So here we could be מדייק just the opposite: הא על גבי שולחן, but if you find it on the table, שלו, it belongs to him, to the one that found it. Only if you find it between the chair and the שולחני, the דין is it belongs to the שולחני. But anything in front of that, which includes on the table, you're allowed to keep. So here we're מדייק just the opposite than we are מדייק in the רישא. אלא, therefore the גמרא says: מהא ליכא למשמע מינה. So therefore we see that from this משנה we can't have any ראיות, any proof to any side, because each part of the משנה we could be מדייק the opposite way, so we can't be מדייק anything here, so there is no contradiction to ר' אלעזר's statement. But then the

גמרא asks: Since from the משנה we cannot be מדייק, ור' אלעזר מנא ליה? So where does ר' אלעזר take his דין? How does ר' אלעזר know that even if you find it on top of the table you are allowed to keep it? אמר רבא, so רבא said, מתניתא קשיתיה, that the משנה was hard to him, that ר' אלעזר had a קשיא on the משנה, and that forced him to say what he said. What was שווער in the משנה? מאי איריא, what is the reason, why does the משנה pick, דתני, that he learned, בין הכסא לשולחני של שולחני, that if you find it between the chair and the שולחני it belongs to the שולחני, ליתני, let it say, על גבי שולחן, if found on the table. If the דין would be that if you find it on the table then it belongs to the שולחני, so it It should start off by saying, if you find it on the table it belongs to the שולחני, and we would know that if you find it on the table it belongs to the שולחני, certainly if you find it in between the chair and the שולחני, which is closer to the שולחני, it certainly belongs to the שולחני. אי נמי, or the משנה could have said different. It should have started off by the words מצא בשולחנות. The משנה starts off by saying in the case of the שולחני it says לפני שולחני הרי אלו שלו. If you find it in front of the שולחני, it belongs to him, to the one that found it. Why doesn't it say מצא בשולחנות, if you find by the שולחנות in the area of the שולחנים? כי דקתני רישא, just like in the רישא, in the case of the store, it says מצא בחנות שלו, if you find it in the store, you're allowed to keep it, so it should have said, if you find it in the שולחנות you're allowed to keep it. Why does the משנה start off by saying if you find it לפני שולחני, in front of the שולחני? He starts off right away by saying in front of the שולחני it belongs to the שולחני. So that is to tell us, אלא שמע מינה, from here we could learn out, דאפילו מונחים על גבי שולחן, even if they're laying on top of the table, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to him, they belong to the person who found them. In other words, that is the reason why the משנה changed its expression, to tell us that there is something special the משנה wants to tell us. And what is that? The משנה wants to tell us that if you find it on top of the שולחן, it also belongs to the one that found it. Concerning the גמרא we learned before that if you find money on the הר הבית, the money is חולין, so תוספות asks a קושיא: How could money be on הר הבית? A person, we know, says the גמרא in ברכות, is not allowed to enter the הר הבית with money that's tied in his wallet, etc. So since a person is not allowed to walk on the הר הבית with money, the only money that could be in הר הבית could be the money from הקדש, the money that's brought into the לשכה. So then it should definitely be הקדש. How come we say the money is חולין? And תוספות answers, that this דין that you're not allowed to enter the הר הבית with money is only if the money is open. But if you carry the money hidden inside, then you're allowed to, because that's not an embarrassment. And therefore if you find money, we say it probably fell from one of the people that came to the הר הבית and it was hidden in the person's shirt or the person's pocket, etc., and therefore it is חולין. תוספות also asks a קושיא: When the גמרא said before that if you find money in ירושלים, so then if you find it during יום טוב it is מעשר, because we do not assume that the money was there from before יום טוב because they used to sweep the streets of ירושלים every day, so תוספות asks a קושיא, but the reason they used to sweep these streets was for a different reason, it was because of שרצים. Since a lot of people had טהרות there, they wanted to make sure there are no שרצים to make it טמא, therefore they used to sweep. And we know that when you sweep for one reason, it doesn't mean that you're going to get it clean from other things. So here, since you sweep for שרצים, it doesn't mean that you're going to get the streets clean from the money. So therefore, why do we say that definitely if there would have been money there, the one that swept the floor would have found it? He's sweeping for a different reason, then probably he doesn't find the money. As תוספות proves from a different גמרא. And תוספות answers, that in this case, since they're looking for a שרץ, and the דין of a שרץ is that even if it's a שרץ the size of an עדשה, it is also מטמא. In other words, they're looking for something very small. So when you look for something that small, then you definitely will find the money there. And therefore, since they sweep the floors of ירושלים every day, we assume that if there would have been money there, the one that swept it would have found it. And therefore, if you do find money, it probably is מעשר.