Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא מציעא דף כ״ז, but we will start two lines from the bottom of the עמוד on דף כ״ו עמוד ב׳. The גמרא quotes the משנה. It said in the משנה: הלוקח פירות מחבירו וכולי. If someone buys פירות, produce, from his friend, or his friend sent him פירות, and he found money in the פירות that he got, so the משנה says: הרי אלו שלו, he's able to keep it. So the גמרא explains: אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי ינאי, ריש לקיש said in the name of רבי ינאי: לא שנו, this was not taught, אלא בלוקח מן התגר, only if you buy the fruit from the merchant. Since the merchant himself bought it from many בעלי בתים, from many different people, and as רש״י says, this is something that has no סימן. And we don't know from which of the people it fell. Since the merchant that bought it mixed them all up, so we don't know from which בעל הבית it came from. So therefore, you're allowed to keep it because the בעל הבית himself is definitely מיאש knowing that that merchant he sold it to bought the fruit, other fruit from different merchants, too, so the finder will not know whom to return it to. And therefore, he is מיאש, and that is the reason why the one that bought it is able to keep it. אבל בלוקח מבעל הבית, but if you buy directly from a בעל הבית, so you know you buy it from a merchant and he himself bought it from many בעלי בתים. So we don't know from which בעל הבית this money came, therefore you do not have to return it, and you're allowed to keep it. But

תוספות asks a קשיא. According to this, why did the גמרא say that this דין was only taught if you buy it from a merchant? Why didn't the גמרא say that this דין is talking by the merchant himself? Since the reason why if you bought it from a merchant you do not have to return it, because since the merchant bought it from many people, so you don't know from which one it came from, why can't we say the same דין by the merchant himself? Since the merchant himself bought it from many people, so he doesn't know to which one to return it. So therefore, the owner, the one that lost it definitely is מיאש knowing that the merchant himself that bought from him also bought other fruit from other people, so the merchant will not know whom to return it. So he is מיאש, therefore the merchant is able to keep it. So why do we have to say that the משנה is talking in a case that a person bought it from the merchant, and you don't have to return it because the merchant himself bought it from many people? Why can't we say they're talking about the merchant himself? That if the merchant found it, he does not have to return it because he bought his fruit from many different people, and he doesn't know whom to return it to, and therefore he's allowed to keep it. And תוספות says that the reason the גמרא doesn't want to speak about the merchant himself is because there it's not a clear-cut דין. There is a case where if the merchant himself bought it, that he should have to return it. And that is, for instance, if he bought it and he didn't get a chance to mix the fruit yet. So he knows each package where he bought it from, so if he finds money in one of the packages, he would know from what whom this package came, and therefore he would have to return it. While in the case of a person that bought it from the merchant, by the time it comes to the customer who buys it from the merchant, it is already mixed up by the merchant. So then he doesn't know already which fruit came from which person, and therefore the buyer from the merchant does not have to return it. And that is the reason תוספות says the גמרא would rather pick the case of a person who bought it from the merchant, cuz then in all cases you're allowed to keep it, while if the גמרא would say that this is speaking about the merchant himself, it is not a clear-cut דין, not in all cases would be the דין that he would be able to keep it. Another תירץ תוספות gives is that even without this reason that the merchant probably mixed up the fruit, that is the reason why you're allowed to keep it, there is still a reason why you're allowed to keep it. The reason is because the person who found it, if he is a buyer from the merchant, doesn't know who lost it, the merchant or the בעל הבית? Even if the merchant bought it from one בעל הבית, still there is a ספק by the customer from the merchant whether it belongs to the merchant or belongs to the בעל הבית. And therefore, he does not have to return it, while the merchant himself knows from whom he bought it. And then תוספות goes on even more, that even if we're going to say that usually the money doesn't fall out any other time but at the time of threshing, so then we know for sure it fell from the בעל הבית, not from the merchant, so then the ספק that we just said that the customer doesn't know whether to return it to the merchant or to בעל הבית falls off, because he knows for sure it didn't fall from the merchant, it definitely fell from the בעל הבית, still תוספות says he would not have to return it, because he doesn't know from which בעל הבית the merchant bought it. While the merchant himself knows from which בעל הבית he bought it and he would have to return it. But then תוספות asks, according to this, even if the merchant found it, he should be able to keep it, because the בעל הבית knows that when he sells it to the merchant, the merchant is going to sell it to others, and If the buyer from the merchant will find it, he will not know whom to return it to because he does not know from who, which בעל הבית the תגר, the merchant bought it. So, therefore, why don't we say that the בעל הבית who sold it to the merchant is definitely מייאש, thinking that probably the merchant already sold it to the customer, and therefore he will never get it back? So, even if the merchant himself found it, he should be able to keep it because we assume that the בעל הבית was מייאש. And תוספות says that this is also not a clear-cut thing, because it's possible that the merchant should find it before there is even a chance that he should have sold it to others. And in a case like that, the owner, the one that lost it, is not מייאש. And therefore, the גמרא does not want to pick the example of the merchant himself, because it is not clear that in all cases he would be able to keep it. Therefore, the גמרא says that the case of the משנה, where you are definitely allowed to keep it, it is if you are a customer from the merchant. So then you're definitely allowed to keep it because you don't know from which בעל הבית the merchant bought it, and therefore you do not have to return it. And now we

will continue with the משנה. The משנה here refers to the פסוק that deals with the מצוה of השבת אבידה. And this is a פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ"ב, פסוק ג'. This פסוק comes after the first two פסוקים. פסוק א' starts with the words: לא תראה את שור אחיך או את שיו נדחים והתעלמת מהם השב תשיבם לאחיך. That if you see an ox of your brother, or a sheep of your brother, and you find them, do not turn away from it, you must return it to your brother. Then the פסוק ב' continues: ואם לא קרוב אחיך אליך ולא ידעתו, if your brother is not close to you, you do not know him, ואספתו אל תוך ביתך, take it into your house, והיה עמך, it should be with you, עד דרוש אחיך אותו, till your brother will look for it, search for it, והשבותו לו, and then you will return it to him. Then comes פסוק ג', and it says like this: וכן תעשה לחמורו, the same you should do with his donkey, וכן תעשה לשמלתו, the same you should do with his garment, וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה, so you should do with any object that your brother will lose, that will be lost from him and you will find, לא תוכל להתעלם, you are not allowed to turn away, close your eyes from it, make yourself as if you do not see it. In other words, if you see anything that's lost from your brother, from another איד, you must take it and return it. If you do not know who it belongs to, hold it till you will find the person it belongs to and you will return it to him. So the

משנה asks, why did the פסוק have to specify that you should do the same to the שמלה, to the garment of your brother? And the משנה starts like this: אף השמלה היתה בכלל כל אלו. The garment was also included in all these, since the פסוק says: וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך, so you should do to anything that your brother loses, so we understand any garment or any object he loses. So why did the פסוק have to specify that so you should do to his garment? Isn't garment included in כל אבדת אחיך? And the גמרא will also explain why we need the other words: חמורו and שמלתו, etc. But the משנה is dealing with the word שמלה. That שמלה was also included in the פסוק of כל אבדת אחיך. ולמה יצאת? Why did it go out? Why was it mentioned separately in addition to the general word of כל אבדת אחיך? להקיש אליה, to compare to it. This is supposed to teach you a דין, that we're supposed to compare all אבידות to שמלה. לומר לך, to tell you: מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנים ויש לה תובעים, just like a garment is something that definitely has סימנים, most garments have סימנים, it is also something that has somebody who will claim it, who will look for it. Since a garment was made by a person, so it has an owner, it has somebody that owns it. It is not like a natural thing that not necessarily belongs to anybody. But this is something that was made by somebody, so this belongs to somebody. So the תורה tells us that by mentioning שמלה, you should learn out that only objects which are similar to a שמלה you must return. Just like a שמלה has סימנים, and it belongs to somebody, it has somebody that will claim it, אף כל דבר שיש בו סימנים ויש לו תובעים חייב להכריז. So too, anything which has a סימן and anything which has an owner, has somebody who will claim it, you have to announce it, you have to return it. But if it doesn't have סימנים, or if it doesn't have anybody who will claim it, then you do not have to return it. In other words, if it's something that the owner was מייאש, so it doesn't have an owner anymore, so then you are allowed to keep it. And the גמרא explains it: מאי בכלל כל אלו? What did the משנה mean when it said that שמלה was included in all these? אמר רבא, so רבא said it meant: בכלל כל אבדת אחיך. cluded in the words כל אבדת אחיך, all the objects that your brother lost, and the משנה is trying to explain why the פסוק has to mention separately the word שמלה. Then the גמרא continues.

אמר רבא, רבא said, למה לי דכתב רחמנא, why did the תורה have to write שור, חמור, שה ושמלה? When the תורה speaks about the מצוה of השבת אבידה that if you find an object belonging to another ייד you must return it, so the תורה mentions a few examples. It mentions שור. It starts off by saying לא תראה את שור אחיך, do not see the ox of your brother lost, and not return it, in other words, you must return his ox. The תורה also mentions שיו, his sheep. The תורה also mentions that so you should do to his donkey, so you should do to his garment, and then the תורה says and so you should do to anything else that he lost. So why did the תורה have to specify and give an example of an ox, a donkey, a sheep, and a garment? And he says, צריכא, we need them all. דאי כתב רחמנא שמלה, if the תורה would just write the example of a garment, הוה אמינא, I would think, הני מילי בעדים דגופה וסימנים דגופה, that you only return the object, the garment, if there are witnesses that recognize the garment itself, or if there are סימנים in the garment itself. אבל, but חמור בעדים דאוכף וסימנים דאוכף, אימא לא נהדרי ליה. But if you have a donkey, and the witnesses recognize the saddle of the donkey, or there are סימנים in the saddle of the donkey, I would think that you do not return the donkey based on the witnesses of the saddle or the סימנים of the saddle. כתב רחמנא חמור, therefore the תורה also mentions חמור, an extra word, giving an example of a donkey to teach us, דאפילו חמור בסימני אוכף, that even if the חמור, you do not recognize the חמור itself, but there are סימנים on the saddle of the חמור, you also return the חמור. שור ושה דכתב רחמנא למה לי? So now we know why the תורה has to write שמלה, and the תורה has to write חמור. But why does the תורה have to write the example of an ox and the example of a sheep? So he says,

שור, the reason the תורה also gives an example of an ox, to teach us דאפילו לגיזת זנבו, that even the shearing of the tail, that if there is hair in the tail and you shear, you cut off that hair, you must return that too. That when you return the ox, you must return everything that came along with it, including the hair that grew on its tail, even though it's very little, nevertheless you must return it. And שה, the reason the תורה gives another example of שה, which is also an extra word, לגיזותיה, to tell you that the shearing of the sheep must be returned, too. That the wool that you took off the sheep must be returned when you return the sheep. But then the גמרא asks, וליכתוב רחמנא שור, why doesn't the תורה just write שור? We would know from there דאפילו לגיזת זנבו, that even the shearing of its tail must be returned, so I would know myself וכל שכן לגיזותיה, certainly that if you have the wool from the sheep you must certainly return. If you must return the hair of the tail, which is so little, you certainly must return the wool of the sheep. So why does the תורה have to tell us that this, too, must be returned by adding the extra word שה? אלא אמר רבא, so therefore רבא said now, חמור דבור לרבי יהודה, ושה דאבידה לדברי הכל קשיא. For the truth is, there is no answer to this קשיא. But while רבא was saying that there is no answer why the תורה has to write the word שה, he already mentions another word, that the word חמור that it says by the דין of בור according to רבי יהודה is also an extra word. Concerning the דין of בור, it's one of the אבות נזיקין, one of the kinds of damages that a person would have to pay for. If a person digs a hole, the תורה says, ונפל שמה שור או חמור, if an ox or a donkey fall in and are damaged, you must pay for them. And the גמרא says that we learn out from these two words, ונפל שמה שור או חמור, if an ox or a donkey would fall in, so why does the תורה mention these two examples? To teach us two דינים: שור ולא אדם, and not a person. If a person would fall in, the one that made the hole would be פטור. חמור ולא כלים. And the word donkey teaches us only if a donkey falls in and not כלים. If vessels fall in and are broken, then the owner of the בור, of the pit, does not have to pay for it. רבי יהודה holds that even if כלים fall in, you do have to pay. So according to רבי יהודה, why does the תורה have to mention חמור, since there is nothing that we learn out from the word חמור? And that's what the גמרא says here, that the word חמור that's written in the תורה in connection to the דין of בור, according to רבי יהודה, is a קשיא. We have no answer why the תורה writes that word. And the word שה that the תורה writes concerning אבידה אבידה, that is a קושיא אליבא דכולי עלמא. That is a קושיא according to everybody, we don't have an answer why the תורה has to write the word שה. But then the גמרא asks, ואימא, let me say, לגללים הוא דאתא, that this extra word comes to teach us that the manure from the sheep also has to be returned. So the גמרא says, this couldn't be, because גללים אפקורי מפקר להו. It is so little, it is worth so little that the owner definitely is מפקיר, gives up his ownership over it, so we cannot say that the תורה tells us that you must return that too. But then the גמרא says, ודילמא לסימנים הוא דאתא? Maybe the reason the תורה writes this extra word is to teach us the דין of סימנים? To teach us that if you have a סימן, you must return it with the סימן, because דאיבעיא לן, because later on in the גמרא, the גמרא has a question whether סימנים דאורייתא or דרבנן, whether this דין that we know that if a person gives a סימן on an object, you must return it to him, is this a דין מדאורייתא, is this a דין from the תורה, or it is only a דין מדרבנן? מדאורייתא, you would not have to return an object just by סימנים. The only way you'd have to return an object is if the person would bring witnesses that recognize that this object is his. The רבנן are the ones that said that if he gives סימנים, you should return it. So since we have a ספק, we do not know whether סימנים is דאורייתא or דרבנן, so maybe כתב רחמנא שה, that's why the תורה wrote this extra word שה, to teach us דאפילו בסימנים מהדרינן, that even with סימנים you do return, and סימנים דאורייתא, and that would prove that סימנים are דאורייתא. Since we have an extra word that must come to teach us a new דין concerning the הלכה of השבת אבידה, of when you return an object, so why not say that it comes to teach that you should return it with סימנים? So the גמרא says, no, אמרי, I will tell you, it couldn't be that way. מדקתני ליה לתנא לסימנים גבי שמלה, since the תנא of our משנה mentions the דין of סימנים in connection to the word שמלה, מדקתני, because in the משנה it said, מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש בה סימנים ויש לה תובעים, חייב להכריז, that just like שמלה has סימנים and שמלה has תובעים, has a person that would ask for it, it belongs to somebody, you must announce it, אף כל דבר שיש בה סימנים ויש לה תובעים, חייב להכריז, so too we learn out from the word שמלה that anything that has סימנים and anything that has an owner, that's what you must announce, but if it doesn't have סימנים and doesn't have an owner, you don't have to announce. So here we see that the משנה mentions סימנים in connection to שמלה. So obviously, סימנים is not learned out from the word שה. שמע מינה, that teaches us דשה לאו לסימנים הוא דאתא, that the word שה doesn't come to teach us סימנים. שה must teach us something else. And as רש''י explains that the גמרא means to say that from the תנא of the משנה we see that the תנא knew that סימנים is not learned out from שה, since he mentions סימנים in connection to שמלה. So סימנים is not learned out from שה, it is in connection to שמלה. Now what does he do with שה? So obviously the תנא knew what the word שה comes to teach us, because if the תנא also wouldn't know what the word שה comes to teach us, why didn't he learn that סימנים are learned out from שה? So obviously the תנא knew that there is some לימוד from שה. The word שמלה is connected to סימנים. We are the ones that don't know what the word שה comes to teach us, but one thing is sure, that it does not come to teach us סימנים, because we see the תנא of the משנה mentions סימנים in connection to שמלה. תוספות makes a few important points here. When the גמרא mentioned at the beginning that the reason why the פסוק writes חמור to teach us that you also return the חמור if there are עדים for the saddle or there are סימנים on the saddle, so תוספות says that the reason we mention עדים of the saddle, that is only if we hold סימנים are not דאורייתא, then we say that the פסוק comes to teach us that you have עדים on the saddle, but if you hold סימנים are דאורייתא, you wouldn't need עדים, the סימנים of the saddle would be enough too. That's what the פסוק would mean, because if סימנים are דאורייתא, the פסוק could refer to the סימנים too. Then another thing that תוספות says, when the גמרא said the reason it says שור is to teach us that even גיזת זנבו, that even the shearing of the tail, the hair that grows on the tail of the שור must be returned, so תוספות asks, why do we need a פסוק for that? ממה נפשך, does it have a שוה פרוטה? Is the hair enough that it's worth a שוה פרוטה, then certainly you have to return it. Anything that belongs to your friend, you must return, why should you think that you shouldn't have to return this? On the other hand, if it doesn't have a שוה פרוטה, then you really don't have to return it. The גמרא later on says that anything that's less than a שוה פרוטה, you do not have to return. So how can we say that the פסוק comes to teach us that you do have to return it? So what does the פסוק mean? And תוספות answers, the פסוק comes to tell us that you must cut off that hair at the time

when it is proper for it to be cut off, even if it doesn't have a שוה פרוטה at the time when you're cutting it off, still the דין is that if this is what is supposed to be done to this animal, you must do it. Then תוספות has another קשיא. The גמרא asks, why does the תורה have to write the word שה? And in the end of the גמרא, we do not have an answer to that question. So תוספות asks, why can't we say that מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא? The whole קשיא is based that you cannot say that the תורה writes the word שה to teach us that the shearing, the wool, must be returned, because that could be learned out from a קל וחומר, that מה דהא by שור, the תורה tells us that the hair that grows on its tail must be returned, certainly the shearing of the sheep must be returned. So since it is a קל וחומר, the תורה doesn't have to tell us that. And that is the reason the גמרא asks how we cannot say that שה comes to teach us the דין that you must return the wool. So we're back with the question, what does the תורה teach us with the word שה? And at the מסקנא, we have no answer. But we have a rule that sometimes, something that we learn out from a קל וחומר, nevertheless, the תורה teaches us. That is called מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר, something that learn comes from a קל וחומר, טרח וכתב לה קרא. The תורה is מטריח itself, the תורה bothers itself, so to speak, and nevertheless writes it. So here too, why can we not say that even though we could learn it out from a קל וחומר, nevertheless, the תורה writes it, and tells us the דין outright, that you do have to return the wool that is taken from the שה? And that is the reason the תורה writes the word שה. And תוספות answers that after we learn out from the word שור that the hair that grows on the tail of the שור you must return, so now the shearing of the sheep is already included in כל אבידת אחיך, in the general דין that you must return any object. If the תורה would not tell us that by a שור you must return the hair that was cut off from the tail, then we would think that this is לכתחילה not included in the דין of השבת אבידה. After the תורה tells us already the דין by שור, that the hair that grows on the tail must be returned, so now we know that even the shearing is also included in the דין of השבת אבידה. So now, since the תורה gives a general דין, כל אבידת אחיך, that anything that is lost you must return, automatically the wool of the sheep is already included. So then it wouldn't be a case of something that is learned out from a קל וחומר, the תורה writes it. Because that's only in the case where the תורה does not write the דין otherwise, it is only a קל וחומר that we know. So we say that even though we would know it ourselves, the תורה nevertheless wants to write it. But here the case is not that we only would learn it out from a קל וחומר, the תורה actually writes it. Since the תורה on one hand tells us that the hair from the שור is to be returned, so we know that this is included in השבת אבידה. And the תורה writes that anything that's an אבידה must be returned, so it's as if the תורה tells us already that the wool must be returned. So here we cannot say that this is the reason why the תורה writes the word שה. And therefore, the גמרא remains in a מסקנא that we do not know why the תורה writes the word שה. Now we'll continue with the גמרא.

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אשר תאבד, the פסוק says that this דין applies to any object אשר תאבד that will be lost. So what does that word come to teach us? פרט, to exclude לאבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה, an אבידה that doesn't have the worth of a פרוטה, that if you find an object which is worth less than a פרוטה, you do not have to return it. רבי יהודה אומר, and רבי יהודה says that we learn out this דין from another word. The פסוק says that anything that will be lost to your friend, ומצאתה, and you will find it, so this comes to teach us פרט, to exclude לאבידה שאין בה שוה פרוטה, that if it's an אבידה that doesn't have a פרוטה, you do not have to return it. Since it says you will find it, there will be something that will be found, but if it has no פרוטה, it is not something, it is not worth anything, and therefore you do not have to return it. And the גמרא asks: מאי בינייהו? What is the difference? What is the difference whether we learn out this דין, that if it has no שוה פרוטה you don't have to return it, whether we learn it out from the word אשר תאבד, that if you will lose it has to be a substantial amount that was lost, or we learn it out from the word ומצאתה, that it has to be a substantial amount that you find? The דין is the same. אמר אביי, so אביי said, משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו. The difference is only the משמעות, how we דרשן this דין. From which word is משמע this דין? So the truth is there is no נפקא מינה, no difference in הלכה whether we learn it out from אשר תאבד or from ומצאתה. The מחלוקת is only which of the two words is more משמע this דין. מר נפקא ליה מאשר תאבד, one only learns it out from אשר תאבד, he feels that this word has more meaning to show that if it's less than a פרוטה you don't have to return it, ומר, and one נפקא ליה מומצאתה, and one learns it out from the word ומצאתה. And then the גמרא asks: ולמאן דנפקא ליה מאשר תאבד... one that learns it out from the words אשר תאבד, האי ומצאתה מאי עביד ליה? What does he do with the word ומצאתה, since it's an extra word? The תורה says, so you should do to any object that your brother lost, and you will find it. If the תורה wouldn't write the word ומצאתה, we would know it, too. Because this whole פרשה is speaking about a person who finds an אבידה, that he must return it. So the question is, the one that uses the word ומצאתה to teach us that if it's less than a פרוטה you do not have to return it, so we know why the תורה writes ומצאתה. But according to the one that uses the אשר תאבד for that דין, what does he do with ומצאתה? And the גמרא answers, ההוא מבעי ליה לכדרבינא. He needs that to teach us the דין that רבינא taught. דאמר רבינא, רבינא said, ומצאתה, when the תורה says ומצאתה, that you found it, דאתא לידיה משמע. It means to tell us that it came to your hand. That even if the object came to your hand already, you must return it. Not only if you see an object lost, you must pick it up and return it, but also after it came to you, you have an obligation to return it. And as רש"י says, what does that mean to tell us? It means to tell us that this דין that we learn out from the פסוק of השבת אבידה, that only an object of a ייד must be returned, but if it's an object belongs to a גוי, you do not have to return, so we would think that only if you see an object of a גוי, you do not have to pick it up to return it, but if the object already came to you, you picked it up already, that even if it's of a גוי, you also must return it. That's why the פסוק says ומצאתה, that even if you found it already, it came to your hand, so all the דינים of השבת אבידה apply, including this דין that if it's a גוי's object, it does not have to be returned. Then the גמרא asks, ולמאן דנפקא ליה מומצאתה, the one that learns out the דין that if it's less than a שוה פרוטה you do not have to return it from the word ומצאתה, האי אשר תאבד מאי עביד ליה? What does he do with the words אשר תאבד? Because they are also extra words. When the תורה says, so you should do to any lost object of your brother, so we already would know that he lost it. Why does the תורה have to add that so you should do to every lost object of your brother that he lost, אשר תאבד? These words are extra. And the גמרא answers, מבעי ליה, we need it, לכדרבי יוחנן, for the דין that רבי יוחנן said. דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי, רבי יוחנן said in the name of רבי שמעון בן יוחי, מניין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת? How do we know that if it was an אבידה that was swept away by the river, that you're allowed to keep it? If you find an אבידה that was swept away by the river, you're allowed to keep it, he learns it out, שנאמר, because the תורה says, כן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה, that to anybody else, either. It's lost in such a way that it's lost from everybody. No one can get it at that point when it was swept away with the river. And here we know that if it was swept away from the river, then you do not have to return it. And this we learn out from the words אשר תאבד ממנו, that if it's lost only from him. And this answers the question: What does he do with the words אשר תאבד ממנו? He learns out this דין from these words. But then

the גמרא asks, ואידך, the other one, הא דרבינא מנא ליה? The one that uses the words ומצאתה, as we said before, to teach us that if it's less than a שוה פרוטה you do not have to return it, where does he know the דין of רבינא? רבינא, we mentioned before, said that even if the object came to your hand, you also do not have to return if it's a גוי's, and that we know from the word ומצאתה, that even if you found it already, you still do not have to return it if it's a גוי's. How does he know that דין, since he uses the word ומצאתה to teach us the דין of שוה פרוטה? And the גמרא says, נפקא ליה, he learns it out, מומצאתה, from the extra ו'. It could have said מצאתה, and then already we would have known that it has to be a שוה פרוטה, because if it's less than a שוה פרוטה, it's not a substantial thing that you found. Why does the תורה have to write ומצאתה with an extra ו'? So that comes to teach us another דין. The other דין, that even if you found it already, still all the דינים of השבת אבידה apply, meaning that if it was a גוי's, you do not have to return it. Then the גמרא asks, ואידך, הא דרבי יוחנן מנא ליה? The other one, the one that uses the words of אשר תאבד to teach us it has to be a שוה פרוטה, how does he know the דין of רבי יוחנן, that if it was swept away by the river, you do not have to return it? And רבי יוחנן learned it out from the words אשר תאבד ממנו, but he uses the words אשר תאבד ממנו to teach us it has to be a שוה פרוטה, how will he know the דין of רבי יוחנן? And the גמרא says, נפקא ליה ממנו, he learns it out from the word ממנו. The דין that it has to be a שוה פרוטה is learned out from the words אשר תאבד, and this extra דין, that if it's lost not only from him, you do not have to return it, that is learned out from the extra word ממנו. Now the גמרא asks אידך: So according to the other one, what will he do with the word ממנו? So he says ממנו לא משמע ליה. The word ממנו is not משמע to him as an extra word, this is not a word that could teach us any דין, and therefore it is not considered an extra word. And the גמרא continues: רבא אמר, but רבא says, this goes back to the question we asked before: What is the difference whether we learn out the דין of שוה פרוטה from the words אשר תאבד or from the words ומצאתה? And אביי answered, there is really no difference, it's just a מחלוקת which word is משמע this דין. But רבא says, "No, there is a difference in הלכה: פרוטה שהוזלה איכא בינייהו." A פרוטה that depreciated, that is the difference between them. מאן דאמר אשר תאבד איכא, the one that learns out from אשר תאבד that that teaches us it has to be שוה פרוטה, so since when it was lost it was worth a פרוטה, so then you would have to return it, even though when you found it it wasn't worth a פרוטה, but still you have to return it, because the main thing depends on אשר תאבד, in the time when you lost it. ומאן דאמר ומצאתה, the one that learns out the דין of פרוטה from the word ומצאתה, ליכא. Since when you found it it wasn't worth a פרוטה, so you would not have to return it, because now it is not worth a פרוטה. But then the גמרא asks, how can you say that? ולמאן דאמר אשר תאבד, according to the one that learns it out from אשר תאבד, still הא בעינן ומצאתה, still it has to be ומצאתה. He טאקע learns it out from the word אשר תאבד, but the פסוק nevertheless says ומצאתה, that you found it, so there has to be a פרוטה when you found it too. So how can you say that according to the מאן דאמר that learns it out from אשר תאבד, if it was not worth a פרוטה when you found it you still have to return it as long as it was worth a פרוטה when you lost it, but nevertheless the תורה does say ומצאתה that you have to find a substantial object, וליכא, and it's not there? So how can you say that this is the מחלוקת? אלא, so the גמרא says, we say the opposite: פרוטה שהוקרה איכא בינייהו. A פרוטה that appreciated is the מחלוקת. In other words, when you lost it it wasn't worth a פרוטה, but when you found it it was worth a פרוטה. מאן דאמר ומצאתה, the one that says we learn it out from ומצאתה, איכא, it's there. Since when you found it it was worth a פרוטה, you must return it. ומאן דאמר אשר תאבד, the one that learns it out from אשר תאבד, ליכא, it's not there, because when you lost it it wasn't worth a פרוטה. But the גמרא asks the same question as before: ולמאן דאמר ומצאתה, according to the one that learns it out from ומצאתה, הא בעינן אשר תאבד וליכא, don't we need it should be אשר תאבד, it should be a פרוטה when you lost it, and it's not there? Even though he learns it out from ומצאתה, but nevertheless the תורה does say אשר תאבד, that you only have to return an object that you lost, which means an object which has a substantial value at least of a פרוטה when you lost it too. So how can you say that according to the one that learns it out from ומצאתה, even if it wasn't worth a פרוטה when you lost it, still you have to return it? אלא, so the גמרא says: פרוטה שהוזלה וחזרה והוקרה איכא בינייהו. The מחלוקת is in a case where when you lost it it was worth a פרוטה, in between it depreciated and it's not worth a פרוטה, but by the time he found it, it was again worth a פרוטה. So this is the מחלוקת: מאן דאמר אשר תאבד איכא, the one that says that we learn it out from the words אשר תאבד, so there is, when you lost it it was worth a פרוטה, therefore you must return it. ומאן דאמר ומצאתה, the one that learns it out from the word ומצאתה, בעינן דאית בה שיעור מציאה משעת אבידה ועד שעת מציאה. He needs that you should have the שיעור of אבידה, which means a שוה פרוטה, from the time it was lost through the time when it was found, and since in between there was a time when it wasn't worth a פרוטה, therefore you would not have to return it, because he says that we learn it out ומצאתה that till the finding it has to be worth a פרוטה throughout the whole time, and therefore if in between it was not worth a פרוטה you do not have to return it. Then the גמרא continues: איבעיא להו, they asked a question, איבעיא is: סימנים דאורייתא או סימנים דרבנן? This דין that you have to return an object if someone gives you the סימנים, is this a דין מדאורייתא from the תורה, or is this a דין only מדרבנן? And the

גמרא says, מאי נפקא מינה? What difference does it make? Because whether it's דאורייתא or דרבנן, nevertheless you have to return it with סימנים! So the גמרא says the נפקא מינה would be לאהדורי גט אשה בסימנים, whether you return a גט of a woman with סימנים. If a שליח, an agent, brought a גט from the husband to give to the wife and he lost it before he gave it, and then they found it and he gives סימנים on the גט, are you able or allowed to return this גט to this agent with the סימנים he gives? אי אמרת סימנים דאורייתא, if you say סימנים is a דין of the תורה, מהדרינן, you would give back. ואי אמרת דרבנן, but if you say סימנים are only מדרבנן, כי עבוד רבנן תקנתא, when did the רבנן make this תקנה? בממונא, only by ממון, by money things, then the רבנן had a right to make this תקנה, because, as רש״י explains, הפקר בית The דין is that the רבנן have the authority over the money of a person, so the רבנן מצד הדין of the תורה have a right to say that money that belongs to a person should not belong to him anymore or any similar thing like that. So therefore, even if מדאורייתא you do not return it with סימנים, which means that מדאורייתא the object should remain in the hands of the one that found it, he is the owner. Nevertheless, the רבנן have a right to make a תקנה and say that the object that מדאורייתא belongs to the finder should be given back to the loser. But that's only in the case of ממון, אבל באיסורא, but in the case of איסור, things which are not connected to money, but connected to איסורים, to דינים, לא עבדו רבנן תקנתא, the חכמים did not make a תקנה. And therefore, in the case of a גט, since it is not ממון, there is no תקנה of the רבנן, and therefore, you would not return the גט to the שליח with סימנים. So the question is, are סימנים דאורייתא or דרבנן? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll try to answer your question. We learn in our משנה, אף שמלה היתה בכלל כל אלה, that שמלה, the word שמלה was included in the words וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך. ולמה יצתה? Why did it go out? Why did the תורה write it separately? להקיש אליה, to compare to it, ולומר לך, and to tell you, מה שמלה מיוחדת שיש לה סימנים ויש לה תובעים חייב להכריז, that just like a garment is something that has סימנים and has an owner, has a person who will claim it, you have to announce it, אף כל דבר שיש לו סימנים ויש לו תובעים חייב להכריז, so too, any object that has a סימן and has a person who claims it, you must return. So here we see clearly in the משנה that we learn out from the word שמלה that you must return an object with סימנים. So we see clearly that סימנים are דאורייתא, because we learn it out from the פסוק, from the word שמלה that is written in the תורה. But the גמרא says, no, תנא תובעים אצטריכא ליה. The reason the תנא wrote this was for the word תובעים. The main thing we learn out from שמלה is that only if there is somebody who claims it, that's when you have to return, and we do not learn out the דין of סימנים from שמלה. And סימנים כדי נסבה, the word סימנים that he mentioned in the משנה was just by the way. Really he did not mean to say that we learn out סימנים from שמלה. But since he already mentioned something which we find in שמלה that we do learn out from שמלה, and that is the דין of תובעים, he already mentions something else which could be only מדרבנן, and he also includes it in the לימוד even though this is not the real לימוד. He mentions it by the way. It's only so to speak an אסמכתא. Could be that it's דרבנן, but the רבנן only connected it to this פסוק, and that is why the תנא mentions it. But it is not a דין that we learn out from this פסוק. Since there is something else we learn out from this פסוק, the דין of יש לו תובעים, only if it has someone who claims it, but if no one claims it, in other words, the owner was מתייאש, you do not have to return it, so since that is learned out from the פסוק, we do not know for sure that the word, the דין of סימנים could also be learned out from the פסוק. Maybe that was mentioned just by the way. Then the גמרא continues,

תא שמע, we learned in the ברייתא that you have to return a חמור בסימני אוכף, that if you have סימנים on the saddle, you must return the donkey with the סימנים of the saddle. So we see clearly that סימנים are דאורייתא, because we learn it out from the word חמור that's written in the תורה. And the גמרא says, אימא, say, בעדי אוכף. It doesn't mean with the סימנים of the saddle, but the עדים of the saddle, that if עדים come and recognize the saddle, automatically you have to return the donkey too. תא שמע, come here, I'll answer you the question from a different ברייתא. It says in the פסוק, והיה עמך עד דרוש אחיך אותו, that it should be with you, the object that you found, and you do not know whom to return it to, it should stay with you till your brother will search for it. וכי תעלה על דעתך, would you think שיתננו לו קודם שידרשנו, that you should return it before he asks for it? Certainly, when he asks for it, you return it. Why does the תורה have to say it should stay with you till he asks for it? Without the פסוק, we would understand ourselves that before he asks for it, you can't return it to him. אלא, what does the פסוק mean? דרשהו, you search him out. It doesn't mean that till your brother will search for the object. It means עד דרוש אחיך אותו, till you search your brother out, אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי. Search him out whether he is a thief or not a thief. In other words, do not return it to

him just because he says it's his, search it out, find out to see whether he's saying the truth or not. Now how do we do that? מאי לאו, don't you think בסימנים? Ask him for סימנים, and if he gives you סימנים, you know he's saying the truth. And if we learn this way, it means that the תורה is telling us that if your brother gives you סימנים, return it. So we see סימנים are דאורייתא. And the גמרא says, לא, no, what the תורה could mean is בעדים. How do you search to see whether he's saying the truth or not? Let him bring witnesses. If he brings witnesses that recognize this object that is his, then you return it. Then the גמרא continues, תא שמע, come here, we learned, אין מעידין אלא על פרצוף פנים עם החוטם, that if an person comes to testify that this woman's husband died, and therefore she's allowed to remarry, so you cannot testify only if you recognize the person through his face together with the nose. If the nose was cut off, then this testimony is not valid. It's only if he recognizes the face together with the nose. אף על פי שיש סימנים בגופו ובכליו, even though there are סימנים in the body, and there are סימנים in the vessel, in the clothes of this person, that is not enough. You must recognize the face with the nose. So שמע מינה, from here we see clearly, סימנים לאו דאורייתא, סימנים are not from the תורה. Since it says here that even if there are סימנים in the גופו and the כלים, you still cannot testify through these סימנים, so we see סימנים are not דאורייתא. And the גמרא says, אמר, I could tell you, it's no ראיה from there. Which סימנים does it mean are not valid? Only special type of סימנים. גופו, when we say that there are סימנים in the body, and that is not enough, that only means the ארוך וגוץ, whether he's long or short. Such a סימן is not valid because there are a lot of people that are short, a lot of people that are long. And when we said that the סימנים of the כלים are not valid, these כליו, the reason why that's not valid, דחיישינן לשאלה, because we're afraid maybe he borrowed it. Maybe this clothes, these clothes, or this כלי, belongs to someone else, and this person who died borrowed it from that person. So how can you testify that this person died because he wore certain clothes? Maybe he borrowed this clothes. And the

גמרא says, how can you say that? אי חיישינן לשאלה, if you're afraid maybe he borrowed it, חמור בסימני אוכף היכי מהדרינן? How can you return a donkey with the סימנים that are given on the saddle? Maybe he borrowed the saddle. And the גמרא says, אמר, I'll tell you, לא שאלי אינשי אוכפא. A person does not borrow a saddle משום דמסרבל ליה לחמרא, because it hurts the חמור to wear a saddle that was taken from another חמור, and therefore we are sure this wasn't borrowed. איבעית אימא, or I could tell you, that when it says that the סימנים of the כלים are not valid, because כליו, what did he mean by כלים? בחיורי ובסומקי, white or red depending on the color, and that is not a סימן, because a lot of people have כלים which have the same colors, and therefore it is not valid. But otherwise, maybe סימנים, other types of סימנים are מדאורייתא and are valid. So he says, אלא, if so, הא דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, מצאו קשור בכיס, if the שליח of the גט lost the גט, and then he found it tied up with his wallet, או בארנקי, or in his purse, ובטבעת, or with his ring, או שמצאו בין כליו, or he found the גט amongst his own כלים, אפילו זמן מרובה, even if he found it much later, a long time after he lost it. Because like this we say that if you lose a גט, and you find it much later, the גט is פסול. But here since he had the סימנים, כשר, the גט would be כשר. ואי סלקא דעתך חיישינן לשאלה, but now he's asking, if you're afraid maybe you borrowed the כלים, כי מצאו קשור בכיס אמאי כשר? If you find it tied to your wallet, why is it כשר? ניחוש, let us be afraid, לשאלה, that maybe it was borrowed. In other words, even though we recognize that this is his wallet, maybe he lent his wallet to somebody else, and it's somebody else's גט that was connected to this wallet? Somebody else who has the same name and the wife has the same name, and the גט was written for the other woman, and the דין is by a גט it must be written לשמה, it must be written specifically for this woman. So maybe this גט is a גט for another woman, and the reason he found it with his wallet because he lent his wallet to somebody else? And the גמרא answers, אמרי, I'll tell you, כיס וארנקי וטבעת לא מושלי אינשי. A

wallet, a purse, and a ring people do not lend out. כיס וארנקי משום דמסמני, a wallet and a purse people don't lend out because other people are superstitious about it and afraid it might cause them bad luck. וטבעת, the ring, משום דמזייף, because it could be used for forgery, because as רש״י explains in those times the ring used to have the seal of the person. If you lend your ring to somebody else, that person could use this to forge things, and therefore a person doesn't lend out a ring. So therefore, in these cases we are not afraid לשאלה and that's why we would return the גט. But normally we are afraid לשאלה that a person maybe borrowed the כלים, and therefore if you have a סימן in the כלים of this dead person, we cannot testify that this is the person that died. But תוספות asks a very simple קושיא on this גמרא. Why can't the גמרא use this ברייתא of מצאו קשור בכיס או בארנקי בטבעת as a ראיה for סימנים דאורייתא? Since we say here that if you found the גט that's tied to the wallet, you have to return it to the one that gives the סימן on the wallet, to the שליח, so here we see סימנים are דאורייתא. The גמרא uses this ברייתא just to prove that we are not חיישינן לשאלה, we do not think that maybe it was lent out. But why can't they use the same ברייתא to prove the question that we asked? Why can't we prove from here that by giving a סימן on the wallet you return to him the גט, so we see סימנים דאורייתא. And תוספות says that it's no ראיה from here, because maybe here the case is not that somebody else found it and you will return it to him because he gave a סימן on the wallet, maybe it is speaking in a case where the שליח himself that lost the גט, he himself found it. He claims he recognizes the גט and he found it. So in a case like that, since he is the person himself that found it, here he would be believed. But if somebody else would find it, and he would give a סימן on it, we have no ראיה from here that it would be returned, and therefore we have no ראיה from here that סימנים are דאורייתא. Then the גמרא continues, לימא כתנאי, let us say that whether סימנים are דאורייתא or דרבנן is really a מחלוקת between תנאי? Because we learned: אין מעידין על השומה, ואלעזר בן מהבאי אומר מעידין על השומה. This is concerning testimony that a woman's husband died. So the question here is if the witness will come and testify that he knows it's her husband because of a wart that he saw on him and it was in the same place that her husband had the wart, so the תנא קמא says that you cannot testify based on the wart, אלעזר בן מהבאי says that you could testify on the wart. מאי לאו, don't you think בהא קמיפלגי, that this is their מחלוקת? The

תנא קמא סבר, the first תנא holds סימנים דרבנן, they hold being that סימנים is only דרבנן, therefore we cannot accept his testimony when he just has a סימן of the wart. ואלעזר בן מהבאי סבר סימנים דאורייתא, but אלעזר בן מהבאי holds that סימנים are דאורייתא, that's why he says that you could testify based on the wart. אמר רבא, so רבא said, no, דכולי עלמא באמת, you could say everybody, both of them hold סימנים are דאורייתא. והכא בשומה מצויה בבן גילו קמיפלגי. Here the מחלוקת is in something else, whether if a person that is a בן גיל, meaning he was born at the same hour, the same time as the other person, born under the same star, so to speak. So the שאלה is if one of them has a wart in a certain place, does that mean that automatically the same wart is in the other person that was born at the same time as he was? מר סבר, one holds שומה מצויה בבן גילו, that the same wart is found by his בן גיל, and therefore the תנא קמא says you cannot testify on the שומה because maybe it's not him that died, maybe it was somebody else that was born at the same time and has the same שומה. ומר סבר, אלעזר בן מהבאי holds שומה אינה מצויה בבן גילו, that a שומה is not found in the other person that is his בן גיל, and therefore if you see that he has a שומה, you are able to testify that this is the person that died. איבעית אימא, if you want, I'll answer it differently. דכולי עלמא, everyone, they both hold שומה אינה מצויה בבן גילו, that you do not find the same wart in his בן גיל. והכא בסימנים העשויים להשתנות לאחר מיתה קמיפלגי.

Here the מחלוקת is whether סימנים, for instance this wart, will change after death. It could be that while he was alive it had one color, after he died it has a different color. מר סבר סימנים עשויים להשתנות לאחר מיתה, the תנא קמא holds that סימנים, the wart, will change after death, and therefore he says you cannot come and testify on the wart, you'll say that in this and this place he had a brown wart, but could be it changed after death. Maybe this person really had a white wart, a wart at that place, and the person he is trying to testify about had a brown wart. So when he comes and says that I saw a brown wart in this and this place, really it's not the same person, because that person had a brown wart, but this person who died really had a white one because it changes after מיתה. ומר סבר, אלעזר בן מהבאי says that סימנים אין עשויים להשתנות לאחר מיתה, that the סימנים do not change after death, and therefore if he comes and testifies that he had a brown wart in this and this place, we know it was brown before too, and therefore if the one that he claims died had a brown wart, you could testify and we accept his testimony. איבעית אימא, if you want, I can give you a different פשט. דכולי עלמא, everyone, they both hold שומה אינה עשויה להשתנות לאחר מיתה, that the wart would not change after death, וסימנים דרבנן, and they both hold that סימנים are really מדרבנן. Now what is their מחלוקת whether you could testify that he died based on the wart? והכא בשומה סימן מובהק הוא קמיפלגי, the

מחלוקת is whether a שומה, a wart, is a very perfect סימן, a very good סימן. And even if we hold סימנים are דרבנן, but if you give a סימן מובהק, a special, perfect, good סימן, then even מדאורייתא it's accepted. And that is the מחלוקת here, whether a שומה is a סימן מובהק or not. מר סבר שומה סימן מובהק הוא, אלעזר בן מהבאי holds that a שומה is a סימן מובהק, and therefore he holds you could testify based on this שומה because that is a very strong סימן. ומר סבר, the first תנא holds שומה לאו סימן מובהק הוא, that a שומה is not a very perfect סימן, and therefore you cannot testify based on the שומה. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, אם תמצי לומר סימנים לאו דאורייתא, if you're going to say that סימנים are not דאורייתא, היכי מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנים? How do we return an אבידה with סימנים? In other words, what was the reason for the חכמים to make a תקנה that you should return an אבידה with סימנים? Since מדאורייתא you don't have to return it, so in the case where the loser gives סימנים, מדאורייתא you don't have to give it back to him. מדאורייתא it belongs to the finder. So what was the reason why the חכמים felt that you should take it away from the finder and give it to the loser because he gave סימנים, if מדאורייתא you shouldn't have returned it to him? And he answered, דניחא ליה למוציא אבידה דניהדר בסימנים, the one that found it is happy that you should return it with סימנים and take it away from him, כי היכי דכי אבדה ליה לדידיה, so that when he loses something, נמי נהדרו ליה בסימנים, he will also get it back with סימנים. So

even though מדאורייתא it should belong to the one that found it, but the one that found it is happy that it should be returned to the one that lost it by giving סימנים, so he too when he will lose something, he will get it back by giving סימנים. אמר ליה רב ספרא לרבא, so רב ספרא said to רבא, וכי אדם עושה טובה לעצמו בממון שאינו שלו? How can a person do a favor to himself with money that is not his? Since מדאורייתא by giving סימנים we still do not know it's his, so when a person comes and gives סימנים, maybe it's not really his, maybe it belongs to a third person. So we're saying give it back to this person because the one that found it is happy to give it back to this person. But how can we do the favor to the person who found it because he's happy because next time when he'll lose he'll get it back, on the חשבון of a third person who lost it? Since מדאורייתא we טאקע do not know that the one that gave סימנים, that really it's his, maybe it belongs to a third person. So we're taking away money from the third person. He might come later and bring witnesses that it's his, so we're taking it away from him because the one that found it is happy about it. So it comes out that the one that found it is doing a favor to himself with money that maybe belongs to a third person. So how can we do that? אלא we must say a different reason. ניחא ליה לבעל אבידה, the person who lost it is happy, למיהב סימנים, to give סימנים, ולמישקליה, to take it. Because מידע ידע, he knows, דעדים לית ליה, he has no עדים, ומימר אמר, and he says, כולי עלמא לא ידעי סימנים מובהקים דידה, most people do not know the real סימנים of the object, ואנא יהיבנא סימנים מובהקים דידה, I will give the real סימנים of it, ושקילנא לה, and I will take it. In other words, all people who lose objects are happy that there is such a דין that you return it with סימנים, because sometimes it's possible that a person who lost it will not have עדים to testify it's his, so if there would be no דין that you return with סימנים, he'll never get it back. So he'd rather the דין should be that you do return with סימנים. איי, the question is, maybe someone else will also come and give סימנים, someone who is not the owner, and he will get it, so the loser, the one that lost the object will never get it back? So he assumes in his mind that probably no one knows the real סימנים of it. The only one that knows the real סימנים is myself, the one that lost it. So probably I will get it back. I will come and give the real סימנים of it, and I will get it back. So that is the reason why the חכמים made this תקנה, that even though מדאורייתא you should not return the object with סימנים, but nevertheless, מדרבנן you should return it with סימנים, because this is something that people are happy with. It is for the favor of all people who lose objects.