Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת בבא מציעא דף כ"ח, but we will start on דף כ"ז עמוד ב', five lines from the bottom of the עמוד. The גמרא here is in the middle of the סוגיא whether סימנים are דאורייתא or סימנים are דרבנן. The דין that you have to return an object to the person that gives this, is this a דין מדאורייתא, or is this only a דין מדרבנן? מדאורייתא, you would not have to return it to him. The only way you would have to return an object is if the person brings witnesses that this object was his, but the רבנן were the ones that made a תקנה that if he gives סימנים, you have to return it to him. And רבא explained what would be the reason that the רבנן would make this תקנה. Why would they say that even though מדאורייתא we are still not sure that it belongs to this person who gave סימנים, nevertheless, the רבנן said that we should return it to him? And the reason the גמרא gave was because we assume that all people who lose objects are happy that the דין should be that you should return an object with סימנים. Because otherwise, if the דין would be that you only return an object with עדות, what would be if a person doesn't have any עדות? So, then he would never get his object back. אי, the question is, but what happens if somebody else who is not the real owner of the object will also come and give סימנים, and it might be returned to him שלא כדין? So, a person feels that this will never happen, because he knows that since he is the real owner, he knows the real סימנים. Anybody else who will come won't give the real סימנים. So, therefore, he says to himself that if anybody comes and gives סימנים, I will come and give better סימנים, and I will get it. And therefore, every person feels that it's better that the דין should be that you should return an object with סימנים. Then the גמרא asks: אלא הא דתנן, but when we learn in a משנה: רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said: אחד הלוה משלשה, יחזיר ללוה. שלשה שלוה מן האחד, יחזיר למלוה. This is

concerning the דין if you find documents, if you find שטרות, and you don't know whom to return it to. Should you return it to the לוה or to the מלוה? You find documents that say that a person, let's say ראובן, owes money to שמעון. So, we don't know whether this document fell from ראובן, from the one that borrowed the money, in other words, he already paid the debt and he got his שטר back, or it fell from שמעון, the one that lent him the money, because ראובן did not pay yet, and it's still in the hands of the מלוה, of שמעון. So, the משנה says that you have to look at the סימן. If you find that this document was laying amongst other documents, for instance, there were three documents together, and all three had the same name of the borrower and different names of lenders, so then the דין is that you return it to the borrower, because we assume that it fell from the borrower since there are three separate lenders, but the borrower's name are the same on all three documents. But if the three documents show that they have the same name of the lender, but three different borrowers, so then you know that it fell from the lender and you give it back to the מלוה. So, here we see that we return these documents with this סימן, as we mentioned now. Now, if we

say סימנים דרבנן, and the only reason the חכמים made this תקנה was because this was for the benefit of the people who lose the articles, but in this case, it's not for the benefit. ניחא ליה ללוה להדורה ליה למלוה? Is the לוה happy that it should be returned to the מלוה? In the second case, where the three names of the borrowers are different, but the lender's name is the same, so we said we return it to the lender. But since סימנים are not דאורייתא, which means מדאורייתא we are not so sure that it fell from the lender, maybe it fell from the borrower. And the only reason the חכמים made a תקנה you should return with סימנים is because the one that lost it would be happy. But in a case like this, he wouldn't be happy. The borrower definitely would not be happy that it should be returned to the lender, because if it really fell from the borrower, he doesn't owe the money anymore, he paid the debt. Now, if you're going to return the document to the lender, he will be able to collect with this שטר again. So, how come the חכמים made this תקנה? If the only reason they made a תקנה was for the benefit of the loser, but in this case, the benefit of the loser is not to return it with סימנים, because if you return it to the lender with the סימנים, the borrower is going to lose. אמר ליה, so he said to him: התם סברא הוא, there there is a special סברא, that אחד הלוה משלשה, יחזיר ללוה, in the case where you have the three documents that you see that it's in the same name of the borrower, one person borrowed from three separate people, you return it to the borrower, because the סברא is דגבי לווה שכיחא, גבי מלוה לא שכיחא.

Because it is common that three שטרות that are for the same borrower should be in the possession of the borrower, but it is not common that three documents that are for the same borrower and from three different lenders should be in the possession of the lender, and therefore שמע מינה, this proves מלווה נפל, it fell from the לווה. שלושה שלוו מן אחד, if you have three separate borrowers that borrowed from one person, so there the דין is יחזיר למלוה, you return it to the lender for the reason because דגבי מלוה שכיח, גבי לווה לא שכיח. Because it is common that the מלוה, the lender, should have three שטרות that he lent money to three different people, but it is not common that these three שטרות should be in the possession of one of the lenders. So therefore, we have a ראיה that it fell from the מלוה. So it is not just with סימנים that we return it to the מלוה, and therefore we would have to see whether it is for the benefit of the one that lost it or not, it is for a different reason, because we have a סברא that it fell from the מלוה. אלא

the גמרא asks, והתנן, we learn in the משנה, מצא תכריך של שטרות, if you find a bunch of documents, או אגודה של שטרות, or a package of documents, הרי זה יחזיר, you return it to any one that gives the סימן. If the מלוה gives סימנים, then you return it to the מלוה, if the לווה gives סימנים, then you return it to the לווה. הכא נמי, here too will you say, דניחא ליה ללווה לאהדורי ליה למלוה, is the לווה happy that you should return it to the מלוה? If the מלוה gives סימנים we say we return it to the מלוה, but since סימנים are לאו דאורייתא, that means מדאורייתא we are not so sure it fell from the מלוה. Maybe it actually fell from the לווה, and the only reason we say that you do return with סימנים is because it's for the benefit of the loser. But here, since maybe the לווה lost it, and it's definitely not for his benefit that you should return it to the מלוה, because if the לווה lost it, that means he paid for these documents, by returning it to the מלוה, the מלוה will be able to collect again, so it's definitely not for the benefit of the לווה. So why in the world did the חכמים in this case make the תקנה you should return it with סימנים? אלא אמר רבא, that's why רבא said, סימנים דאורייתא, that סימנים are דאורייתא, and therefore, whenever a person gives סימנים, מדאורייתא you have to return it to him.

דכתיב, which פסוק do we know it from? The פסוק says: והיה עמך עד דרוש אחיך אותו, the lost object should be with you till your brother will search for it. וכי סלקא דעתך שיתננו לו קודם שידרשנו, would you think that you should return it to him before he asks for it? So what does the פסוק mean, return it to him when he asks for it? אלא, דורשהו, it doesn't mean that till your brother searches for the object, but what that means is you should search your brother. You should, before you return it, search out, find out, investigate your brother, the one that's asking for it, find out אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי, whether he's a רמאי, he's a cheater, or he's not a cheater. And how do you do that? לאו, don't you think בסימנים? That how do you know whether he's cheating or not? With סימנים. If he gives סימנים, you know he's saying the truth, and you return it to him. If he doesn't give סימנים, then don't return it to him. שמע מינה, so this proves that סימנים are דאורייתא. Since the תורה says that you should search out your brother to see whether he's a cheater, and the way to do it is through סימנים, so it's as if the תורה is telling us that if he gives סימנים, return it to him. So here we see that סימנים are דאורייתא. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, אם תמצי לומר סימנים דאורייתא, if you're going to want to say that סימנים are דאורייתא, and רבא was going to continue to say a דין. But before he managed to continue, by just using the words, "if you're going to say סימנים are דאורייתא," the

גמרא stopped him right there, and asked: אם תמצי לומר? You're using the expression, "if you're going to say סימנים are דאורייתא." הא פשיט ליה סימנים דאורייתא! Didn't you פסקן, didn't we already resolve the question before and we said that סימנים are דאורייתא? So why do you say, "if we're going to say סימנים דאורייתא"? The fact is that סימנים are דאורייתא. So he says, no, it's not a ראיה, משום דאיכא למימר כי דשנינן, because we're able to say as we answered before. The whole ראיה that סימנים are דאורייתא was based from this פסוק where it says that you have to investigate to see whether your brother's a cheater or not, and the way to do it we said was through סימנים, so that proves סימנים are דאורייתא. But before, the גמרא answered it. The גמרא said from there it's no ראיה, because how do you know the פסוק means to search out your brother by him giving סימנים? Maybe it means search out your brother by him being, bringing witnesses. If he brings witnesses, we know he's saying the truth. If he doesn't bring witnesses, we know he's lying. So since we could explain the פסוק that way, so we are not sure that the פסוק means to search him out through סימנים, so we are not sure again that סימנים are דאורייתא. And that's why he said, if we're going to say that סימנים are דאורייתא. דאורייתא, so then he wants to tell us a דין, that סימנים וסימנים, if two people come, one person gives סימנים, and the other person gives סימנים, who do you return it to? יניח, you have to leave it. You leave it until אליהו comes. None of them, both of them don't get it. When משיח will come, then he will tell us who is right, and then it'll be returned to the rightful owner. סימנים ועדים, if one brings סימנים and one brings עדים, then ינתן לבעל העדים, you give it to the one that brings עדים. And this is the main חידוש of רבא, that even if you hold סימנים are דאורייתא, nevertheless, witnesses are still stronger than סימנים, and therefore if one person brings סימנים, and the other one brings witnesses, you return it to the one that brings the witnesses. סימנים, וסימנים ועד אחד, if one brings סימנים, and the other one gives סימנים plus he has one witness. So we say עד אחד כמאן דליתא דמי. The one witness doesn't count at all. ויניח, and you leave it. And it will be as if there were just סימנים against סימנים, and you leave it until אליהו comes. עדי אריגה ועדי נפילה, one brings witnesses of weaving, that he weaved it, he made it. The other one brings witnesses that he lost it, it fell off from him. ינתן לעדי נפילה, you give it to the one that brings the witnesses that he lost it. דאמרינן, because we say זבוני זבנה. Even though the other one has witnesses that he made it, but probably he sold it, ומיניה דאחרינא נפלה, and it fell from the other person.

מידת ארכו ומידת רחבו, if one gives the size of its length, and one gives the size of its width, ינתן למידת ארכו, you give it to the one that gives the size of its length, because דמידת רחבו שיעורא משערי לה, because the size of the width you could estimate, כד מכסי ליה מרה וקאי, when the owner covered himself with it, if it was for instance a garment. So when you saw the other person wear it, you could estimate the size of its width. אבל מידת ארכו לא משערי לה, but to estimate the size of its length is much harder, and therefore it's possible that really the one that's giving the size of its width is not the owner, he just saw the other person wear it, and he estimated the size of the width, and that's how he was able to give the size of the width. While the one that's giving the size of its length, it's harder to say that he estimated it, so we assume that he is the real owner. מידת ארכו ומידת רחבו, ומידת גמו, if one person gives the size of its length and the size of its width separately, he says I'll tell you how long it is, and I'll tell you how wide it is, but the other one gives ומידת גמו, he just says I will give you the size of its length and width together. גמו means it's גאם. גאם is a letter, a יווניש, a letter of יוון, one of the alphabet, and it is like a כ, like a לאנגע כ, a כ סופית that we have, which is one line to the length and one line to the width. And that's what it means here. One person gives the length and the width separately, and the other one gives the size of the whole thing together, the length and the width together. So ינתן למידת ארכו ורחבו. You give it to the one that gave the size of its length and width separately. מידת ארכו, ומידת רחבו, ומידת משקלותיו, one gives the size of its length and its width, and the other one gives the size of its weight, ינתן למידת משקלותיו, you give it to the one that told us how much it weighed, that is a stronger סימן.

הוא אומר סימני הגט והיא אומרת סימני הגט, if a person finds a גט, and the husband claims he lost it, he intended to give the גט, but he never gave it, and it fell from him. But on the other hand, the wife says that he already gave it, she is divorced, and it fell from her. And they're both giving סימנים. ינתן לה, you give it to her. And the reason is, because if he wouldn't have given it to her yet, how would she know the סימנים? He would know the סימנים even if he gave it to her, because he had it first. So by him giving סימנים is no ראיה he didn't give it to her, but by her giving סימנים is a ראיה that she got it already, because if she wouldn't have received it yet, she wouldn't have known the סימנים. But the גמרא asks, במאי? Which kind of סימנים are you talking about? אילימא if you're going to say במידת ארכו ורחבו, that she's giving the size of its length and its width, how does that prove that she already received it? דילמא בהדי דנקיט ליה חזיתיה, when he was holding it, before he gave it she saw it, and maybe he never gave it. And she saw it from far, and she saw how long and how wide it is. אלא, therefore we say, what kind of סימנים is she giving? נקב יש בו בצד אות פלוני, that she says there is a hole right next to this and this letter in the גט. Now if she wouldn't have received the גט, how would she know that there is a hole there? So that proves that she did receive it already. הוא אומר סימני החוט והיא אומרת סימני החוט, he's giving סימנים on the string that was tied around the גט, and she's also giving סימנים on the string tied around the גט. ינתן לה, you give the גט to her. And the גמרא asks, במאי? What kind of סימנים? אילימא if you're gonna say בחיורא וסומקא, whether it was white or red, the color of the string, how does that prove that she received it? דלמא בהדי דנקיט לה חזיתיה, when he was holding it she saw from far the color of the string? אלא you must say what kind of סימן is she giving? במידת ארכו, the size of its length, how long the string is. And if she wouldn't have received that גט, how would she know the length of the string? And therefore, that proves that she did receive it. הוא אומר בחפיסה והיא אומרת בחפיסה, he says that the גט was laying in a valise, and she is saying that the גט was laying in a valise, ינתן לו, you give it to him. Here we have no proof that she received it. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? מידע ידעה, she knows דכל מא דאית ליה, everything he has בחפיסה הוא דמנח ליה, he puts it in a valise, so that is no ראיה. She just guessed. She assumed probably he put it in the valise and therefore she gave that סימן. So that doesn't prove it fell from her, and therefore, we give it to him. And now we will continue with the משנה. The

משנה says, ועד מתי חייב להכריז? How long, till when must you announce a מציאה that you found? עד כדי שידעו בו שכניו, till your neighbors will know about it. דברי רבי מאיר, that's what רבי מאיר holds. And the גמרא will explain the neighbors of who. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, שלש רגלים, the three ימים טובים. The דין is that for every יום טוב, meaning פסח, שבועות, and סוכות, you have to be עולה רגל, that means you have to go up to ירושלים for יום טוב. So on these three רגלים, the person who found the מציאה would have to announce it in ירושלים, every one of these three ימים טובים. ואחר הרגל האחרון, and after the third יום טוב, שבעת ימים, you have to announce it for the next seven days after the third יום טוב. And the reason is, כדי שילך לביתו שלשה, to give a person who came to ירושלים a chance three days till till he will get home, ויחזור שלשה, and he should be able to return for three days, ויכריז יום אחד, and then a day when he will announce it. In other words, when a person will hear that somebody found an object, he will come home and see whether it was his object or not, and if it was his, he will have to come back for it. So you have to give him three days to get home, three days to come back, and then one day for him to announce. And the גמרא explains, we learned in the משנה that you have to announce it according to רבי מאיר till the neighbors will know about it. So תני we learned, שכני אבידה, till the neighbors of the lost object will know about it. And the גמרא asks, מאי שכני אבידה? What do we mean the neighbors of the lost object? אילימא if you're gonna say שכנים דבעל אבידה, the neighbors of the one that lost the object, how can you say that? Because he doesn't know who lost the object. אי ידע ליה, if he knows who lost the object, ליזיל, let him go, ולהדריה ניהליה, and give it back to him. Obviously, he doesn't know who's the one that lost the object. So how can you say you have to announce it till the neighbors of the one that lost the object will find out? אלא, what it means is שכני מקום שנמצאת בו אבידה, the neighbors of that area where he found the אבידה. When the people of that area hear about it, then he doesn't have to announce it anymore. And then the גמרא continues, רבי יהודה אומר וכולי. רבי יהודה said that you have to announce it three ימים טובים, and after the third יום טוב for seven days, to give the person a chance to go home for three days, return three days, and one day he would announce it. But the גמרא says ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned, בשלשה במרחשון שואלין את הגשמים, that on the third day of מרחשון in ארץ ישראל you start asking for rain in שמונה עשרה, you start saying ותן טל ומטר לברכה. רבן גמליאל אומר, רבן גמליאל says, בשבעה בו, only on the seventh day of חשון you start. Why? Because this is ט״ו יום, 15 days, אחר החג, after סוכות. And the reason we want to wait 15 days till after סוכות כדי שיגיע אחרון שבישראל לנהר פרת, so the last one that lives in ארץ ישראל in the furthest area which is close to נהר פרת should be able to get home, because we don't want him to get stuck in the middle of the way when it's raining. So here we see that for the last person to get back home would take 15 days, and here in the משנה it says that it takes three days to get home. אמר רב יוסף, said רב יוסף, לא קשיא, there is no קשיא. כאן במקדש ראשון כאן במקדש שני. In one place it's speaking in the time of the first בית המקדש, and the other place in the time of the second בית המקדש. במקדש ראשון, in the time of the first בית המקדש, דנפישי ישראל טובא, there were many, many אידן, a lot of אידן, דכתיב בהו, because the פסוק says, יהודה וישראל רבים כחול אשר על הים לרב, that יהודה and ישראל were so many like the sand and next to the ocean, so many. So since there were so many יידן, בעינן כולי האי, so we need such a long time for the last one to get home, so it took 15

days for the last one to get home. במקדש שני, but in the time of the second בית המקדש, דלא נפישי ישראל טובא, there weren't so many יידן, דכתיב, because the פסוק says, כל הקהל כאחד, that all the יידן together, ארבע רבוא אלפים שלש מאות וששים, there were only 42,360 people. So since there were not too many people, לא בעינן כולי האי, so we don't need such a long time for them to get home, because there weren't too many so they didn't live too far, so it was enough three days for them to get home. אמר ליה אביי, but אביי asked him, והכתיב וישבו הכהנים והלוים וגו', and it says, והמשוררים והשוערים וכל ישראל בעריהם, that the כהנים and the לוים lived in the cities the same as they lived before. The לוים, the משוררים and the שוערים, those are two types of לוים. Some לוים would have to sing in the בית המקדש, that was their job. Some would have to stand by the gate, that was their job. But it says that the משוררים and the שוערים and all the יידן lived in their cities. So it comes out that they lived just as far as they lived in the time of the first בית המקדש, and even though they were less people, but nevertheless they were spread out the same way as they were before. So how can you say that since in the second בית המקדש there were not too many people, it was enough three days for them to get home? And the גמרא answers, וכיון דהכי הוא, now that we're saying so, that in the time of the בית המקדש השני they also lived just as far as they lived in the first בית המקדש, איפכא מסתברא, now we could say the סברא just the opposite. מקדש ראשון, in the time of the first בית המקדש, דנפישי ישראל טובא, since there were so many יידן, דמצפרא עלמא משתכחי שיירתא, a lot of people went together, so they would find groups, caravans to travel, so then דאזלי בין ביממא בין בליליא, they would travel during the day and during the night. If a lot of people would go together, they weren't afraid of traveling during the night, so they would travel during the day and during the night, לא בעינן כולי האי, so you don't need such a long time till you get home. So in the time of the first בית המקדש, in three days the furthest person would get home, סגי בתלתא יומי, it was enough three days. מקדש שני, in the time of the second בית המקדש, דלא נפישי ישראל טובא, there weren't too many יידן, ולא מצפרא עלמא, and people weren't together, ולא משתכחי שיירתא, and wasn't you wouldn't always able to find שיירות, caravans, groups of people going together, דאזלי, that they should go, בין ביממא בין בליליא, during the day and during the night. In other words, they would go only during the day. So it would take them much longer to travel, בעינן כולי האי, so and then we need so much, the time of the second בית המקדש, it would take 15 days for the last person to get home. But

לכאורה one might ask that the difference would be only in half. The time of the first בית המקדש they would travel during the day and during the night. Time of the second בית המקדש they would only travel during the day. So in the time of the first בית המקדש it should take half the time that it took in the time of the second בית המקדש. Now if we say in the second בית המקדש it took 15 days, so in the time of the first בית המקדש it should have taken seven and a half days. But what's the חשבון of three days? Here we're saying that in the time of the second בית המקדש it took 15 days, in time of the first בית המקדש it took three days, it should have been seven and a half days which is half of 15. And תוספות answers that not only would they travel only during the day and not at night in the time of the second בית המקדש, but if you go yourself without a group, you don't even travel all day. And therefore, it would take much longer, not only twice as much as it took before, but much more than that. And therefore in the time of the first בית המקדש it only took three days, in the time of the second בית המקדש, it took 15 days. רבא אמר, but רבא said, לא שנא במקדש ראשון ולא שנא במקדש שני, there's no difference between the time of the first בית המקדש and the time of the second בית המקדש. The reason why by the דין of אבידה we say that you only have to give him three days to get home, and concerning the דין of when you start saying טל ומטר you say you give him 15 days, is because לא הטריחו רבנן באבידה יותר מדאי. Concerning an אבידה, the חכמים were not מטריח a person, did not trouble the person more than necessary. They troubled him only the minimum. And therefore they said that all they tell the person to wait after the third יום טוב is only seven days. But concerning saying טל ומטר, then the חכמים went out to the maximum, and they said that since there is a possibility for a person to take 15 days till he would get home, therefore they said that you only start saying טל ומטר after 15 days. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבינא, רבינא said, שמע מינה, from here we see, since we said that we only give the person time to come home and come right back and claim his object, three days to get home, three days to come back, and then he will claim his object on the seventh day, and we do not give him an extra day to stay home to look through his objects to see whether he lost anything or not. So that proves כי מכריז גלימא מכריז, that when you announce, you announce the name of the object. For instance, if it's a coat, you say it's a coat. Because later on in the גמרא we find a מחלוקת: what kind of announcement do you make? Do you announce: "I found a coat," and let the person come and give the סימנים, or you announce: "I found an object," and you don't even say what it is, you just say "I found an אבידה," and the person will come and tell you what the object is, plus the סימנים. So רבינא said, from here we see that we announce the name of the object. דאי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think אבידתא מכריז, that you announce just that you found an אבידה, and you don't say what it is, בעינן למיטפי ליה חד יומא, we would have to give the person another day, לעיוני במאני, to look into his objects, into his כלים. This person would come home, and knowing that someone announced that he found an object, he would have to look through everything he owns, maybe he lost something. And then he would be able to come back if he actually lost something. So you would have to give him at least a day to stay home to look through his objects. So then the דין would be that you would have to wait eight days, not seven days: three days to come home, one day to look through his things, that makes four, three more days to get back, that's seven, and on the eighth day he would be able to announce it and claim it. אלא שמע מינה, so here we see, since we only give him seven days, that proves that גלימא מכריז, you announce the name of the object. For instance, you say a coat, I found. שמע מינה, that proves. רבא

אמר, רבא says, אפילו תימא, really you could say אבידתא מכריז. You announce that you found an אבידה and you don't give the name. The question is: why don't we give him an extra day to look through his objects? Because לא יטריחו רבנן באבידה יותר מדאי. The חכמים were not מטריח a person concerning an אבידה more than necessary, and therefore they only obligated the person to wait seven days in ירושלים, and did not give him this extra day to make him wait eight days. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: רגל ראשון, the first יום טוב when he announces the אבידה, אומר, he has to say רגל ראשון. He should announce and say that this is the first יום טוב that I am announcing it. רגל שני, when you announce on the second יום טוב, אומר, he should say, רגל שני, now is the second יום טוב for my announcement. רגל שלישי, on the third יום טוב, אומר סתם, he just says סתם. He announces "I found an object," and he doesn't say this is the third יום טוב. The reason why by the first and the second you have to say it is the first or the second is just in case a person is there who does want to claim it, if he will not know that this is the first or the second יום טוב, he might think maybe it's the third יום טוב you're announcing. So he'll have to run home and see whether he lost the objects, and come back and claim it. And really, he doesn't have to come back right away, because he could wait for the second יום טוב when he's going to come anyway. So you will make him take an extra trip. So therefore you announce that this is the first יום טוב, so he'll know that he could wait for the second יום טוב to come. And the same is with the second, he'll know that he doesn't have to run right back to claim it, because he knows that there'll still be a third יום טוב. On the third יום טוב, when you're not going to announce that this is the third יום טוב, you're not going to say anything, he will automatically know that it's the third יום טוב, so he'll know if he wants to claim it, he has to run right back and claim it. But the גמרא asks, ואמאי? Why is the דין so? לימא, let him say רגל שלישי, that this is the third יום טוב. What are we afraid of? Why do we say he shouldn't say anything? Why doesn't he say it's the third יום טוב, so people will know for sure that it's the third יום טוב? But the גמרא says, דלא אתי לאחלופי בשני, it shouldn't be exchanged for the second. People might not hear exactly what he said, they're going to hear that he said that this is some number of יום טוב, they might think maybe he said it's the second יום טוב. So the person who wants to claim it will not rush to come back, and really it is the third יום טוב, and he will miss out on claiming his objects. So the גמרא asks, if you're afraid that you might exchange the number that he's going to mention, בשני נמי אתי לאחלופי בראשון, on the second יום טוב they might exchange it with the first. When he's going to say this is the second, the person who hears might think he said it's the first. So why should you announce and say it's the second? And the גמרא answers, there is no problem: הכא אתי רגל שלישי, there will be a third יום טוב. Even if the person will make a mistake and think he said it's the first, so what will happen? He still won't יום אחד, and then he would have one day to announce it and to claim it. But משחרב בית המקדש, when the

בית המקדש was destroyed, שיבנה במהרה בימינו, that it should be built soon in our days, so after חורבן בית המקדש, התקינו, they made a תקנה, שיהיו מכריזין בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות, that you shall announce it in the shuls and the yeshivas. Since there is no more בית המקדש, so there is no more עליה לרגל, people are not going up to ירושלים, so the way to announce it is to announce it in the shuls and in the yeshivas. But משרבו אנסים, but when the oppressors increased, התקינו שיהיו מודיעים לשכניו ולמיודעיו ודיו. So they made a תקנה that you don't announce it, you just notify your neighbors, your friends, and that's enough. The word will get around and the one that lost it will be able to claim it. And the גמרא asks, מאי משרבו אנסים? What do we mean when the oppressors increased? Who are these oppressors? דאמרי, that people started saying, אבידתא למלכא, that any אבידה that you find has to go to the king, has to go to the government. So if you would announce it, people would know that you found something, they would force you to give it to the government. Therefore, the חכמים said do not announce it anymore, just notify your neighbors and your friends, and that's how the word will spread.

רב אמי אשכח כוזא דדינרי, רב אמי found a vessel full of gold coins. חזייה ההוא בר נש דקא מירתת, so the person was watching him and saw that he was scared. A person saw him find it and that person saw that רב אמי was scared of him. אמר ליה, so that person said to רב אמי, זיל, go, שקול לנפשך, take it for yourself. Don't be afraid of me. דלאו פרסאה אנא, I'm not a פרסי, דאמרי, that they say, אבידתא למלכא, that if you find an אבידה you have to give it to the king, to the government. I am not from those, so you have nothing to be afraid of me. תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אבן טוען היתה בירושלים. There was a stone of claims in ירושלים, a special stone that כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה, anybody who would lose anything, נפנה לשם, he would turn there, he would go there. וכל מי שמוצא אבידה נפנה לשם, anybody who would find an אבידה would go there. זה עומד ומכריז, the one that found it would stand and announce it, וזה עומד ונותן סימנין ונוטלה, and the one that lost it, he would give סימנים and take it. וזו היא ששנינו, and concerning this stone is what we learned, צאו וראו אם נמחית אבן הטוען, go out and see whether the אבן הטוען was already covered.

What the גמרא is saying here is that we find a different גמרא where it speaks about חוני המעגל, that there was a time there was no rain. They came to חוני המעגל that he should be מתפלל, he should daven for rain. And he davened for rain and it started raining. And then he said we have to see whether we have enough rain or not and if we do, I'll be מתפלל to ד' should stop the rain. So he said, go out and see whether the אבן הטוען was already covered with water. If that was covered, then we know we have enough rainfall and I will daven to ד' to stop the rain. So the גמרא is saying here that this אבן טוען that we said now, that was the place where people would announce their מציאות, this is the אבן טוען that חוני המעגל was referring to when he said go out and see whether the אבן הטוען was covered. And now we will continue with the משנה. אמר את האבידה ולא אמר סימניה, if a person comes and claims an אבידה and all he says was that the object you found was so and so, but he doesn't give any סימנים, לא יתן לו, you do not give it to him. You do not return it to him unless he gives the סימנים. והרמאי, a person is a cheater, אף על פי שאמר סימניה, לא יתן לו, even if he gives סימנים you do not give him. If you know he's a cheater, you cannot return it with סימנים. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, עד דרוש אחיך אותו, it should stay with you till your brother searches, asks for it, what it means is, עד שתדרוש את אחיך, till you will search your brother, you will investigate your brother, אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי, to see whether he is a cheater or not, and if he is a cheater, do not return it to him. And תוספות in the earlier גמרא explains that this דרש the משנה says here is only an אסמכתא, it's not a real דרש. This is not really what the פסוק means, because the גמרא before wanted to learn out from this פסוק, from the same דרש, that סימנים are דאורייתא, that this פסוק teaches us that if he gives סימנים, return it to him. The ברייתא that the גמרא brought before said that when it says that you should search your brother to see whether he's a cheater or not, that means see whether he gives סימנים or he doesn't give סימנים. Here the משנה is saying that even if he gives סימנים, you have to see if he's a cheater and not return it to him. So תוספות says the real דרש that the גמרא said before was that we learn out from here that סימנים are דאורייתא, according to the opinion that holds סימנים are דאורייתא. The משנה here is only using this as an אסמכתא. It's only telling us that as an אסמכתא we stick it, we connect it to the פסוק, that if you know he is a cheater, do not return it to him, even if he gives סימנים. But this is not the real דרש of the פסוק. הגמרא continues: איתמר we learned, רב יהודה אמר רב יהודה says, אבידתא

מכריז, that when the person announces, he announces just one thing: I found an אבידה, but he doesn't say what the אבידה was. And the person that will claim it will have to say what it was, plus give the סימנים. ורב נחמן אמר but רב נחמן says, גלימא מכריז, he announces: I found a coat. He does say what the אבידה was, and the person who claims it, all he does is gives the סימנים. And the גמרא explains: רב יהודה אמר אבידתא מכריז, רב יהודה says that he just announces: I found an אבידה, the reason is, דאי אמרת, because if you're going to say גלימא מכריז, he announces: I found a coat, חיישינן לרמאי, we're afraid maybe he's a cheater, maybe really he is not the one that lost a coat. He just heard a friend of his or a neighbor of his complain that he lost a coat, and since he knows the סימנים, since he saw the other person wear the coat once, so it's possible he knows the סימנים. And since he hears there is an announcement that someone found a coat, he will come and say the סימנים of the coat, and he will take it, and really it's not his. Therefore, you shouldn't announce that you found a coat, just announce. And we go don't go that far to suspect that maybe this cheater will think that this אבידה that the person announced is the coat that his friend lost, and he will come and give סימנים. We don't suspect that he'll do that, and therefore, by announcing that you just found an אבידה, the real owner will come and give the סימנים. But רב נחמן אמר, but רב נחמן said, גלימא מכריז, you do announce that you found a coat. איי you said we're afraid maybe the cheater will come and give the סימנים, לרמאי לא חיישינן. We are not חושש, we do not suspect that a cheater will come and give סימנים, דאם כן, because if you do suspect that, אין לדבר סוף, there is no end to it. Because even if you're going to announce that you found an אבידה, we do suspect maybe he will think that this אבידה is the coat that I heard my friend complain that he lost, and he will come and say it's a coat, and he'll give the סימנים. So if you suspect for a cheater, then there is no end to it. So what we do is we do not suspect that a person will cheat, and therefore we announce that we lost a coat, you give the name of the object you lost, and the person will come and give סימנים. And the גמרא asks a קשיא: תנן, we learned in our משנה, אמר את האבידה, if the person who claims the object just said what the object was, ולא אמר סימניה, and he didn't give its סימנים, הרי זה לא יתן לו, do not give it to him. So אי אמרת בשלמא אבידתא מכריז, if you're going to say that you just announce that you found an object and you don't say what it is, הא קא משמע לן, so the משנה is trying to tell us a חידוש, that אף על גב דאמר גלימא, even though the person who claims it will come and say what the object is, still כי לא אמר סימנים, since he did not give the סימנים, לא מהדרינן ליה, you do not return it to him. Because there would be a סברא to say that you should return it to him even if he didn't give the סימנים, since he said the right object. The one that announced didn't say what it was, he came and he said what it was. So we would think maybe you should return it to him just by saying what the object was. So the משנה tells us no, as long as he doesn't give סימנים, you do not return it. אלא אי אמרת גלימא מכריז, but if you're going to say that the one that announces says what the object is, so אמר איהו גלימא ואמר איהו גלימא, so what comes out? The person who announces says it's a coat, the one that claims it also comes and says it's a coat, doesn't give סימנים, he just says what it is. So he's just coming and saying: You know, you found a coat. צריכא למימר, does the משנה have to tell us that כי לא אמר סימנים, that if he didn't give the סימנים לא מהדרינן ליה, you would not return it to him? It's self-understood, because he didn't say anything! The person announced it's a coat, and the other person is coming and not giving סימנים, he's just saying what it is. That's nothing, because the person who announced it announced saying what it is. So we don't need the משנה to tell us that you don't return it to him. And since the משנה does tell us that you don't return it to him without סימנים, just by saying what it is, that proves that when you announce it, you just say you found an אבידה, and the person is the one that's supposed to tell you what it is, and the חידוש is that we would think that without giving סימנים you should return it, and the משנה tells us that you don't. So it's a קשיא on the מאן דאמר that says that you announce by saying the name of the object. אמר רב ספרא, so רב ספרא said, לעולם, really I could tell you גלימא מכריז, that you do announce a coat, you do say what it is. And the way you return it is that אמר איהו גלימא, the one that announces says it's a

coat, ואמר איהו סימנין, and the one that claims it gives the סימנים. ומאי ומאי לא אמר סימניה, what does the משנה mean, that if he does not give the סימנין, he just says the אבידה, you do not return it to him? It means לא אמר סימנים מובהקים דידה. He didn't say good סימנין, perfect סימנין. He just gave סימנין which are not so special. And in a case like that, you do not return it to him. When do you return it to him? If he gives סימנים מובהקים. And as תוספות explained earlier, it doesn't mean real סימנים מובהקים which even the one that holds סימנים דרבנן, these סימנים would help מדאורייתא, what he means here is better סימנים, better than just very, very simple סימנים. And if you give very simple סימנים, that's not enough. You have to give stronger סימנים. Then the גמרא continues, we learned in the משנה, והרמאי, if he's a cheater, אף על פי שאמר סימניה, even if he gave סימנין, הרי זה לא יתן לו, you still don't return it to him. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, בראשונה, in the beginning, כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה, anybody who lost an object, היה נותן סימנין ונוטלה, he would give סימנין and take it. משרבו הרמאין, when the cheaters increased, התקינו, they made a תקנה, שיהו אומרים לו, that they would tell the person, צא, go out, והבא עדים, bring witnesses, דלאו רמאי את, that you're not a cheater, וטול, then you'll take. כי

הא דאבוה דרב פפא, just like the story of the father of רב פפא, אירכס ליה חמרא, he lost a donkey, ואשכחוה, and some people found it. אתא לקמיה דרבה בר רב הונא, so he came to רבה בר רב הונא. אמר ליה, so רבה בר רב הונא said to him, זיל אייתי סהדי דלאו רמאי את וטול, go bring witnesses that you are not a cheater and you will take it. אזל אייתי סהדי, so he went and he brought witnesses. אמר להו, רבה בר רב הונא said to the witnesses, ידעיתון ביה דרמאי הוא? Do you know that he is a cheater? Instead of saying to them do you know that he's not a cheater, he said to them do you know that he is a cheater? אמרו ליה, they said to him, אין, yes. They thought he said do you know that he's not a cheater, but they said yes. אמר להו, so right away the father of רב פפא said to the witnesses, אנא רמאה אנא? I'm a cheater? You're saying I'm a cheater? אמרו ליה, so the witnesses said to him, אנן לאו רמאי את קאמרינן, what we said was that you are not a cheater. So the

question here is, can we believe them or not? Because like this there is a דין concerning witnesses, כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, that after witnesses testify a certain testimony, they cannot a little bit later change their mind and say that we did not mean this, we meant something else. So here too, first they said that he is a cheater, because he asked them do you know he is a cheater and they said yes. And a moment later they said what we meant was that he's not a cheater. So the question is, is this in the category of כיון שהגיד שוב אינו חוזר ומגיד, or not? Do we believe them when they said that they meant he wasn't a cheater, or don't we believe them? אמר רבה בר רב הונא, so רבה בר רב הונא said, מסתברא, the סברא is, דלא מייתי איניש חובתא לנפשיה, a person would not bring harm, disadvantage to himself. Since he is the one that brought these witnesses, we do not assume that he brought them to testify that he is a cheater. So probably לכתחילה when they said yes, they had in mind that he was not a cheater. And therefore we accept these witnesses, and we know for sure he is not a cheater, and they returned the donkey to him, to the father of רב פפא. Now we'll continue with the משנה. The

משנה says, כל דבר שעושה ואוכל, anything that works and eats, יעשה ויאכל, should work and should eat. This refers to an אבידה that a person found. So the question is, what should you do with it? You have to wait till the person who owns it would come and claim it. In the meantime, what do you do with it? So the משנה says if it's something that will not cost you any money, there will be no expenses involved in holding it, so hold it. If it is something that works and you feed it, you will take the money you will get for its work, and that you will use to feed it. So then that's what you should do, יעשה ויאכל, let it work, feed it with the money that it'll bring in through its work, and keep it, don't sell it. Because even though when the person will come and claim it, if you would sell it now you would give him the money that it cost, but nevertheless, do not sell it, because a person would rather have an animal that he is used to. So instead of selling it and giving him the money, keep the animal, because after all, there will be no expenses involved, so keep it till the person will come and claim it. But דבר שאין עושה ואוכל, but if it's something that doesn't work and eat, so then ימכר, you should sell it. Because if not, what's going to happen? You're going to have to spend money in holding it. When the person will come and claim it, you'll give him a bill of how much you spent. So it'll come out that when you return it to him, You will not return to him the object which was worth as much as the time as when you found it, because now, part of the money will be deducted because you spent money on it. And שנאמר, the תורה says, והשבותו לו, you should return it to him, ראה, you should see, היכי דתשיבניה ליה, how to return it to him. See that when you return it to him, it should be as worth as it is now. But if you're going to spend money on it, it'll be deducted from the object that he lost, so your returning it to him will not be the proper way. So therefore, what you should do is sell it right away and keep the money, and when he will come back, you will give him back the money. But the question is מה יהא בדמים, what happens to the money in between? רבי טרפון אומר, רבי טרפון says, ישתמש בהן, you're allowed to use it. The person who found the object, when he gets the money for the object, he's allowed to use it. But לפיכך, since he's allowed to use it, אם אבדו, if they were lost, חייב באחריותן, you are responsible for it. Since you are allowed to use it, so now the money is in your possession and you are responsible to give him back the money, so even if it's lost, you still have to give him back the money. רבי עקיבא אומר, but רבי עקיבא says, לא ישתמש בהן, you should not use it, and לפיכך, since you're not allowed to use it, אם אבדו, if they were lost, אין חייב באחריותן, you are not responsible for it. Since they are not yours, you are only watching it for the one that lost the object, so if it gets lost, you are not responsible to pay for it. And the גמרא continues: we said in the משנה that anything that works and eats, in other words, you will not have to spend extra money for its food, you will take the money from the work and you will feed the animal with that money, so it says that's what you should do, you shouldn't sell it. You should have it work and feed it with the money you will get from the work. So for how long is it? ולעולם, does this go on forever? Do you have to hold it forever like that?

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל, so רב נחמן said in the name of שמואל, עד י״ב חודש, only up to 12 months. And תניא נמי הכי, we also learn the same in a ברייתא, כל דבר שעושה ואוכל, anything that works and eats, כגון, for instance, פרה, a cow, וחמור, a donkey, מטפל בהם עד י״ב חודש, so you bother with it up to 12 months. מכאן ואילך, from and then and on, שם דמיהן, so you estimate the worth of money. You see how much it's worth and you sell it for that money, ומניחן, and you put the money away. עגלים וסייחים, if they are calves and foals, מטפל בהן שלושה חדשים, you only bother with them for three months. מכאן ואילך, and after that, שם דמיהן, you estimate the money, you sell it, ומניחן, and you put the money away. אווזים ותרנגולים, if they are geese or chickens, מטפל בהן שלושים יום, you have to bother yourself with them for 30 days. מכאן ואילך, after that, שם דמיהן ומניחן, you sell it for its money and you put the money away. The גמרא continues:

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, רב נחמן בר יצחק said, תרנגולת, a hen that lays eggs, כבהמה גסה, has the same דין like a big בהמה. Since it lays eggs, so you get money from this hen, so you could feed the hen with the money that you get for its eggs, and therefore you would have to bother with it like you would bother yourself with a cow or with a donkey or with an ox, because they work and the money you get for their work you would feed them with. The same thing with the hen: the money you get for the eggs, you would feed it and you would have to bother yourself with it for 12 months. תניא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn in a ברייתא like that. The ברייתא is: תרנגולת ובהמה גסה, the ברייתא says if you have a hen and a big בהמה, מטפל בהן שנים עשר חודש, you bother yourself with them for 12 months. מכאן ואילך, from then on, שם דמיהן ומניחן, you sell it and you put the money away. עגלים וסייחים, if you have calves and foals, מטפל בהן ל׳ יום, you bother yourself for 30 days, and מכאן ואילך, from then on, שם דמיהן ומניחן, you sell it and you put the money away. אווזים ותרנגולים, geese and chickens, כל דבר שטיפולו מרובה משכרו, and anything that the bother is more than the money you could get from it, מטפל בהן שלושה ימים, so you bother you with it for three days. מכאן ואילך, and then, שם דמיהן ומניחן, you sell it for the money and you put it away. This is the ברייתא that he brought. So in this ברייתא we see clearly, like רב נחמן בר יצחק said, that a hen has the same דין like a בהמה גסה. But the גמרא asks a קשיא: this

ברייתא is a סתירה to the previous ברייתא, it contradicts what we learn in the previous ברייתא: קשיא עגלים וסייחים אעגלים וסייחים, ואווזים ותרנגולים אאווזים ותרנגולים. In the previous ברייתא we learned עגלים וסייחים, you have to bother with it for three months, In this ברייתא we learned that עגלים וסייחים you bother with it for thirty days. In the previous ברייתא we learned that the geese and the chickens you bother with it for thirty days, and in this ברייתא it says you bother with it for three days. And the גמרא answers, עגלים וסייחים אעגלים וסייחים לא קשיא. There is no סתירה, no contradiction concerning the דין of עגלים וסייחים, because הא דריע, in one case it is speaking about grazing animals, והא דפטומא, the other case is speaking about those animals that require you to feed them. So in the case where they graze themselves, then you could hold them for longer. That's the first ברייתא where it says that you hold them for three months. The second ברייתא where it says that you only hold them for thirty days is speaking in a case where you have to feed them, and therefore it is more expensive, so you only hold them for thirty days. אווזים ותרנגולים אאווזים ותרנגולים נמי לא קשיא. Also concerning the דין of geese and chickens there is no contradiction between the first ברייתא and the second ברייתא, because we could answer הא ברברבי, הא בזוטי. One is speaking about big ones and one is speaking about small ones. Big ones require a lot of food and therefore there we only keep it for three days. Small ones requires less food, so there you could keep longer, so there the דין is that you would keep it for thirty days. This is רש״י's פשט. Other מפרשים learn just the opposite, that small ones need more attention, therefore it is a bigger bother, that you would only keep for three days. Big ones need less attention, so there the דין would be that you keep it for thirty days. In the

beginning of this בלאט we learned that רבא פסק'd that סימנים are דאורייתא. The reason that he פסק'd סימנים are דאורייתא was because we had a proof from a משנה. The משנה said that if you find a bunch of שטרות, a bundle of שטרות, then you have to return it to the one that gives the סימנים. Now, if סימנים are דרבנן, we said before that the reason why the חכמים made this תקנה because it's for the benefit of every person who loses an object. Because otherwise, if a person doesn't have any עדים, he won't get his object back if you do not return with סימנים. And the person is not afraid that someone else will come and give סימנים because he knows that he, who is the real owner, has better סימנים. But this reason does not apply concerning שטרות, because definitely, if the truth is that the שטרות fell from the לוה, but the מלוה will give סימנים, the לוה does not want it should be returned to the מלוה. So what would be the reason why the חכמים would make a תקנה that by שטרות you should also return it with סימנים? And because of that, רבא said that סימנים must be דאורייתא, because otherwise, by the case of שטרות, you wouldn't return the שטרות with סימנים. And then he brought a פסוק for it. The פסוק was where it says והיה עמך עד דרוש אחיך אותו, till you search your brother to see whether he is saying the truth or not, and how do you search him, how do you investigate? By asking him to give סימנים. Then later on the גמרא said that רבא said that אם תמצי לומר, if you're going to say סימנים are דאורייתא, then he wanted to go ahead with certain דינים. And the גמרא stopped him and asked him, what do you mean, if סימנים are דאורייתא? Didn't we just say definitely that סימנים are דאורייתא? And he answered that it's not so definite, because the whole ראיה was from the פסוק. In the פסוק we could answer as we answered before, because before we said maybe when the פסוק says you should search your brother to see whether he is a cheater or not, it doesn't mean ask him for סימנים, it means ask him for witnesses. If he brings witnesses you know he is saying the truth, if not, not. And therefore רבא said, I am not so sure that the הלכה is סימנים are דאורייתא. So the

ראשונים ask a קשיא, that לכאורה, even though in the פסוק we are able to answer that the פסוק does not mean סימנים, but the פסוק means witnesses, but from the משנה we have a ראיה that סימנים are דאורייתא. Since the משנה says that if you find שטרות you give it back to the one that gives the סימנים, that proves that סימנים are דאורייתא, because if סימנים would not be דאורייתא, only a דרבנן because for the benefit of the loser, and here there is no benefit for the loser, so there shouldn't be a דין of סימנים. And since there is a דין of סימנים even by שטרות, that proves that סימנים are דאורייתא. So how could רבא say that he is not sure whether סימנים are דאורייתא or not, when we have a ראיה from this משנה that סימנים are דאורייתא? So the רא״ש answers that the פשט is like this: that רבא himself did not know for sure whether סימנים are דאורייתא or not, and רבא said to himself that since concerning שטרות we do not have a reason why the חכמים should make a תקנה of סימנים, so I assume that סימנים are דאורייתא. And that's why לכתחילה רבא said that סימנים are דאורייתא, and he even brought a ראיה from the פסוק. But when he said later that from the פסוק we don't have a hundred percent ראיה ראיה, because the פסוק we could say doesn't mean סימנים, that means just עדים, so the only ראיה we have left is the ראיה of the משנה. So concerning the משנה, רבא thought that maybe even though I do not know a reason why the חכמים should make a תקנה of סימנים by the case of שטרות, but maybe nevertheless there was another reason that I do not know about, and the חכמים did make this תקנה. So since רבא wasn't sure that there is no reason for a תקנה, it's only that he didn't know the reason, so רבא felt maybe there is some other reason for a תקנה of סימנים. And therefore he wasn't sure that even from this משנה we could bring a ראיה that סימנים are דאורייתא. And therefore he said that it's only אם תמצי לומר, if you're gonna say סימנים are דאורייתא, but he was not sure סימנים are דאורייתא. And another תירץ he gives is when it says in the משנה that you return the שטרות, the bunch of שטרות, it doesn't say clearly that you return it to the one that gives סימנים. So maybe the פשט there is not because of סימנים. Maybe it means you return it to a צורבא מרבנן, to a תלמיד חכם בטביעת עין, because we learned before that a תלמיד חכם could get his object back even if it has no סימן, if he says he recognizes it בטביעת עין, just by the glance. So maybe that's what it means here, that by just looking at it, and you recognize it בטביעת עין, you return it. And that is the reason why you return the שטרות that the משנה speaks about. But otherwise maybe סימנים are לאו דאורייתא, and therefore we are not sure סימנים are דאורייתא. And that's the reason he said אם תמצי לומר סימנים דאורייתא. Another תירץ that is given is that the case of שטרות is different than any other case, and therefore we cannot prove from the משנה of שטרות that סימנים are דאורייתא. Because in any other case, we do not know who lost it. So many people could have lost it, and therefore by one person coming and giving a סימן, we do not accept it מדאורייתא. But concerning שטרות, there is only a ספק whether the לוה lost it or the מלוה lost it. So in a case like that, even a regular סימן would be as strong as a סימן מובהק by another case. And therefore, since the גמרא said before that even if you hold סימנים are מדרבנן, but a סימן מובהק is דאורייתא, and by שטרות we could consider a regular סימן as a סימן מובהק, and therefore we have no ראיה that a regular סימן is also סימנים דאורייתא.