Eilu Metzios in Charts

Eilu Metzios In Charts

Noson S. Yanofsky

Legend Finder Keeps Finder Calls Out

21a) Mishna: Which Objects Can the Finder Keep () and Which Must He Call Out ().

 R’ Meir: The following can be kept by the finder (): o Scattered produce o Scattered coins o Small sheaves in public places o Round cakes o Pressed figs o A baker’s loaves o Strings of fish o Pieces of meat o Fleeces of wool brought from their province o Bundles of flax o Tongues of purple wool  R’ Yehudah: Anything with something unusual in it must be returned (). For example: o A round cake with a piece of pottery inside o A loaf with coins inside.  R’ Shimon ben Elazar: Any anporya vessel can be kept ().

______

I am grateful to H. Yanofsky for critical comments and helpful editing.

Please send all criticisms and comments to [email protected]

לזכר נשמת הרב אהרן שאול בּן ר׳ שרגא זלמן ז״ל

21a) What Case of A Kav in Four Amos Are We Dealing With?

Case Ruling  1: The produce looks like it fell. Even more than a kav in four amos the finder can keep because the owner abandoned it.  2: The produce looks like it was placed Even more than a kav in four amos, this needs to be there. called out because the owner intends to return.  3: The produce was left behind at the time The effort needed for the owner to collect the of the clearing of the threshing floor. produce is too much so the owner will abandon it.

21a) R’ Yirmiyah’s Four Questions About a Kav in Four Amos.

Possible Reason

Effort Value   The reason why the finder can The reason why the finder can keep one kav of scattered keep one kav of scattered grain grain in four amos is that the in four amos is that the owner owner abandons it because abandons it because one kav too much effort is required to does not have enough value. Case retrieve it from the four amos.   Question 1: Half a kav in Two amos does not demand Half a kav is less value than a two amos? as much effort as four amos. kav.   Question 2: Two kav in Eight amos demands more Two kav is worth more than one eight amos? effort than four amos. kav.   Question 3: A kav of sesame Sesame seeds are smaller and Sesame seeds have more value seeds in four amos? harder to retrieve. than produce. Question 4: A kav of dates   or pomegranates in four Dates and pomegranates are Dates and pomegranates have amos? easier to retrieve than grain the same value as grain.

21b) A Major Dispute About Abandonment Without Knowledge.

Abaye Rava Abandonment without knowledge Abandonment without knowledge IS NOT IS abandonment. abandonment.

21b) The Dispute with Regard to Three Cases of a Lost Object.

Abaye Rava Abandonment without Abandonment without knowledge IS NOT knowledge IS abandonment. abandonment. Case  1: The object has an identifying There is no real abandonment by the owner when the finder mark found the object.

2: The object has an identifying  mark but was swept away to sea The object is essentially ownerless. or in a river.

  Although the owner does not 3: The object does not have an Until he knows about it, it is know about it, when he does, identifying mark not really abandoned. he will abandon it because it does not have a sign.

21b) Proofs for Rava or Abaye.

Ruling Inference Objection to proof 1. For The finder can Since the owner does not know It was at the threshing Rava keep scattered that he lost it, and the ruling floor and the owner produce. says the finder can keep it. knows he will lose This is abandonment without objects. This is not knowledge and is considered without knowledge. abandonment. 2. For The finder can Since the owner does not know A person always checks Rava keep scattered that he lost the coins, and the his purse. He will be coins. ruling says that the finder can aware of the missing keep it. This is abandonment coins very soon after without knowledge and is losing them. This is not considered abandonment. without knowledge. 3. For The finder can Since the owner does not know Since these objects are Rava keep round cakes, that he lost them, and the heavy, the owner is pressed figs, and a ruling says that the finder can aware of them soon after baker’s loaves keep it This is abandonment losing them. This is not without knowledge and is without knowledge. considered abandonment. 4. For The finder can Since the owner does not know Since they are valuable, Rava keep tongues of that he lost the wool, and the the owner will purple wool ruling says that the finder can constantly be checking keep it. This is abandonment them. He will be aware without knowledge and is of the missing wool very considered abandonment. soon after losing them. This is not without knowledge. 5. For The finder can The owner would abandon in A person always checks Rava keep coins found such places. Since the owner his purse. He will be in a synagogue, or does not know that he lost the aware of the missing a study hall, or coins, and the ruling says that coins very soon after where large the finder can keep it. This is losing them. This is not numbers of people abandonment without without knowledge. are found. knowledge and is considered abandonment. 6. For The finder can […]1 The poor in other places The poor in other places Rava keep leket from have subconsciously given up “know” that the local when the on the leket so the finder can poor will get it so they rummagers go take it. It must be that abandon it. This is not through the field. abandonment without without knowledge.

1 The Gemorah has more here.

knowledge is considered abandonment.

Ruling Inference Objection to proof 7. For […]The finder Since the owner abandons An olives appearance is Abaye must call out if he them from the beginning recognizable as found olives and (because they are not belonging to the owner. carobs on the road, expensive) and still the finder So the owner does not beside a field, or cannot keep them, it must be abandon. […]. under a tree. that abandonment without knowledge is not abandonment. 8. For A ganiv who takes […] The owner does not see Here a ganiv is not a Rava an object from one the ganiv taking the object, so secret taker, rather an person and gives it he does not have knowledge of armed robber. So the to another, 22a) it, yet it is considered owner does know about […] the receiver abandoned. it. This is not without may keep it. knowledge. […] 9. For If a river washed This implies that if the owner We are talking about a Abaye away beams, does not knowingly despair, case where the owner wood, or stones, the owner may not keep it. can salvage them. the finder may That is, abandonment without Therefor this is not keep them because knowledge is not abandonment. […]. the owner abandonment. despaired. 10. For […] If someone Even though the owner was The someone who Rava else separates not aware of it at the time it separated trumah was an trumah and later was taken, it is considered agent of the owner. The the owner why trumah. Similarly owner knew it would didn’t you take abandonment without happen. It is not without from the better knowledge is considered knowledge. produce, it is abandonment. considered trumah. 11. For […] If produce got Even though he was eventually The tumah is different Abaye wet, then dried, pleased with it being wet, it is because there we require and then the owner still not susceptible to tumah to have knowledge of it saw it and was because he needs to have as if he did it himself. pleased, the knowledge of it at the time. There does not exist an produce is not Similarly, abandonment needs analogy with susceptible to to have knowledge at the time. abandonment. tumah. 12. For […] Some objects An object without a identifying Abaye without marks will eventually be distinguishing abandoned. Since the finder marks need to be must call it out, we see that

returned. abandonment without knowing about it is not abandonment.

22b) A Major Dispute About Ruined Identifying Marks.

Rabbah Rava An identifying mark that tends to An identifying mark that tends to be trampled be trampled IS NOT IS an identifying mark. an identifying mark.

22b) How Rabbah and Rava View Two Rulings on Small Sheaves Found.

Rabbah Rava

There is an identifying mark There is no identifying mark

Small sheaves   found in the The identifying mark was trampled There is nothing to call out so the public domain. and not an identifying mark. finder can keep it. Small sheaves   found in a The identifying mark remains and the The place is called out. private domain. finder must call it out.

22b) A Major Dispute About Position as an Identifying Marks.

Rabbah Rava Position Position IS NOT IS an identifying mark. an identifying mark.

22b) Rabbah and Rava on Found Sheaves.

Rabbah Rava Public domain Private domain Public domain Private domain  It was    probably It was not 23a) The sign Small The sign is not Small moved so moved so could be trampled. position position can be trampled. cannot be used as a sign. used as a sign.   Large Signs on large sheaves they are Large They are too big to move and not trampled. position can be used as a sign.

23a) A Proof for Rava That a Ruined Identifying Mark IS An Identifying Mark.

Ruling Inference […] Found homemade loaves must be called […] If it was found in a public domain the out because they are identifiable. identifying mark would be ruined. Nevertheless they have to be called out because they are still identifying marks. Pro-Rabbah: In public the identifying mark would not be ruined because people who pass would pick it up because it is food. So the sign is not ruined.

Pro-Rava: We are talking of a public place with gentiles who might not pick up the bread, so the sign would be ruined.

Pro-Rabbah: Gentiles also pick up bread because of witchcraft. So the sign is not ruined.

Pro-Rava: Livestock and dogs would ruin the sign.

Pro-Rabbah: We are talking about a place where there are no livestock and dogs. So the sign is not ruined. The proof fails.

23a) Homemade Loaves With Identifying Marks According To Rava and Rabbah:

 First Version. o As a Dispute Between Rabbah and Rava.

Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah and and

Rabbah Rava

An identifying mark that came on IS its own An identifying mark.  Passing food without picking it IS up permissible. So an identifying mark can be ruined.    IS NOT IS an identifying mark. an identifying mark. Identifying marks that tends to be (Rav Zevid says in the trampled name of Rava that this ruling is contradicted by the Mishna.)

o According to Rava.

Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah

An identifying mark that tends to IS be trampled An identifying mark.

 IS Passing food without picking it up permissible. So an identifying mark can be ruined.    Identifying marks that came on its IS NOT IS own. an identifying mark. an identifying mark.

o According to Rabbah.

Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah

An identifying mark that tends to IS NOT be trampled an identifying mark.

 IS NOT Passing food without picking it up permissible. So an identifying mark can be ruined.    Identifying marks that came on its IS NOT IS own. an identifying mark. an identifying mark.

 Second Version. o As a Dispute Between Rabbah and Rava.

Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah and and

Rabbah Rava

An identifying mark that came on IS its own An identifying mark.

An identifying mark that tends to IS NOT be trampled an identifying mark.   IS IS NOT permitted. Therefor the permitted. Therefor the food food will get trampled and will be picked up and not get Passing food without picking it loose its identifying marks. trampled. Its identifying up (Rav Zevid says in the marks remain. name of Rava that this ruling is contradicted by the Mishna.) o According to Rava. Same as first version. o According to Rabbah. Same as first version.

23a)Rulings of Rava:

Without an identifying mark With an identifying mark […] Small sheaves in a public  domain. Small sheaves in a private  domain as if they fell.  Small sheaves in a private domain as if they were placed  there.

24a) Five Questions About R’ Shimon Ben Elazar’s Ruling.

Ruling: The finder can keep anything found in a place where there is a large number

of people.

Majority Canaanites Majority Jews Who is the majority?

(1) (2) Majority Canaanites:  Majority Jews:  But And certainly… Majority Jews:  Majority Canaanites: 

Rabbis agree Do the Rabbis agree Rabbis disagree with R’ Shimon ben Elazar?

(4) (3) R’SbE: R’SbE and Rabbis: Majority Jews:  Majority Jews:  And certainly… And certainly… Majority Canaanites:  Majority Canaanites:  Rabbis:

Majority Jews: 

Rabbis disagree Rabbis agree about about Canaanite Canaanite majority. Do the Rabbis disagree about majority Canaanite majority also?

(6) (5) R’SbE: R’SbE: Majority Jews:  Majority Jews:  And certainly… And certainly… Majority Canaanites:  Majority Canaanites:  Rabbis: Rabbis: Majority Jews:  Majority Jews:  Majority Canaanites:  Majority Canaanites: 

No Yes Does halacha follow R’

Shimon ben Elazar?

(7) (8)

Halacha follows the Rabbis: Halacha follows R’SbE:

(Majority Jews: ) (Majority Jews: 

Majority Canaanites:  And certainly…)

Majority Canaanites: 

No Yes Does halacha follow R’ Shimon ben Elazar when Jews are majority also?

(9) (10)

Halacha follows R’SbE: Halacha follows R’SbE:

Majority Jews:  Majority Jews: 

Majority Canaanites:  And certainly…

Majority Canaanites: 

24a) A Proof For Position (2) Above.

Ruling Inference for Position (2) Objections. For Position (1) Baraisa: If one Since the Braisa is talking about places We are really talking about finds coins in where there are a lot of people, it must scattered coins without synagogues (bais be written by R’ Shimon ben Elazar. identifying marks. That is the knesses) or study Since it is talking about synagogues and reason why the finder can keep halls or places study halls, it must be talking about them.. where there are a Jewish majority. lot of people, the finder may keep it. If we are dealing with scattered coins, Really we are talking with why mention that large number of bound coins with identifying people? The finder would be able to marks. However we are not keep them even if they were not found talking about places with a in places with a lot of people. majority Jews. Rather the beite knesses are Canaanite. The ruling also talks of study halls (beite Yes there are Jews in the study medroshim) which is clearly Jewish. halls. However the guards are Canaanite and not Jews.

24a) A Proof For R’ Shimon ben Elazar’s position.

Ruling Inference Objections. Mishna: if an Since the Braisa is talking about places No. It could be that R’ Shimon object is found in a where there are a lot of people, it must ben Elazar has Position (2) and place where there be written by R’ Shimon ben Elazar. the Mishna reflects the Rabbis is a majority of The ruling is like position (1) of R’ in Position (5). Jews, he is Shimon ben Elazar. obligated to call it out. If there is a majority of Canaanite, he is not obligated to call it out. The Mishna really follows R’ Shimon 24b) One can say that really the ben Elazar’s Position (2) but in this Mishna does not follow R’ case of the Mishna, even when a Shimon ben Elazar but follows majority of people are Jews he has to the Rabbis in Position (4). call it out because this is a special case However, we cannot use the of a buried object […]. Mishna to learn Position (5) because the Mishna does not say he can keep the object. Rather it says he does not have to call it out […].

24b) Proofs For Various Positions Above.

Position Ruling Inference Objections. Rav Assi: If one Since the Braisa is talking about No. It could be that Rav Assi found a keg of places where there are a lot of agrees with R’ Shimon ben wine in a city people, it must be written by R’ Elazar about majority Canaanite whose majority Shimon ben Elazar. Rav Assi but disagrees with him about (1) is Canaanite, you is like Position (1) of R’ majority Jews. So we cannot may keep the Shimon ben Elazar. determine from Rav Assi if he wine […]. follows Position (1) or Position (2). Rav Yehuda: If […] Since the majority of No. The proof does not work a man found four people around the Biran river because the Jews are the ones who zuzim tied to a are Canaanite and the man has dam the river dredge the river. The (7) cloth in the Biran to call it out, this is like the owner of the object does not river, the man Rabbis in Position (7). abandon it. That is the reason why must call it out. the finder has to call it out. Abaye: If a The majority of residents were No. The proof does not work. The vulture took a Jews so Abaye considers the real reason why the finder can piece of meat halacha like Position (10). keep it is because when a vulture from the market takes something it is like the sea (10) and threw it to taking it and the owner abandons the ground, the it. […]. person can keep it. A slaughtered Since the Sages let him eat it, No. The proof does not work. kid was found there must have been a majority There could have been a majority and the Sages of Jews in that area (otherwise of Canaanites in the area and (10) permitted him to it would not be kosher). So he Position (9) is correct. The reason keep it […] was able to keep it when there why the rabbis let him eat it was was a majority of Jews in the because the majority of area. slaughterers in the area were Jews.

25a) Reconciling Two Baraisas About Objects With Marks and Objects Without Marks.

Baraisa 1 Baraisa 2 If one found an (empty) vessel (which If one found an object that does not have an has identifying marks) with produce in identifying mark next to an object that does front of it (which has no identifying have an identifying mark, the finder must mark), […] the produce […] can be kept call out both of the objects (even the by the finder […]. unidentifiable) […] The identifiable vessel is a barrel and the This is when the identifiable object is a produce was unidentifiable flax. Had the basket and the unidentifiable object is the flax come from the barrel, some for the produce. Since produce usually falls out of a 1.Rav flax would have stayed in the barrel. basket, we can assume the produce came Zevid Since it did not, there is no connection from the basket and hence they are between the flax and the barrel. connected. Therefore it must be called out. Therefore it can be kept. This is about a basket and produce. No This is about a basket and produce. Some of produce was found in the basket so we do the produce were in the basket and hence 2.Rav not have a connection between the came from the basket that has an identifying Pappa identifiable and unidentifiable objects. mark. Therefore it must be called out. Therefore it can be kept. No produce remained in the basket. No produce remained in the basket. However the opening of the basket is not However the opening of the basket is facing 3.The facing the produce. So there is no towards the produce. So there is a Gemara connection between the basket and the connection between the vessel and the produce. Therefore it can be kept. produce. Therefore it must be called out. The opening of the basket is facing the The opening of the basket is facing towards produce. However the basket has a rim. the produce. However the basket does not If the produce came from the basket have a rim. So the produce could have come 4.The some would be stuck by the rim and there from the rimless basket. There is a Gemara would be a connection. Since there was connection between the vessel and the none, there is no connection. Therefore it produce. Therefore it must be called out. can be kept. 25a) Found Coins That Are Neither Scattered Nor Stacked Like A Tower.

Scattered coins Coins leaning on each belong to the Implies other need to be called finder. out.

Coins stacked Coins leaning on each like a tower other belong to the Implies need to be finder called out. The conclusion of the Gemara is that only the bottom inference is correct.

25a) A First Reading of R’ Chanina on Towers of Coins.

Scattered Tower One King   Three Kings  

25a) A Revised Reading of R’ Chanina on Towers of Coins.

Three kings or one king that is like A one king tower three kings (i.e. different sizes) and where they are all the the tower is expanding. same size R’ Chanina   R’ Yochanan ()2  25b) Reconciling Our Mishna and A Baraisa About A Find In A Garbage Heap.

Our Mishna Baraisa If one found a covered object in a If one found an object buried in a garbage heap he garbage heap he should not touch must take it and call it out because it is the nature of it […]. a garbage heap to be cleaned. Here the found objects are things Here the buried objects are knives and hamnik like barrels and cups (big things) (small things) and must have been taken out and must have been placed there inadvertently. deliberately. Objection: The Baraisa says that the reason he can 1.Rav keep it is because it is the nature of a garbage heap Zevid to be cleaned out. Not because of smallness. Restatement: Here the buried objects are knives and hamnik (small things) and people inadvertently throw small things out to a garbage heap. Here the found objects are things Here the found objects are things like barrels and like barrels and cups (big things) cups (big things) but the garbage heap is usually but the heap is not usually cleaned out. The finder should take it and call it out cleaned out so the owner intends to return it to the owner. to return. Objection: The owner knew the heap gets cleaned 2.Rav and this is an intentional loss. The finder should be Pappa able to keep it. Restatement: Here the found objects are things like barrels and cups (big things) but the garbage heap is not usually cleaned out but the owner suddenly changed his mind. The finder should take it and call it out to return it to the owner.

2 Not stated, but implied.

26a) Finding Objects In A House that is Rented.

Ruling and Reinterpretations of the Ruling Objection Our Mishna’s ruling: If a house is usually There is a Mishna that discusses finding money rented out and an object is found there, the in Jerusalem. There it is inferred that a found finder may keep the object. object belongs to the last owner. Reish Lakish in the name of Bar Kappara: This would mean the Mishna follows position The Mishna is talking of a house that was (10) rather than position (9) in 24a. However rented to three Jews. Since you will not be able the Gemara concluded that position (9) is to determine which Jew owns it, the finder may correct. keep it. Rav Menashya bar Yaakov: The Mishna is talking of a house that was rented to three idolaters. That is why the finder can keep the object.

26b) Rulings of Rava On A Bystander.

Transgressions You shall not You shall surely You shall not rob return them hide If someone saw a sela fall and took it * * * before the owner despaired . If someone saw a sela fall and took it before the owner despaired but had the * intention to return it. If someone saw a sela fall and waited * till the owner despaired.

26b) The Mishna

 If one found an object in a store, he may keep it  If one found an object between the counter and the storekeeper, it belongs to the storekeeper.  If one found coins in front of a moneychanger, he may keep them.  If one found coins between the stool and the moneychanger, they belong to the moneychanger.  If one buys produce from someone or gets produce delivered and finds loose coins, they belong to him.  If the coins are tied and bundled (identifiable), he must take them and announce them.

26b) Two Contradictory Implications About Coins Found At The Moneychanger.

Coins (on the Coins on the table in ground) in front front of the of a Implies moneychanger belong to moneychanger the moneychanger. belong to the finder.

Coins found Coins on the table in between the front of the stool and the Implies moneychanger belong to moneychanger the finder belong to the moneychanger.

26b) Two Derivations Of A Rule Of R’ Elazar.

Ruling from the Mishna… … The Mishna could have said… … Implication … If they were found …If they were found on the Since it did not say between the stool and the counter (at the moneychanger) they this, we imply that if 1 moneychanger, they belong belong to the moneychanger. it was found on the to the moneychanger. counter it belongs to the finder. If one found coins in front If they were found in a Since it did not say of a moneychanger, he may moneychanger’s shop they belong this, we imply that 2 keep them. to the moneychanger. that if it was found on the table it belongs to the finder.

27a) Deriving That The Found Object Must Be Worth At Least A Perutah

Ruling Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah A lost property must be worth “…which is lost” “…and you have found it” more than a perutah Rabbenai said that the object “…and you have found it” “…and (you have found it)” must come into the finder’s The finder already retrieved it. hand. R’ Yochanan said from R’ “…from him…” “…which is lost from him”. Shimon ben Yochai that an (The phrase “from him” is not object swept away by a enough.) flooding river is permitted to the finder.

27a) What Is The Practical Difference Between the Tanna Kamma And R’ Yehudah

Tanna Kamma R’ Yehudah “…which is lost” “…and you have found Case it” Objection Rava: A lost object   Since the Tanna that was worth a Since it was worth a Since it was not worth a Kamma also has the perutah but its value perutah when it was perutah when it was verse “…and you have went down. lost, it has to be found, it can be kept. found it”, he would returned. also insist that the object be worth a perutah when it is found. He would also say .

A lost object worth   Since R’ Yehudah also less than a perutah Since it was not Since it was worth a has the verse “…which and its value went worth a perutah perutah when it was is lost”, he would also up. when it was lost, it found, it has to be insist that the object be can be kept. returned. worth a perutah when it was lost. He would also say . A lost object that   was worth a perutah Since it was worth a Since it was not worth a but its value went perutah when it was perutah continuously down and then it lost and found, it which violates the went up before it has to be returned. “..and…” the object can was found. be kept.

27b) Proofs That Returning An Object With Identifying Marks Are Biblical or Rabbinic.

Ruling Inference Objection to proof For Our Mishna said that the Since we derived a rule Perhaps the garment was used biblical reason why the word about identifying marks because there are claimants to it. “garment” was used is from a word in the bible, Maybe the fact that garments because it has it must be biblical. have identifying marks is not identifying marks and important. Only witnesses are has claimants. important. For A donkey must be Since we derived this Perhaps the donkey is being biblical returned to a claimant rule from the biblical returned because of witnesses who provides word “donkey” it must who recognize the saddle and identifying marks for the be biblical. this has nothing to do with saddle . identifying marks. For A baraisa says that you How does one inquire? Perhaps the inquiry is made by biblical should inquire of the See if the claimant seeing if witnesses say it is the claimant to see if you knows the identifying claimants. should return the object. marks. Since “inquire” is a biblical word, it must be biblical. For Witnesses can only Since we release a Perhaps we do not use rabbinic testify about the identity woman from marriage identifying facts about the body of a person from his with this, only because they are too general face. Not identifying something biblical (e.g. tall and short) or the marks on the body or would work. The clothes were borrowed. Or clothes. identifying marks are alternatively the identifying rabbinic and therefore marks on the clothes are too we cannot release a general (e.g. white or red.) woman with that. 28a) A baraisa says that you How does one inquire? (Although this proof was For should inquire of the See if the claimant rejected before, it is now biblical claimant to see if you knows the identifying accepted.) should return the object. marks. Since “inquire” is a biblical word, it must be biblical.

27b) Relating Whether Identifying Marks Are Biblical Or Rabbinic To a Tannaic Dispute

Tanna Kamma Elazar Ben Mehavai Witnesses may NOT testify on the Witnesses may testify on the identity of a identity of a dead husband for a wife to dead husband for a wife to remarry based on remarry based on a wart a wart Identifying marks are Rabbinic. That is Identifying marks are biblical. That is why 1. The why she is NOT released if one testifies she is released if one testifies about an Gemara about an identifying mark like a wart. identifying mark like a wart. Identifying marks are biblical. A wart is Identifying marks are biblical. A wart is not commonly found and not an identifying commonly found and it is an identifying 2.Rava mark so she is NOT released with such a mark so she is released with such a testimony. testimony. A wart is not commonly found and it is A wart is not commonly found and it is an 3.The an identifying mark. But warts change. identifying mark. Warts do not change. So Gemara So she is NOT released with such a she is released with such a testimony. testimony. Warts do not change. Identifying marks Warts do not change. Identifying marks are 4. The are Rabbinic. But warts are NOT unique Rabbinic. And warts are unique identifying Gemara identifying marks. So she is NOT marks. So she is released with such a released with such a testimony. testimony.

27b) Assuming Identifying Marks Are Rabbinic, Why Does It Work?

Reason Objection Rava The finder is happy to give up the object (so that Rav Safra: The finder is when he loses an object, it will be returned.) doing himself a favor but he might give it to the wrong person because of identifying marks. Rava The owner is happy to provide identifying marks Not everyone is happy when because he thinks he is the only one who knows it. objects are returned to their rightful owner.

27b) Finding Several Documents

Documents of one borrower who borrowed Documents of three borrowers who borrowed from three lenders. from one lender. Return to the one borrower (The loans were Return to the one lender (It was probably in his probably repaid and the borrower had the possession because the debts were not paid documents when they were lost.) yet.)

28a) Which Is Stronger? * is the winner.

One Claimant Another Claimant Notes Simonim Simonim Finder keeps it Simonim Witnesses* Simonim Simonim and a single witness Finder keeps it (a single witness is nothing) Witness to the weaving Witness to the falling* The weaver probably sold it. Witness to its length* Witness to its breadth It is easier to tell the breadth Its length and its breadth* Its length plus its breadth He knows more information Its length and its breadth Its weight* To tell its weight, it must have been held and not just seen. He: simonim on a get She: simonim on a get* He definitely knows the simonim. If she knows it, then it was delivered. He: The get was in a skin bag* She: the get was in a skin bag She knows that everything he owns goes into such a bag.

28a) The Mishna: A Dispute About How Long A Finder Must Call Out An Object

R’ Meir R’ Yehudah Until the neighbors know about it. Three festivals and 7 days.

28a) Resolving a Seeming Contradiction About The Longest Possible Traveling Time.

Rabban Gamliel R’ Yehudah (We wait to pray for rain (The finder must wait 7 after Succos because) days because) the most the most distant border distant border is a 3 day Resolution is a 15 day journey. journey. Objection Rav Yosef This ruling is for the This ruling is for the time Abaya: In the time of time of the first Beis of the second Beis the second Beis Hamigdash when there Hamigdash when there Hamigdash there were were a lot of Jews and were fewer Jews and the fewer Jews but they the borders were further border closer. settled the same lands away. as the time of the first Beis Hamigdash. This ruling is for the This ruling is for the time time of the second Beis of the first Beis Hamigdash when there Hamigdash when there were fewer Jews and were a lot of Jews and caravans did not run day caravans ran day and and night so travel time night so travel time was was longer. shorter. Rava It is a 15 day journey to It is a 15 day journey to the most distant border. the most distant border but the Rabbis did not want to burden the finder to wait that long.

28a) Should One Announce The Type of Object?

Announce the type of object Do not announce the type of object Ravina R’ Yehudah: Wait three festivals and then  3 days to go home,  3 days to return and  1 day to talk to finder. It does not say  3 days to return  1 day to look over all his objects  3 days to return and  1 day to talk to the finder. From this we learn that the owner knew what type of object it was. So the type was announced. Rava That proof does not work. Maybe the type was not announced and we only wait 7 days because the Rabbis did not want to burden the finder.

28b) The Argument of Tannaim in the Mishna.

The finder is permitted to use the The finder is NOT permitted to use the object and he lost it. object and he lost it. R’ Tarfon Liable Exempt R’ Akiva Exempt Exempt

29a) The Argument of Amoroyim about the status of a finder

The status of the Theft and loss Accident finder Shomer Chinum: Exempt Exempt Finder is Rabbah permitted to use it Shomer Socher: Liable Exempt Finder is NOT R’ Yosef permitted to use the object. The shaded boxes are in conflict.

29a) R’ Yosef’s View of The Argument of Tannaim in the Mishna.

Stolen or Lost. “Accident” R’ Tarfon Liable Liable (Like a Shoel) R’ Akiva Liable Exempt (Like a Shomer Socher) This is as R’ Yosef says: the This is the Mishna’s discussion. finder is a Shomer Socher. Even though the Mishna uses the word “lost”, R’ Yosef would say that the object was “lost at sea” which is an “accident”.

29b) Different Opinions In A Baraisa About Opening Borrowed Books.

A new scroll An old scroll Tanna Kamma Once every 12 months Sumchos Once every 30 days Once every 12 months R’ Eliezer ben Once every 12 months Yaakov R’ Eliezer ben Once every 30 days Yaakov Corrected

29b) Resolving a Contradiction About Two People Reading From A Scroll Simultaneously.

Mishna: Baraisa: Another person should not study with Three cannot learn from the scroll at the him from the scroll. same time. Implying that two can learn from the scroll at the same time. Abaya Two people reading one passage Two people reading from different passages

29b) Resolving a Contradiction About Shaking Out A Garment.

Mishna: R’ Yochanan: Shake out a found garment every 30 days. Do not shake out a garment every day.

1 Every 30 days is beneficial. Every day is harmful. 2 One person shaking it out. Two people shaking it out. 3 Shake it by hand. Shake it with a stick. 4 The garment is made of linen. The garment is made of wool.

31a) A Seemingly Contradictory Ruling In The Mishna

Grazing Running Not Lost Not Lost

≠

Road Lost

Not Lost

≠ Lost

Vineyard Lost

31a) Abaya’s Resolution To The Seemingly Contradictory Ruling In The Mishna

Grazing Running

Road

Not Lost Lost

Vineyard

31a) Rava’s Criticism of Abaya’s Resolution

If Abaya’s resolution was correct, then it should have said

Grazing Running

Lost

Road

Not Lost

Vineyard

31a) Rava’s Resolution To The Seemingly Contradictory Ruling In The Mishna

Grazing Running Not lost if running to the city Not Lost

Road Lost if running towards the wilderness The animal is not

Lost.

Vineyard The land is lost. Lost

31a) What We Learn From Double Language of Chumash.

Topic We would have thought… The double language tells us… 1. Where to return a Only to the owners house. To any place that the owner owns. found object. 2. Shluach Hakan. You have to send away the You have to send away the mother mother only for mundane for mitzvas also. purposes. 3. Rebuking another Only a teacher can rebuke a Anyone can rebuke anyone. person. student. 4. Helping unload a You only have to help if the You have to help even if the owner is donkey. owner is also unloading. (too old or sick and hence) not helping. 5. Helping load a You only have to help if the You have to help even if the owner is donkey. owner is also loading. (too old or sick and hence) not helping. 6. Killing a convicted You can only kill the murderer You can kill him in any way that you murderer. in the way he is supposed to are permitted to. get killed. 7. Destroying a city of You can only kill with the You can kill the residents with any idolaters. sword. method. 8. Returning a You can only return it with the You can return the item without the collateral item. (This permission of the court. permission of the court. is about a garment worn during the night.) 9. Returning a You can only return it with the You can return the item without the collateral item. (This is permission of the court. permission of the court. about a garment worn during the day.) 10. Giving charity to You only have to give charity You have to give charity to the poor the poor. to the poor of your own town. in other towns also. 11. Giving charity to You only have to give a large You have to give a small gift if you the poor. gift if you can afford it. can only afford that. 12. A severance gift You only have to give a You always have to give a severance for a departing servant. severance gift if the household gift to a servant. […] was blessed with the servant. 13. Lending money to You only have to lend those You have to lend those that are those that are in need. that are in need and not extremely miserly also. miserly people.

31a) Why We Need Laws About Unloading and Loading

If it only said… We would not know… The laws of unloading The laws of loading because unloading a) takes away pain from the animal, and b) saves money for the owner. The laws of loading The laws of free unloading because loading is with a payment. R’ Shimon: The verses are ambiguous. If only one was said we would not know which it is and say it is the more obvious one: unloading. We would not know loading.

31a) Why we Need Laws About Loading/Unloading And Finding Lost Objects

If it only said… We would not know… The laws of unloading and The laws of returning a lost object because there loading is no suffering (to an animal) caused by not returning something. The laws of returning an 31b) The laws of unloading and loading because object I would think that the laws are only for things that the owner cannot do by himself (find a lost object that he is not close to) but loading and unloading he can do by himself.

32a) R’ Yitzchok Ruling On Finding An Animal.

First Version Second Version Mishna: If one found an animal in a Mishna: If one found an animal in a barn, leave it. In a public place, return barn, leave it. In a public place, return it. it. R’ Yitzchok: Only within the techum. R’ Yitzchok: Only outside the techum. In a barn In a public In a barn In a public place place Within the Leave it Return Within the Leave it Leave it techum techum Outside the Return Return Outside the Leave it Return techum techum

32a) Commandment for Loading and Unloading Packages from an Animal.

Loading Unloading Rabbis For a fee For free R’ Shimon For free For Free

32b) Proofs That It Is Not Permitted to Cause Animals To Suffer is Biblical or Rabbinic.

Ruling Inference Objection to proof 1. For It is an obligation Had it only said If a bystander does not load an animal, the biblical to help load an this, we would owner does not lose money. If a bystander animal. know from a kol does not load, the owner does lose money. vechomer that Maybe we would learn the kol vechomer as you must help follows: since the bystander has to help load unload an animal where there is no money involved, surely he because an animal has to help where there is money involved. with a load is Objection: There is monetary loss both suffering. ways. 2. For It is an obligation The first opinions One need not make this inference. biblical to help unload an in the Mishna animal even if the must be saying animal is this because they overloaded. believe that suffering of an animal is biblical. 3. For If the owner If there was a Perhaps the bystander is exempt from rabbinic walks away and biblical unloading for free, but he still has the biblical says to the commandment to obligation to help (for a fee). bystander that he help a suffering should unload, animal, the the bystander bystander would does not have to be obligated. unload. 4. For You must help Why would you Maybe the real reason is that you have to biblical unload a non- say that you have help is that you do not make the non-Jew an Jew’s animal. to help unless enemy. […] there is an obligation to relive the suffering of the animal.

32b) Proofs That It Is Not Permitted to Cause Animals To Suffer is Biblical or Rabbinic.

Ruling Inference Objection to proof 5. For If the animal If there was a Maybe this is a case of loading and that is rabbinic belongs to a non- biblical why the bystander does not have to help. […] Jew and the commandment to package belongs help a suffering to a Jew, then the animal, the bystander might bystander would refrain from be obligated. helping. 6. For […] One is If there was a Maybe it is biblical, but defeating their yetzer rabbinic obligated to help biblical obligation hora is more important. load an enemy’s to help the animal animal to defeat then you would their yetzer hora. not need to help make the animal suffer. 7. For One is obligated If there was a Maybe this ruling is qualifying the last rabbinic to help load a biblical ruling. A bystander has to help his enemy if Jewish enemy’s command, what he is a Jew. But in either case he is helping animal. would be the the animal because it is biblical. difference if the animal that needs to be helped was owned by a Jew or a non-Jew? There must not be such a biblical command.

33a) Mishna: Finding Two Objects Owned By Two People.

Self Father Self First

Teacher

33a) What Makes a Rebbe?

R’ Meir R’ Yehudah R’ Yose The teacher that The teacher who The teacher who taught him wisdom taught him the taught him even one (not Mikra nor majority of his Mishna […] Mishna) wisdom. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of Halacha Rav Yochanan Rav Acha bar Rav Huna in the name of Halacha Rav Sheishess