Elu Metziot shiur #10, 22b

  • Rav Joshua Amaru

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)


Introduction to the Study of Talmud
By Rav Josh Amaru

Elu Metziot shiur #10,  22b.

Today's shiur includes the vocabulary list for the shiur itself. If you wish to consult the full cumulative vocabulary list, it is found at
http://www.vbm-torah.org/talmud2/vocab.htm.  

As usual, the citations to the text of the gemara are linked to the online scan of the daf, for those who do not have an open gemara before them.  The gemara can be found on-line at
http://www.e-daf.com/dafprint.asp?ID=3069.

Key words and phrases are marked in blue, and their translation/explanation can be seen by placing the cursor over them.  Other vocabulary words are marked in red and can be found on the vocabulary list at the end of the shiur.  Particularly important vocabulary words will have a link to the vocabulary list. 

  Summary of last week's shiur:  Last week was devoted primarily to review, but included both a grammar lesson and a short shiur tying up some loose ends relating to the yeush she-lo mi-da'at sugya.  Please let me know if you found any of the above useful.  My ability to improve this shiur and to make it more user-friendly depends upon feedback from you. 

    This week we finally leave yeush she-lo mi-da'at behind and move on to a new sugya.  Learn from daf 22b "kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim...כריכות ברשות הרבים" until "...siman he-asui li-dareis havi siman סימן העשוי לידרס - הוי סימן." (lines 1-5 in the schematic analysis).

    Our topic is "siman he-asui li-dareis(a siman which is likely to be trampled; i.e., a temporary siman). 

    The gemara is based upon the mishna's assertion that bundles of grain, i.e. sheaves, belong to the finder, presumably because they have no siman and hence the owner is mityaesh.  Raba states that this rule applies also to sheaves that have simanim.  Why?  Because according to Raba, a siman that is liable to be destroyed does not count as a siman.  Rashi, in s.v. "he-asui li-dares העשוי לידרס," and s.v. "la havi siman לא הוי סימן" (Found 22 lines from the bottom of daf 22b, text and translation here), explains Raba's logic.  As Rashi explains, a siman which the owner cannot trust to remain intact does not give him much hope of reclaiming the object, and hence does not prevent yeush.  The owner of the sheaves, even when they bear some marking indicating who owns them, is aware that that mark is likely to be erased in the hustle-bustle of the marketplace.  Under such circumstances, we may assume that he is mityaesh and the fact that the siman, in the end, was not erased is irrelevant.

    Rava begs to differ.  According to Rava, the presence of a

Note that the two amoraim in this controversy are רבא Rava and רבה Raba. The similarity in their names is a common source of confusion, so pay special attention when you learn this machloket.
siman on the lost object, even if it is likely that the siman will be erased, is sufficient to preclude the presumption of yeush.  In other words, we cannot assume that the owner has given up hope of recovery merely because it is likely that he will be unable to do so.  Even the chance of recovery is enough that we cannot assume yeush.

    As we will see, the gemara continues to explore this makhloket between Raba and Rava.  Learn from"ve-ika de-matni...ואיכא דמתני" until "ve-Rava amar, makom havi siman ורבא אמר: הוי סימן."  (lines 6-11 in the schematic analysis).

    The gemara now revisits the makhloket between Raba and Rava, this time without reference to our mishna.  Raba and Rava disagree as to whether a siman that is liable to be trodden upon is considered a siman that precludes yeush.  The mishna is then introduced as a prooftext.  The word "tenan" "תנן" normally introduces a quote from a mishna.  This quote, however, does not appear in any mishna.  This is either a baraita or, more likely, a paraphrase of a part of our mishna (about items the finder can keep) and the following mishna (on 24b-25a - about items the finder must announce).  In any case, the gemara assumes that the only difference between the sheaves in the first mishna (or the first half of the baraita) and the sheaves in the second mishna is the difference stated - i.e. their location.  Sheaves found in the public domain may be kept by the finder, while those found in a private area must be announced.  Given our premise that the same sheaves are being described in both cases, we clearly must be talking about sheaves with simanim - otherwise what would one announce when one finds sheaves in reshut ha-yachid

    Given that the sheaves have simanim in both cases, reshut ha-yachid and reshut ha-rabim, how can we explain that in the former case the finder must announce while in latter he may keep the sheaves?!   The answer, according to Raba, is clear: the simanim to be found on the sheaves in reshut ha-rabim are simanim that are liable to be destroyed by being trodden upon and thus may be disregarded.  In reshut hayachid, there is no danger of passersby destroying the simanim and thus no yeush, so the sheaves must be returned. 

    This interpretation of the mishna presents a challenge to Rava - how can he avoid conceding Raba's point that a siman that is liable to be trodden upon is ineffectual? How else can one distinguish between the sheaves in reshut ha-yachid and the sheaves in reshut ha-rabim?  Rava's answer is to assert that the two mishnayot are both talking about sheaves that do not have simanim.  If they had simanim, then the finder would have to announce what he or she had found, regardless of the location of the find (since siman he-asui li-dareis havei siman - is  a siman).  The difference between reshut ha-yachid and reshut ha-rabim lies in the fact that location itself can be a siman.  Just as an object can be identified by some distinct physical characteristic, they can be identified by the owner if he can pinpoint the location where he lost them.  In reshut ha-rabim, where the sheaves are likely to be kicked around, the location of the find is not a sufficient siman.  However, in reshut ha-yachid, where there is reason to assume that the sheaves were where they were left by the owner, location can function as a siman.

    As is becoming apparent, the positions of Rava and Raba are mirror images of one another.  They both presume that in a public thoroughfare, small items like sheaves will be kicked around.  They disagree as to the significance of this fact.  According to Rava, it means that we cannot rely on the location as a siman, as we could in a less bustling area.  Thus, the distinction made in the mishna between reshut ha-rabim and reshut ha-yachid applies only to sheaves that have no physical simanim.  If they do, the finder must always announce his find. 

    According to Raba, location is never a siman - it is simply too vague a category.  Instead, Raba posits that the hustle and bustle of the marketplace will be enough to erase the ordinary simanim found on things that get underfoot (like sheaves).   The distinction in the mishna between reshut ha-rabim and reshut ha-yachid applies only to sheaves that have (erasable) simanim.  If there are no simanim on the sheaves, the finder may keep them even if he finds them in reshut ha-yachid.   

To sum up the makhloket so far:  Raba holds that a siman that is liable to be trampled and erased does not count as a siman.  For this reason, with sheaves that have simanim, the obligation to return them depends upon location -  whether they are in a place in which the simanim are likely to be erased - and that is the distinction between the two mishnayot.  Rava, on the other hand, holds that even a siman that is liable to be trampled and erased does count as a siman.  The distinction between reshut ha-yachid and reshut ha-rabim is relevant with regard to objects that have no ordinary simanim, erasable or otherwise.  Instead, the issue of location takes on significance as a siman itself - so long as we can assume that the location of the find is identical to the location of the loss (i.e. in reshut ha-yachid), the loser can identify his property to the finder and get it back. 

    Back to the gemara:  Learn from "Ta shema: Kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim...תא שמע: כריכות ברשות הרבים"  until "la minshtafa...לא מינשתפא."  (daf 22b-23a).  See lines 12-15 of the schematic analysis.

    The gemara confronts us with a baraita that does not seem to fit with either Raba's or Rava's position.  The baraita distinguishes between small sheaves, kerikhot כריכות, and large sheaves, alumot אלומות.  With regard to small sheaves, the ruling of the baraita is identical to our mishna:  In reshut ha-rabim they belong to the finder and in reshut ha-yachid they must be announced.  However, large sheaves, teaches the baraita, must always be announced.  Why does the size of the sheaves make a difference?  Raba and Rava each explain in accordance with their respective positions:

    Raba explains the baraita in terms of simanim that are liable to be trodden upon.  The baraita refers exclusively to sheaves that have simanim.   Small sheaves are liable to be trodden upon in reshut ha-rabim but not in reshut ha-yachid and thus the distinction.  Large sheaves, because of their size, will not be trodden upon by passersby even in reshut ha-rabim.  Since their simanim are thus not liable to be erased, they must always be announced.

    Rava explains the baraita in terms of location as a siman.  The baraita refers exclusively to sheaves that do not have simanim.  If they had simanim, one would have to announce them no matter what.  In the absence of simanim, location is an effective siman for small sheaves only in reshut ha-yachid since there they are unlikely to have been moved from the place where they were lost.  Large sheaves, because of their weight, are unlikely to be moved around even in reshut ha-rabim and therefore their location can always function as a siman.

    Before we continue, you should note what has happened.  The mishna distinguished between reshut ha-rabim and reshut ha-yachid as the criterion for determining when one may keep and when one must announce the sheaves one has found.  In turns out, however, that this distinction is not the essential point.  The significance of reshut ha-rabim is circumstantial:  for Raba it provides an environment in which simanim are likely to be erased while for Rava it provides an environment in which one cannot assume that where something was found is where it was lost.  In both explanations, large objects are not affected by being in reshut ha-rabim. Instead, the locus of the discussion has moved to two mutually exclusive (textually if not logically) points:  whether a siman that is likely to be erased counts as a siman and whether location counts as a siman.

    Now let us learn the next section, on daf 23a from "Ta shema: Kikarot shel nachtom...תא שמע: ככרות של נחתום"  until "...atra de-la shekhichi behaima ve-kelavim אתרא דלא שכיחי בהמה וכלבים."  See lines 16-23 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara confronts us with a line from our mishna - (professional) baker's loaves may be kept by the finder.  This implies that home-baked loaves must be announced.

The fact that the gemara deduces the rule about homemade loaves from the rule about baker's loaves is odd.  After all, the rule that homemade loaves must be announced is explicit in the next mishna on 24b!  Rashi, s.v.   ha shel ba'al ha-bayit chayav le-hakhriz,  is sensitive to this problem and offers a literary solution:  The gemara, claims Rashi, did not want to stray from our (the first) mishna.  The interpretation of our mishna led to a challenge to Raba's position.  In the interests of symmetry, the gemara now challenges Rava's position from the same mishna. 

   Home-baked loaves must be announced because they bear identifying marks - that is precisely how they are different from baker's loaves. However, the mishna does not distinguish regarding loaves between situations in which the simanim are likely to be erased by being trodden upon and situations where there is no such danger.  Why should loaves of bread be different than sheaves?  Are not home-baked loaves as susceptible to being trodden upon and losing their identifying marks?  Why does Raba's exclusion of simanim that are liable to be trodden upon not apply to home-baked loaves? 

    Raba's explanation is very simple.  People do not carelessly trod on foodstuffs, even in reshut ha-rabim. Thus a siman on food, in this case loaves of bread, is not liable to be trod upon and erased.  The simanim on home-baked loaves are therefore good indicators that the owner has not been mityaesh and for this reason the finder must always announce that he has found home-made loaves.

Rashi, s.v. ein ma'avirin al ha-okhlin, (text and translation here) explains that the principle that "people do not pass by food" is not merely that they do not step on it.  Rather, it is forbidden to pass by and leave food in the road.  A siman on food is not liable to be trodden upon since the first person who sees it will pick it up.  This interpretation is supported by the gemara's next question that there still is a danger that non-Jews (who are not obliged to pick up the food) will trod upon it.
    The gemara then questions this answer:  It may be that Jew will not trod upon food and thus loaves are not liable to lose their simanim, but what about non-Jews?  Who is to say that they are so careful about showing respect for food?  The gemara answers that non-Jews are also careful not to trod on food, if not out of respect then out of fear that the food was placed there as a means of perpetrating witchcraft and thus should be avoided.

    Raba's explanation why the issue of simanim liable to be trod upon is not relevant to loaves of bread found in reshut ha-rabim is still not complete.  Even if people, Jews and non-Jews, will not trod on loaves of bread, what about animals?  Raba answers this last question with an ukimta:  The standard case of the mishna refers to a place in which animals are not found in reshut ha-rabim.  

Summary:  This week we began a new sugya - that of the two faceted makhloket between Raba and Rava.  Do simanim that are liable to be erased count as simanim?  Is location a valid siman?  We looked at various precedents but have not resolved this issues so far.  More next week.  

 

Schematic Analysis #10

Schematic analysis from  daf 22b "kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim...כריכות ברשות הרבים"  until daf 23a "...de-la shekhichi behaima u-kelavim דלא שכיחי בהמה וכלבים"

Translation of gemara Schematic Analysis Text of gemara 22b-23a

1.  "Small sheaves in a reshut harabim belong to him [the finder]".

Quote from the mishna

1.  כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו.

2.  Raba said: Even something that has a siman. Interpretation of the case in the mishna

2.  אמר רבה: ואפילו בדבר שיש בו סימן.

3.  It follows that Raba holds that a siman which is liable to be trodden on  is not [considered]a siman. Extraction of the principle underlying above interpretation

3.  אלמא קסבר רבה: סימן העשוי לידרס - לא הוי סימן.

4.  Rava said:  They only taught [in the mishna] about things that have no siman, but things that have a siman - he must announce. Interpretation of the case in the mishna

4.  רבא אמר: לא שנו אלא בדבר שאין בו סימן, אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן - חייב להכריז.

5.  It follows that Rava holds that a siman which is liable to be trodden on  is [considered] a siman. Extraction of the principle underlying above interpretation

5.  אלמא קסבר רבא: סימן העשוי לידרס - הוי סימן.

6.  Some teach this as an independent tradition:  [regarding] a siman which is liable to be trodden on, Raba said it is not [considered] a siman and Rava said it is [considered] a siman. Rephrasing of the above makhloket independet of the mishna.

6. ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באנפי נפשה: סימן העשוי לידרס, רבה אמר: לא הוי סימן, ורבא אמר: הוי סימן.

7.  Tenan: Small sheaves [which are found] in a reshut harabim belong to the finder, [but if found] in reshut hayachid, they have to be taken up and announced. Prooftext used as a precedent to resolve the makhloket.

7.  תנן: כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז.

8.  How is this to be understood? If [the sheaves] have no siman, what is there to be announced [if they are found] reshut hayachid? Rather, it must be that they have a siman, and still it teaches that [if found] in reshut harabim they belong to the finder. Consequently a siman which is liable to be trodden on is not [considered] a siman, which is a refutation of Rava!  Explanation how the prooftext is difficult for one side of the makhloket.

8.  היכי דמי? אי דלית בהו סימן - ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז? אלא לאו - דאית בהו סימן, וקתני: ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, אלמא: סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, תיובתא דרבא! 

9.  Rava may say to you: In reality they have no siman; and as to your question, 'What is there to be announced [if they were found] in reshut hayachid?', [the answer is:] one announces the location.

 

Refutation of the difficulty through reinterpretation of the prooftext.

9.  אמר לך רבא: לעולם דלית בהו סימן, ודקא אמרת ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז - מכריז מקום.

10.  Raba says that location is not a siman

Explanation of Raba's position.

10.  ורבה אמר: מקום לא הוי סימן.

11.  As it has been said: [In regard to] location, Raba said, it is not considered a siman, but Rava says, it is a siman. Makhloket Amoraim that came out of previous discussion.

11. דאיתמר: מקום, רבה אמר: לא הוי סימן, ורבא אמר: הוי סימן.

12. Ta shema: Small sheaves [which are found] in a reshut ha-rabim belong to the finder, but [if found] in reshut ha-yachid  they have to be taken up and announced. Large sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a reshut ha-rabim or [are found] in reshut ha-yachid, have to be taken up and announced. Baraita that needs to be explained by both sides of the makhloket.

12.  תא שמע: כריכות ברשות הרבים - הרי אלו שלו, ברשות היחיד - נוטל ומכריז. והאלומות, בין ברשות הרבים בין ברשות היחיד - נוטל ומכריז.

13.  How does Raba explain it and how does Rava explain it? Raba explains it according to his view: By the siman. Rava explains it according to his view: By the location.

Indication of the different explanations.

13.  רבה היכי מתרץ לה ורבא היכי מתרץ לה? רבה מתרץ לטעמיה - בסימן, ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה - במקום.

14.  Raba explains it according to his view by the siman: [the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a reshut harabim belong to the finder [is] because [p.23a] they are trodden on,  while in reshut hayachid [the finder] has to take them up and announce them because there they are not trodden on. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in reshut harabim or reshut hayachid, [the finder] has to take up and announce since they are raised, one does not tread on them.

Explication of the baraita according to Raba.

14.  רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן: כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו - משום [כג עמ' א] דמדרסא, ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז - דלא מדרסא, והאלומות בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז - כיון דגביהן, לא מדרסא.

15.  And Raba explains it according to his view by the location: [the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a reshut harabim belong to the finder [is] that they are pushed along,  while in reshut hayachid, [the finder] has to announce them because they are not pushed along.  Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in  reshut harabim or in reshut hayachid, [the finder] has to take up and announce because since they are heavy, they are not pushed along.

Explication of the baraita according to Rava.

15.   ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום: כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו - דמינשתפא, ברשות היחיד חייב להכריז - דלא מינשתפא, והאלומות בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז - כיון דיקירי לא מינשתפא.

16.  Ta shema: Baker's loaves belong to the finder. Prooftext

16. תא שמע: ככרות של נחתום - הרי אלו שלו.

17.  [implying that] home-made loaves one is obliged to announced. Deduction from the prooftext that challenges one side of the makhloket.

17.  הא של בעל הבית - חייב להכריז.

18. What is the reason  that home-made loaves [must be announced]? Since they have a siman, and one can tell that someone's bread belongs to him, regardless of whether [they are found] in a reshut ha-rabim or a reshut ha-yachid, [the finder] has to take them up and announce them.  It  follows that an identification mark which is likely to be trodden on is a valid mark,  which is a refutation of Raba! Explication of the difficulty.

18.  של בעל הבית מאי טעמא - כיון דאית בהו סימן, דמידע ידיע רפתא דאיניש איניש הוא, ולא שנא רשות הרבים ולא שנא רשות היחיד - נוטל ומכריז אלמא: סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן, תיובתא דרבה! -

19.  Raba will answer you: There the reason is that one does not pass by food. Resolution of the difficulty by offering alternative explanation of the baraita.

19. אמר לך רבה: התם היינו טעמא, משום דאין מעבירין על האוכלין.

20.  But there are non-Jews?  Difficulty with alternative explanation.

20.  והא איכא נכרים?

21.  Non Jews[do not pass by eatables because they] are afraid of witchcraft Resolution of difficulty

21. נכרים חיישי לכשפים.

22.  But are there not cattle and dogs? Additional difficulty with alternative explanation.

22.  והאיכא בהמה וכלבים?

 23.  [The mishnah speaks] of a place where cattle and dogs are not frequently found.

Resolution of difficulty with ukimta.

 23.  אתרא דלא שכיחי בהמה וכלבים.

 

 

Selections from Rashi daf 22b-daf 23a

Translation

Rashi Text

he-asui lidares, that is liable to be trod upon:  that the object is in a place where the people commonly walk, and it is low enough to comfortably step on it.

העשוי לידרס - שהמקום שהוא שם רגיל בדריסת בני אדם, והחפץ נמוך ונוח לידרס.

la havi siman, [it] is not a siman:  the owner does not trust that the siman is worth declaring:  he says so himself, "the siman was destroyed by being trod upon"

לא הוי סימן - שאין בעליו סומך לתת בו סימן, מימר אמר: נשחת הסימן בדריסת הרגלים.

ha shel ba'al ha-bayit chayav le-hakhriz, home[-baked loaves] one is obliged to be announce - even though [this deduction] is explicitly taught in our mishna, since [the gemara] used the reisha (i.e.the first mishna), [regarding] sheaves in reshut ha-rabim, to attack Rava['s position], it also used a close reading of the reisha in order to challenge Raba's position.   

הא של בעל הבית חייב להכריז - ואף על גב דבהדיא תני לה במתניתין, איידי דנקט לאותביה מרישא כריכות ברשות הרבים דאותיב מינה לרבא, נקט נמי לאותוביה לרבה מדוקיא דרישא.

ein ma'avirin al ha-okhlin, [people] do not pass by food- one who finds food on the way is not allowed to pass by and leave them there.  For this reason it (the food) is not trod upon, as the first person to find it picks it up.

אין מעבירין על האוכלין - המוצא אוכלין בדרך אין רשאי לעבור עליהם ולהניחם שם, הלכך לא נדרסו, שמי שמצאן ראשון הגביהן.

 

 

Key Gemara Terms

ika:  there is

 

איכא

alma: it follows, consequently, therefore

אלמא

be-anpei nafsha: by itself

בפני עצמו

באנפי נפשה

Tenan:  we have learnt in a mishna (phrase introducing a quote from a mishna)

שנינו

תנן

General vocabulary

ika:  there is

 

איכא

alma: it follows, consequently, therefore

אלמא

atra: place

מקום

אתרא

be-anpei nafsha: by itself

בפני עצמו

באנפי נפשה

reshut ha-yachid - private domain

 

רשות היחיד

reshut ha-rabim - public domain, public thoroughfare

רשות הרבים

sham'ata:  tradition, verbal record of a discussion

שמועה

שמעתא

Tenan:  we have learnt in a mishna (phrase introducing a quote from a mishna)

שנינו

תנן