Elu Metziot shiur #11, 23a

  • 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 #11,  23a.

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=3070.

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 we began the discussion of a makhloket between Raba and Rava.  Raba holds that siman ha'asui lidares, a siman that is likely to be trodden upon and erased does not count as a siman.  Thus the finder can keep an item that is found under circumstances in which it is likely that the siman would not be intact, even if the siman is in fact intact.  Rava disagrees and holds that a siman that is liable to be destroyed still counts as a siman, and the finder must announce the object if in fact the siman is intact.  In addition, Rava holds that the location of the lost object can itself be a siman, so long as it is reasonable to presume that that location is stable. Interestingly, we noticed that these two positions mirror each other neatly; the circumstances under which a siman is likely to be erased are often the same circumstances in which the location of the lost object is unstable.  Because of this Raba and Rava can both successfully interpret the various cases brought up from the mishna.

    This week we continue to discuss the makhloket between Rava and Raba.  Open to daf 23a and learn from "leima ka-tanai...לימא כתנאי" until "ve-rabi Yehuda savar, havi siman ורבי יהודה סבר: הוי סימן." (before the words "ika de-amri איכא דאמרי")  Lines 1-6 in the schematic analysis. 

    The gemara entertains the possibility that the makhloket between Raba and Rava is nothing new -- it is merely the rehashing of a pre-existing makhloket Tanaim - R. Yehuda and the anonymous Tana* of the first part of our mishna.  Let us look back at our mishna on daf 21a.  Following

If you look back to the mishna on 21a, you will  notice that the Tana of the first part of our mishna is not anonymous at all, but rather is identified as "divrei R. Meir דברי רבי מאיר", the words of R. Meir.  Notice the asterisk in front of the word “divrei” in “divrei R. Meir."  This asterisk is a reference to the comments in “Masoret HaShas”, printed in the inside margin.   If you look in the right margin immediately to the right of the asterisk, you will see the note that points out that in this mishna as it appears in the Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud), the words “divrei R. Meir” do not occur.  As we mentioned in the first shiur in which we discussed the mishna, the Yerushalmi version of our mishna is borne out by our sugya that clearly does not gloss "divrei R. Meir."  Instead, our sugya refers to the author of the first position in the mishna as merely the "Tana Kama תנא קמא,"  the first Tana.  The additional words were probably inserted at some time based upon the principle that "stam Mishna - R. Meir סתם משנה - ר' מאיר", that the author of an anonymous mishna is generally R. Meir.   

the list of objects that have no simanim presented in the name of R. Meir (see adjoining box)  R. Yehuda states a principle:  "Anything that has an unusual characteristic he must announce."  He then gives an example of his principle: "A round of figs containing a potsherd, or a loaf containing money."  The gemara understands that R. Yehuda is not merely restating the halakha of the previous Tana in a different way.  There must be a point of difference in their positions that drives R. Yehuda to distinguish his position from that of the Tana Kama תנא קמא.  More specifically, we must look at the examples mentioned by R. Yehuda. The fact that he lists these particular examples implies that he thinks they are different from the preceding ones, and accordingly the finder must announce in these cases.

    In order to proceed, we must understand the makhloket in the mishna.  Once we understand that makhloket, we can check in see if it is the same as the makhloket between Raba and Rava. 

  In its first analyis of the makhloket between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama, the gemara asks us to accept two premises: 

    1. That a siman that "comes by itself" is a valid siman.
    2. That people do pass by foodstuffs. 
Granting these premises, what is controversial about the cases brought up by R. Yehuda (a round of figs containing a potsherd, or a loaf containing money)?  Well, these simanim are also simanim
What is a "siman that comes by itself"?  Look in Rashi, s.v. ha-ba mei-eilav הבא מאליו, s.v. havi siman, הוי סימן, (text and translation here).  Rashi explains that a siman that comes by itself is a siman that could have become a part of the object by chance, and thus the owner himself may be unaware of it.  If we say that a siman that comes by itself is valid, we are presuming that such a siman did not in fact come by itself, but was deliberately put there by the owner.  The Tosafot s.v. ha-ba mei-eilav havi siman הבא מאליו הוי סימן (text and translation here if  you want to give it a try) point out that Rashi overstates the case.  We do not need to assume that the owner put the siman there deliberately in order to say that a siman that comes by itself is valid.  It is sufficient to presume that the owner is aware of the siman.   
that are likely to be trodden upon (remember, we have already granted that people will trod upon food). If our premises are true, it appears that the most likely explanation of the what is at stake between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama is whether a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is a valid siman!  The Tana Kama holds that it is not a good siman and therefore does not distinguish between a regular round of figs (or loaf of bread) and one containing a potsherd (or money).  Such simanim are liable to be trodden upon and thus the finder may keep the lost object even when it has such a siman.  R. Yehuda disagrees and holds that such things count as an unusual characterstic (and hence a siman) that imposes upon the finder the obligation to announce (and return) the lost object.  Given this analysis, it would appear that the makhloket between Raba and Rava already appears in our mishna!

    R. Zevid, in the name of Rava, quickly points out that this analysis is untenable.  If we accept the above two  premises, that a siman that comes by itself is a valid siman, and that people do pass by foodstuffs, how does the Tana Kama explain the fact that (in the next mishna on 25a) homemade loaves must be announced?  Since people do pass by (or trod upon) foodstuffs (according to the premise), these should be an example of a siman that is likely to be trodden upon (which according to the above analysis is not counted as a valid siman by the Tana Kama)! 

Methodological point:  As we see in this case, the gemara will always try to show, despite perhaps a surface resemblance, that a makhloket Amoraim is not identical to a makhloket between Tanaim.  The reason for this lies in two methodological assumptions that the stama de-gemara (anonymous narrator of the gemara) makes:  First, the gemara assumes that the Amoraim were aware of all the preceding Tannaic material and thus the two Amoraim were aware of the makhloket Tanaim.  In our case, that assumption is undeniable since the makhloket appears in a mishna.  Secondly, the gemara assumes that the Amoraim always deferred to the Tannaim's authority, and thus would not discuss an issue without making reference to the fact that there are Tannaic opinions on it.   Under such circumstances, when the gemara encounters a tradition (remember that the gemara is a record of an oral tradition) of a makhloket between two Amoraim, it will try to understand how the makhloket is different from a similar makhloket Tanaim, since if they were arguing the same point, the Amoraim would surely have pointed it out themselves. 

    Rav Zevid in the name of Rava thus offers an alternative analyis of the makhloket in the mishna:  There is no disagreement as to two premises: 

The disagreement between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama is about whether we regard a siman that comes by itself to be valid.  The Tana Kama argues that it is not and thus the finder may keep the round of figs or loaf of bread, since the the potsherd or the money are not significant.  R. Yehuda argues that these are simanim, even though they might have come by themselves, and thus the finder must announce.  

    Of course, the above analysis of the mishna only make sense if you grant that a siman which is liable to be trodden on is a valid siman.  Rava has no problem, as that is precisely his position.  However, how does Raba analyze the mishna?

    The answer, as you might expect, is that Raba switches the premises.  For Raba as well, the makhloket is about whether a siman that comes by itself is valid.  However, according to Raba, the common ground between the two Tanaim is precisely the opposite as that of Rava: 

    1. A siman which is liable to be trodden on is not a valid siman, but;
    2. One may not pass by foodstuffs. 

    We can see that the various analyses are driven by the pre-existing positions of the Amoraim.  Since everyone agrees that homemade loaves have a siman and must be announced, it is clear that the Tana Kama and R. Yehuda do not disagree about whether a siman that is liable to be trodden upon is valid.  According to Raba, they both agree that such a siman is invalid.  Homemade loaves must be announced because it is forbidden to pass by foodstuffs; hence we may assume that the loaves will not be trod upon.  According to Rava, the opposite is the case - it makes no difference that homemade loaves may be trodden upon, since their identifying markers will still count as a siman.  Both Rava and Raba agree that the makhloket between the Tana Kama and R. Yehuda turns on a different issue -  whether a siman that comes by itself counts as a siman

    Let us continue with the gemara.  Learn from "Ika de-amri...איכא דאמרי" until (fourth line from the bottom) "Amar Rav Zevid mi-shemei de-Rava kelala de-aveidata... אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: כללא דאבידתא" (not included).  Lines 7-10 in the schematic analysis. 

    "Ika de-amri" introduces another version of the previous sugya. The gemara offers us a different version of the sugya we just learned.  The basic categories remain the same, while they are combined in a different way.  The words "Ika de-amri איכא דאמרי" indicate that the gemara records here a different tradition as to the substance of the discussion of the relationship between the makhloket of Raba and Rava and the mishna.  

    We return to the makhloket in the mishna.  This time the gemara first entertains the notion that the makhloket between the Tana Kama and R. Yehuda should be analyzed as follows:  Both sides grant two premises:

    1.  That a siman which might have come of itself is a valid siman,  and;
    2.  That a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is not a valid siman

   Hence the point of contention is about passing by foodstuffs.  R. Yehuda thinks that the potsherd in the round of figs or the coins in the loaf is a valid siman, since foods are not liable to be trodden upon. (People may not pass by food).  The Tana Kama disagrees; since people will trod upon food (people may pass by food), we cannot rely upon simanim that will be trodden upon.      

    In this context Rav Zevid asks his question: If we accept the above two premises, how does the Tana Kama explain the fact that (in the next mishna on 25a) homemade loaves must be announced?  After all the Tana Kama holds that  

    1.  That a siman which might have come of itself is a valid siman,  and;
    2.  That a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is not a valid siman, and;
    3.  People may (and do) pass by foodstuffs (the point of contention with R. Yehuda). 

Since the siman on homemade loaves is likely to be trodden upon, why does it count as a siman

    The gemara then lays out the correct interpretation of the mishna according to Rava and subsequently according to Raba.  These positions are identical with those laid out above in the first version of the sugya:  The dispute in the mishna is about whether a siman that comes by itself is valid; the Tana Kama holds that it is not, while R. Yehuda holds that it is.  Rava and Raba disagree as to the premises of that dispute:  According to Rava, all agree that a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is still a siman and thus the fact that the simanim suggested by R. Yehuda are likely to be trodden upon is immaterial.  According to Raba, all agree that a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is not a valid siman, but since R. Yehuda's examples are all of food, and one may not pass by food, the relevant cases are not examples of simanim that are likely to be trodden upon. 

    As you will have noticed, the second version of the sugya does not even briefly entertain the notion that the makhloket between Rava and Raba is merely a re-hashing of the makhloket Tanaim.  In a comment above, I discussed why it is unlikely that the two disputes would match.  This sugya is a reminder of the origins of the gemara as an oral tradition.  When the text of the gemara was finalized and closed (some time between 500-800 C.E. - no one really knows), there were different traditions as to how to recontstruct the discussion of the makhloket between Raba and Rava along with Rav Zevid's comments upon it.  It was decided in this case (and many others) to include both versions. In this case the difference between the two versions does not amount to much.  Some of the time, we will find that different versions will give rise two different halakhic conclusions.  In such cases there is a range of opinion amongst the Rishonim as to the rule for deciding between the conflicting versions.

    Our sugya concludes with a series of halakhic rulings made by Rav Zevid in the name of Rava:  Learn now from "Amar Rav Zevid mi-shemei de-Rava kelala de-aveidata... אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: כללא דאבידתא until the colon (:) at the bottom of the page.  Lines 11-12 in the schematic analysis.

    First, Rav Zevid teaches us something we have been assuming all along but was not stated explicitly -  he defines yeush.  Yeush is the state in which the owner would express regret at his loss, rather than actively engage in looking for it.  Rashba points out that this expression of regret must be made

RASHBA רשב"א
R. Shlomo ben Aderet was born in Barcelona in 1235, and died there in 1310. He studied with Rabbeinu Yonah and Nahmanides (Ramban), and was a contemporary of R. Aharon Ha-Levi (Re'ah). In his youth Rashba tried his hand at business, but later gave up his business to become the chief rabbi of Barcelona and to head the yeshiva there. His knowledge of Roman law, Spanish common law, and economics stood him in good stead as the leader of the Jewish communities in Spain. Given the centrality of Barcelona in the Jewish world of the time - Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Turkey, North Africa, Italy, and Israel - it is not surprising that numerous halachic queries were sent to him from all these countries. Thousands of his responsa have been published, and thousands more are still in manuscript. Hundreds, if not thousands, of his halachic decisions were included in the Shulchan Aruch of R. Yosef Karo. Rashba's novellae on the Talmud were very highly regarded in both German and Sephardic yeshivot and were published numerous times. (Bar Ilan Responsa CD)
verbally only if the lost object has simanim.  In the case of an object that does not have simanim, once we have ascertained that the owner is aware of the loss, there is a presumption of yeush and we do not need any external expression of it.    

    Next, Rav Zevid (in the name of Rava) rules in the subjects we have been discussing the last few weeks.  Not surprisingly, the ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rava in his makhloket with Raba.  A siman that is liable to be trodden upon is still a siman and thus sheaves that have a siman must be announced and subsequently returned to the owner, even when they are found in reshut ha-rabim.  The status of sheaves (and similar items) that do not have a siman depends -  if they are found in reshut ha-yachid, and look as if they were placed there, they must be announced, in accordance with Rava's opinion that location can function as a siman.  However, if the sheaves look like they have fallen inadvertantly from the owner (such that he too would be unaware of their location) or, alternatively they were found in reshut ha-rabim (where location is not significant, since they are likely to be kicked around), then the finder may keep them.  Under such circumstances the sheaves have no siman and we may presume the owner was mityaesh

    We thus conclude the discussion of simanim that are liable to be trodden upon.  As we have seen, concept of what makes for a siman is a complex one.  In the upcoming weeks we will further investigate the definition of a siman as we continue to analyze the mishna.   

 

 

Schematic Analysis #11

Schematic analysis from  daf 23a leima ke-tanai...  לימא כתנאי  until chayav le-hakhriz   חייב להכריז (end of 23a).

Translation of gemara Schematic Analysis Text of gemara 23a

1.  Let us say that [this makhloket] is [already] a makhloket between the Tanaim:    R. Yehuda says:  Anything that has an unusual characteristic he must announce.  How?  If he found a round of figs containing a potsherd, or a loaf containing money.

 

Attribution of the the makhloket between Raba and Rava to a makhloket Tanaim.

1.  לימא כתנאי, רבי יהודה אומר: כל דבר שיש בו שינוי - חייב להכריז. כיצד? מצא עיגול ובתוכו חרס, ככר ובתוכו מעות.

2.  This implies that the first Tanna [of the mishnah] holds that these articles belong to the finder [in spite of their unusual feature].  Deduction of opposing position in the makhloket Tabaim.

2.  מכלל דתנא קמא סבר: הרי אלו שלו.

3.  They (those who want to identify the makhlokot) would reason:  all would agree that a siman which might have come of itself is a valid siman,  and that people pass by foodstuffs.  [Therefore,] isn't the argument [between the Tannaim] about a siman that is liable to be trodden upon?   One holds that it is not a valid siman, and the other holds that it is a valid siman! Analysis of the makhloket Tanaim as parallel to that of Raba and Rava.

3.  סברוה: דכולי עלמא סימן הבא מאיליו - הוי סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין. מאי לאו - בסימן העשוי לידרס קא מיפלגי, מר סבר: לא הוי סימן, ומר סבר: הוי סימן?

4.  R. Zevid replied in the name of Rava: If you entertain the notion that the first Tanna [of the Mishnah] holds that a siman which is likely to be trodden upon is not a valid siman, and that one may pass by food, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Difficulty with above analysis

4.   - אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: אי סלקא דעתך דקא סבר תנא קמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין - ככרות של בעל הבית ברשות הרבים אמאי מכריז?

5.  Therefore R. Zevid said in the name of Rava:  all agree that a siman which is liableto be trodden on is a valid siman and that one may pass by foodstuffs. but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] disagree regarding a siman which may have, come of itself.  The first Tanna holds that a siman which may have come of itself is not a valid siman, and R. Yehuda holds that it is a valid siman. Alternative analysis in accordance with Rava's position

5.  אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: דכולי עלמא סברי סימן העשוי לידרס - הוי סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין. והכא - בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי. דתנא קמא סבר: סימן הבא מאיליו - לא הוי סימן ורבי יהודה סבר: הוי סימן.

6.  Raba [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that a siman which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid siman, and that one may not pass by food,  but that [the Tannaim] differ here regarding a siman which may have come of itself, the first Tanna holds that it is not a valid siman, and R. Yehuda holds that it is a valid siman. Alternative analysis ic accordance with Raba's position

6. ורבה אמר לך: דכולי עלמא סימן העשוי לידרס - לא הוי סימן, ואין מעבירין על האוכלין. והכא בסימן הבא מאיליו קמיפלגי. תנא קמא סבר: לא הוי סימן, ורבי יהודה סבר: הוי סימן.

7.  Some have another version [of the sugya]:  They (those who want to identify the makhlokot) would reason:  all would agree that a siman which might have come of itself is a valid siman,  and that a siman that is likely to be trodden upon is not a valid siman.  Don't they disagree about passing by foodstuffs?    One holds that one may pass by foodstufs and the other holds that one may not.   Alternative version of the above sugya: Analysis of the makhloket Tanaim.

7.  איכא דאמרי: סברוה דכולי עלמא סימן הבא מאיליו הוי סימן, וסימן העשוי לידרס - לא הוי סימן. מאי לאו - במעבירין על האוכלין קא מיפלגי, דמר סבר: מעבירין, ומר סבר: אין מעבירין.

8.  R. Zevid then replied in the name of Rava: If you assume that the first Tanna holds that a siman which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid siman, and that one may pass by foddstuffs, why should one have to announce [the finding of] home-made loaves? Difficulty with above analysis

8.  אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: אי סלקא דעתך סבר תנא קמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין - ככרות של בעל הבית ברשות הרבים אמאי מכריז?

9.  Therefore R. Zevid said in the name of Rava that all are of the opinion that a siman which is likely to be trodden on is a valid siman, and that one may pass by foodstuff, but here [in our Mishnah the Tannaim] differ regarding a siman which may have come of itself.  The first Tanna holds that a siman an which may have come of itself is not a valid siman, and R. Yehuda holds that it is a valid siman.

Alternative analysis in accordance with Rava's position

9.  אלא אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: דכולי עלמא סברי: סימן העשוי לידרס - הוי סימן, ומעבירין על האוכלין. והכא - בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי, דתנא קמא סבר: סימן הבא מאיליו - לא הוי סימן, ורבי יהודה סבר: הוי סימן.

10.  Raba [on the other hand] will tell you that all agree that a siman which is likely to be trodden on is not a valid siman, and that one may not pass by foodstuff, but the[the Tannaim] differ here regarding a siman which may have come of itself.  The first Tanna holds that an siman which may have come of itself is not a valid siman, and R. Yehuda holds that it is a valid siman.

Alternative analysis ic accordance with Raba's position

10.  ורבה אמר לך: דכולי עלמא סימן העשוי לידרס - לא הוי סימן, ואין מעבירין על האוכלין. והכא - בסימן הבא מאיליו קא מיפלגי, תנא קמא סבר: סימן הבא מאיליו - לא הוי סימן, ורבי יהודה סבר: הוי סימן.

11.  R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: The general principle in regard to a loss is: If [the loser] has said, 'Woe! I have sustained a monetary loss,' he been mityaesh from it. Halakhic Ruling.

11. אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: כללא דאבידתא: כיון דאמר ווי לה לחסרון כיס - מיאש ליה מינה.

12. R. Zevid also said in the name of Rava: The law is: Small sheaves, [if found] in reshut ha-rabim, belong to the finder; [if found] in reshut ha-yachid, [it depends:]  if  they appear to have been dropped, they belong to the finder, if they appear to be laid down [deliberately, the finder] has to take them up and announce them. Both [rulings] apply only to a [case where the lost] article has no siman, but in a [case where the lost] article has an siman, it has to be announced, irrespective of whether it appears to have been dropped or placed. Halakhic Ruling.

12.   ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא: הלכתא, כריכות ברשות הרבים - הרי אלו שלו, ברשות היחיד, אי דרך נפילה - הרי אלו שלו, אי דרך הנחה - נוטל ומכריז. וזה וזה בדבר שאין בו סימן, אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן - לא שנא ברשות הרבים ולא שנא ברשות היחיד, בין דרך נפילה ובין דרך הנחה - חייב להכריז.

 

 

Selections from Rashi and Tosafot daf 23a

Translation

Rashi Text

ha-ba mei-eilav, that comes by itself:  That is liable to come by itself, like a potsherd that occasionally gets stuck in a round [of figs].

הבא מאיליו - הראוי לבא מאיליו, כגון חרס פעמים שנופל בעיגול.

havi siman, is a [valid] siman:  for we say:  it was put in there (i.e. the potsherd in the round of figs or the money in the loaf) as a siman, and did not fall in by itself, and [thus] it (the round of figs or the loaf) is [defined as] an object that has a siman.  Even so, the Sages disagree and say that he  [the finder] may keep it, since they hold that people do pass by [and trod upon] food and [thus] it is a siman that is likely to be trodden upon. 

הוי סימן - דאמרינן: לשם סימן נתנו שם, ולא נפל מאליו, ודבר שיש בו סימן הוא, ואפילו הכי פליגי רבנן ואמרי: הרי אלו שלו, משום דקסברי מעבירין על האוכלין, והוה ליה סימן העשוי לידרס.

Tosafot

siman ha-ba mei-eilav havi siman, a siman that comes by itself is a [valid] siman:  Rashi explains the [the owner] put it there as a siman and it did not fall in by itself.  This is difficult:  it is not normal to put money in a loaf as a siman.  [Instead,] one should explain that he (the owner) knows that it (the money or the potsherd) is aware that it fell into it (the loaf or the round of figs).  The position that it (a siman that comes by itself) is not a siman, [understands] that since these [simanim] come by themselves, presumably he (the owner) does not know about them, as they are not seen externally.  However, identifying marks on an animal  that come by themselves are [valid] simanim, as they are seen and known.  Likewise, anything that cannot be seen from the outside, if it is not something that comes by itself it is a [valid] siman.

תוספות

סימן הבא מאיליו הוי סימן - פרש"י דלשם סימן נתנו שם ולא נפל מאיליו וקשה דאין דרך לתת מעות בככר לסימן אלא י"ל דאימור ידע שנפלו לו שם ומ"ד לא הוי סימן כיון דרגילות לבא מאיליו מסתמא לא ידע כיון שאין ניכר בחוץ אבל סימני בהמה שהן מאיליהן הוי סימן כיון שניכר וכן דבר שאין ניכר בחוץ אם אין רגילות לבא מאיליו הוי סימן.

 

 

 

Key Gemara Terms

Iy salka da'atakh

אם תעלה על דעתך

אי סלקא דעתך

ika de-amri:  lit.  there are those who say.  This term indicates a different version of a sugya.

איכא דאמרי

leima ke-tanai:  [let us] say it is a makhloket between Tanaim.

נאמר כ[מחלוקת] תנאים

לימא כתנאי

mai lav...:  is it not the case that...?

...מאי לאו

tana Kama: the first (anonymous) Tana in a quote.

תנא הראשון

תנא קמא