Elu Metziot shiur #12, 23b

  • 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 #12,  23b.

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/daf.asp?ID=3071.

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. 

This week there is a new grammar lesson.  It is included in the mail as a separate attachment (grammar2.htm) and be also found online here (http://www.vbm-torah.org/talmud2/grammar2.htm).

Summary of last week's shiur: We completed our discussion of the makhloket between Raba and Rava about simanim that are liable to be trodden upon.  We compared that makhloket to the makhloket in the mishna between the Tana Kama and R. Yehuda and reached the conclusion that the makhloket in the mishna is about whether simanim that may have appeared by themselves are valid.  Raba and Rava both understand the mishna in this way, though each would read the mishna with a different set of premises.

    Let's turn to daf 23b and continue with the gemara's analysis of the mishna.  The next case the gemara addresses is "strings of fish."  Learn from top of 23b until "...mida u-mishkal nami havi siman מדה ומנין נמי הוי סימן."   Lines 1-8 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara wonders how strings of fish could be on the mishna's list of items that have no simanim, and thus can be kept by the finder.  After all, a string of freshly caught fish has several defining characteristics.  Why is  the knot with which it is tied not a siman?  Why is the number of fish not a siman?  The gemara explains that indeed these could be simanim but the mishna is referring to a situation in which these things are standardized:  All of the fishermen tie together a standard number of fish in the same way.  Hence, neither the number nor the knot can function as a siman.  The most obvious potential siman, the type of fish, is not mentioned in the gemara, presumably because it too is not a valid siman - either Mishna era fishmarkets did not offer much variety (and thus in the standard situation there was only one type of fish) or they offered plenty of variety and for that reason the type of fish is not a siman; more than one person could have lost his halibut. 

    The discussion of the strings of fish leads us to a more fundamental question:  Can the number of items found together count as a siman?

Rav Sheshet רב ששת

Babylonian Amora of the second-third generation (c. 300 C.E.).  Was a student of Rav Huna, an older contemporary of Raba and Rav Yosef, and a teacher of both Rava and Abaye.  We often find disputes between him and Rav Nachman.  Rav Sheshet was known for his mastery of the Tannaic literature (see Eruvin 67a) and very often would resolve questions by making reference to a mishna or a baraita, as we find here.

  This question was addressed to Rav Sheshet and he responded by quoting a baraita.  The baraita teaches that the weight of a lost metal utensil can be a siman.  Rav Sheshet concludes that if weight can be a siman, so too can number or size (i.e. volume or area). 

    Rav Sheshet's conclusion that physical proportions like size, weight and number are valid simanim seems so obvious that it is worth pausing to consider the question.  Why would anyone ever consider the alternative - that they are not good simanim?  In my opinion, the fact that the gemara locates Rav Sheshet's ruling in the context of the analysis of "strings of fish" indicates why it was necessary for Rav Sheshet to prove his point from a baraita.  At first glance, our mishna seems to count against the notion that number can be a siman - strings of fish can be kept by the finder.  It is only after Rav Sheshet's ruling that weight, size or number can be simanim that we are forced to conclude that strings of fish in our mishna must be of a standard number.  Remember that Rav Sheshet lived several hundred years before the gemara as we know it was put together.  The mishna was interpreted in light of Rav Sheshet's ruling.  Since that ruling was topical to the discussion of the mishna, the authors/editors of the gemara recorded it in this context. 

    Let us continue to the next case in the mishna to be analyzed by the gemara.  Learn from "ve-chatikhot shel basar... וחתיכות של בשר "  until "shema mina שמע מינה." Lines 9-14 in the schematic analysis.

    The same sort of difficulties that arose with the strings of fish are relevant to pieces of meat that are found.  Both the weight and the cut of the meat (i.e. neck or loin) should be effective simanim.  Why does the mishna say that the finder can keep lost pieces of meat?  The gemara disposes of the issue of weight in the same way that it dealt with number as a potential siman - with an ukimta.  Weight could be a siman but the mishna is referring to meat that is sold at a standard weight, such that there is nothing special about the weight.  The cut of the meat, however, seems to be a more difficult problem.  After all, we learn in a baraita: "If one finds pieces of fish, or a fish which has been bitten into, one has to announce [the find];"  Why are pieces of fish considered to have a siman while pieces of meat are not? 

    The gemara resolves the seeming contradiction between the mishna (about pieces of meat) and the baraita (about pieces of fish) by making an ukimta of the baraita.  When the baraita speaks about pieces of fish having a siman, that siman is not the generic type or cut of fish.  Apparently these are simply too standardized to furnish much of an identifying marker.  Rather, the pieces of fish must be returned when they have been cut in a particular, non-standard shape. The same would be true of meat, and the mishna is talking about meat that has been cut in the standard shape.  The gemara supports this understanding in two ways.  First, it relates to us the fact that Raba the son of Rav Huna used to cut his meat into triangles.  Rashi, s.v. ki ha de-Raba כי הא דרבה, (note the triangle drawn in the margin!) explains that he would thus send meat to his wife with a non-Jew and she would be able to identify the meat as coming from her husband by its unusual shape.  Secondly, the gemara points out that it is reasonable that the baraita be understood to refer to pieces of fish that have identifying markers;  the other case mentioned in the baraita is of fish with bite marks which must be returned.  The gemara concludes that the baraita must be talking about pieces of fish with unusual markings - either bites or cut into a non-standard shape - and thus have simanim and must be returned.  The mishna deals with standard cuts of meat, that are not identifiable and thus may be kept by the finder. 

Shema Mina שמע מינה

The gemara's discussion of 'pieces of meat' concludes with the phrase "shema mina שמע מינה."  This phrase literally means "hear from it."  It is used in two different ways:  When used in the middle of a sugya, it means "derive from it" or "conclude thus."

    When shema mina is used to close a discussion it functions almost as an exclamation point.  It does not really have any meaning so much as that it emphasizes the conclusiveness of the the previous passage.  In our sugya, the gemara ends with 'shema mina' in an assertion that the proof drawn from the baraita's other example of fish that has been bitten into is so convincing that there is no more to be said.   

    Learn now from "amar mar אמר מר" until "shekol le-nafshakh שקול לנפשך," lines 15-20 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara now returns to the baraita that we just discussed.  In the second half of that baraita, we find a ruling that "Barrels of wine, oil, grain, dried figs, or olives belong to the finder."  This ruling seems to contradict the ruling of the mishna on 24b, that jars of wine and oil must be announced (because they have simanim)!  It is true that the baraita refers to barrels while the mishna refers to jars, but why should that make a difference?

    The gemara resolves this contradiction, once again, with an ukimta.  There is no difference between 'jars כדים'  and 'barrels חביות'. However, the jars of oil and wine in the mishna, that must be announced, are sealed jars.  Why does this make a difference?  See Rashi s.v. be-rashum ברשום (right underneath the triangle in the Rashi text on daf 23b), who explains that the [re]sealed jars have a siman

    This resolution, however, makes the baraita difficult to understand.  If the wine and oil jars in the mishna must be returned because they are sealed, the wine and oil barrels in the baraita, that the finder may keep, must be open!  Anyone who leaves a wine barrel open is obviously abandoning it! (See Rashi s.v.u-farkhinan ופרכינן, subsequent to the previous Rashi for an explanation as to why this is so.)  If we are dealing with wine left in an open barrel, why does the baraita need to tell us that the finder may keep the wine - it is obviously permitted, since it is not lost wine but abandoned wine!

    In response, the gemara points out that one does not need to deduce from the fact that the mishna refers to sealed barrels that the baraita refers to open barrels.  There is a middle ground - covered barrels that are not sealed.  So there really are three possibilities.  At one extreme lie the sealed barrels, that, being sealed, have a siman and must be announced when found.  At the other end of the spectrum we find open, uncovered barrels.  These are presumed abandoned by their owners and obviously belong to the finder.  The baraita teaches us about the middle case - unsealed yet covered barrels.  These qualify as lost objects - they presumably were not deliberately abandoned but merely lost.  The finder may keep these only because the owner cannot present a siman.  If, however, the covered but not sealed barrels of wine did have some other sort of siman, (say a name branded on the barrels) the owner could claim them by presenting the siman.     

    Abaye proposes an entirely  different resolution of the contradiction between the baraita (one may keep barrels of lost wine or oil) and the mishna (lost jars of wine and oil must be announced).  The difference between the two sources is not in the physical arrangements of the barrels - sealed, covered or uncovered.  Both the mishna and the baraita refer to sealed barrels of wine.  Rather, the mishna and baraita differ as to when the barrels are found.  If they were found before the winecellars have been opened; i.e., before the wine-selling season when barrels of wine are a common commodity (see Rashi s.v.kodem she-niftechu ha-otzarot קודם שנפתחו האוצרות), then the sealed barrel is a siman:  the owner can identify himself as the loser of a sealed barrel and such is the case in the mishna.  After 'the winecellars have opened', then sealed barrels are ubiquitous and the fact that it is sealed is not an identifying mark.  Such is the case in the baraita, where the finder may keep the lost barrel. 

    For, Abaye this interpretation of the mishna and baraita was not merely theoretical.  The gemara reports that when a question came before him of what to do with a lost barrel of wine, Abaye ruled that the finder may take it for himself, since it was after "the winecellars had opened."

    Learn now on daf 23b from "Ba'u minei Rav Bibi mei-Rav Nachman בעא מיניה רב ביבי מרב נחמן"  until "de-kadchi bei chalfi  דקדחי ביה חלפי."  Lines 21-28 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara returns to a question that was already addressed on the previous page, in the context of the makhloket between Raba and Rava.  Can the location of the lost object count as a siman?  Rav Bibi addressed this question to Rav Nachman, and he ruled upon it based on the baraita we have been discussing.  In  the baraita we are taught that lost barrels of wine, oil grain, etc., belong to the finder.  Rav Nachman argues that if location was a valid siman,  the baraita could not rule that the finder of such items could keep them - their location is a siman that can be announced!  From here we should deduce in general that location is not a valid siman

    Rav Zevid rejects Rav Nachman's deduction from the baraita.  The baraita can be understood through an ukimta.  The baraita does not mention the location of the lost barrels, because it can be understood to refer to a case where the barrels are found on the riverbank.  Rashi, 23b, s.v.be-rakta de-nahara ברקתא דנהרא, explains that anyone could have lost  a barrel on the riverbank since that is where they are unloaded.  

    Why is a location such as the riverbank not a good siman?    The gemara quotes a comment of Rav Mari. The attempt to identify a barrel as 'that which I left on the riverbank' is not conclusive.  Since many people's barrels are unloaded at the riverbank, someone else could also have left a barrel there.  Perhaps this barrel is that one!  Under such circumstances, since the loser cannot prove that the lost barrel is his, he is mityaesh and the finder may keep the barrel. 

    The gemara recounts a different version of R. Mari's statement:  In this version, R. Mari's point that "just like you left it there, so too could someone else" was not limited to the riverbank.  Rather, it is an argument against the whole notion that location is a good siman.  Since it is always possible that more than one lost object of the same type be left in the same place, location can never function as a siman

    The two different versions of R. Mari's statement seem to reflect two very different understandings of how we define a siman.   According to the first version that location in general is a good siman, it would appear that a siman is a marker that identifies its owner with reasonable probability.  At the riverbank, where everyone leaves their barrels, Rav Mari points out that the probability is too low.  Elsewhere, where there is no positive reason to suspect that the barrel could belong to someone else, it is very likely that the barrel found there belongs to the person who says he or she left it there.  Since everyone knows this, the owner of the barrel will not be mityaesh and the finder must announce the find and return the lost object to the most likely candidate. 

    The second version of R. Mari's statement does not view simanim probabilistically at all.  A siman must clearly and unequivocally identify the owner.  In the absence of such a siman, the finder is under no obligation to give the object to 'the most likely candidate' and will not do so, perhaps for fear of giving the lost object back to the wrong person.  Thus, under circumstances where there is nothing but a probabilistic siman like location, the owner will be mityaesh and the finder may keep the lost object. 

    Something of the lack of clarity regarding the status of location as a siman is reflected in the story which concludes our sugya.  The gemara recounts a case of someone who found some pitch at a winepress and came to ask the amora Rav if he could keep it.  Rav ruled that he could.  When Rav saw the man's hesitation to accept the ruling, perhaps because of the possibility that the location might be a siman, he suggested that he go split the find with his (i.e. Rav's) son Chiya.  In this way Rav expressed his confidence in the ruling, as he certainly would not suggest that his son benefit from a transgression.  The gemara notes that we cannot conclude from here that Rav holds that location is not a siman.  Even if one did consider the location to be a siman, clearly the particular owner of this pitch had been mityaesh, since weeds had already sprouted in it.

    We thus bring to a close an extended discussion of simanim and how they are defined.  We have seen throughout the gemara that context is essential in defining a feature as a siman.  Features such as shape, size, type, weight, or perhaps location can function as simanim so long as they are unusual enough to distinguish a particular lost object from others like it.  From the story of Rav's ruling we are reminded that the role of simanim in the laws of lost objects is an indirect one - the crucial point is whether the owner has been mityaesh.  If yeush can be established independently, the presence or absence of simanim is irrelevant. 

     

Schematic Analysis #12

Schematic analysis of the gemara daf 23b from "umachrozot shel dagim...ומחרוזות של דגים" until "de-kadchi bei chalfi  דקדחי ביה חלפי."

Translation of gemara Schematic Analysis Text of gemara 23b

1. And strings of fish [the finder may keep]. 

Quote from the mishna

1.  ומחרוזות של דגים.

2.  Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the knot serve as a siman? Difficulty with the mishna's ruling.

2.  אמאי? להוי קשר סימן! -

3.    [The Mishna speaks] of a fisherman's knot which is tied so by everyone.  Resolution of difficulty through ukimta

3. בקטרא דציידא, דכולי עלמא הכי מקטרי.

4.   But should not the number of [fish on the string] be a siman? Additional difficulty with the mishna's ruling

4.  ולהוי מנין סימן! -

5.   [The Mishnah speaks] of a fixed number [of fish]. Resolution of difficulty through ukimta

5.   במנינא דשוין.  

6. They asked Rav Sheshet: Is the number (i.e. quantity) a siman or not?   ba'aya

6. בעו מיניה מרב ששת: [מנין] הוי סימן או לא הוי סימן?

7.  R. Sheshet answered them: You have learned it [already in a baraita]: If one finds a vessel of silver or copper or a tin of lead or any metal,  one should not return it unless [the loser] produces a sign, or unless he states accurately its weight. Resolution of ba'aya through reference to a precedent

7.  אמר להו רב ששת: תניתוה , מצא כלי כסף וכלי נחושת, גסטרון של אבר וכל כלי מתכות - הרי זה לא יחזיר, עד שיתן אות או עד שיכוין משקלותיו.

8.  From [the fact] that weight is a siman, size or number are also a siman. Explanation how the precedent resolves the ba'aya.

8.  ומדמשקל הוי סימן - מדה ומנין נמי הוי סימן.

9. ... and pieces of meat, etc. Why [do they belong to the finder]? Should not the weight be a siman?

Quote from mishna and difficulty with mishna's ruling.

9.  וחתיכות של בשר וכו'. אמאי? להוי משקלא סימן!

10. [The Mishnah speaks] of a standard weight. 

Resolution of difficulty through ukimta

10.  במשקלא דשוין.

11.  But should not the piece itself, whether it be of the neck  or of the loin, serve as a siman? Further difficulty with mishna's ruling.

11.  ותהוי חתיכה גופה סימן, או דדפקא או דאטמא?

12.  Has it not been taught: 'If one finds pieces of fish, or a fish which has been bitten into, one has to announce [the find]; barrels of wine, oil, grain, dried figs, or olives belong to the finder'?  prooftext that supports the above question.

12.  מי לא תניא: מצא חתיכות דגים ודג נשוך - חייב להכריז, חביות של יין ושל שמן ושל תבואה ושל גרוגרות ושל זיתים - הרי אלו שלו! -

13.  Here we are dealing with a case where there is an siman in the cut.  Thus Raba son of Rav Huna used to cut [pieces of meat] on three corners..

Resolution of the difficulty through ukimta of the difficult prooftext.

13.  הכא במאי עסקינן - בדאיכא סימנא בפסקא. כי הא דרבה בר רב הונא מחתיך ליה אתלתא קרנתא.

14.  A close reading also supports this:  [the baraita] teaches [that things] like the fish which has been bitten into;[one must announce]. Shema mina.

Support of resolution through close reading of the baraita.

14.  דיקא נמי, דקתני דומיא דדג נשוך, שמע מינה.י

15.   As quoted above: 'Barrels of wine, oil, grain, dried figs, or olives belong to the finder.' But have we not learnt: Jars of wine and jars of oil have to be announced?

Reference to previous quote and difficulty with it.

15.  אמר מר: חביות של יין ושל שמן ושל תבואה ושל גרוגרות ושל זיתים הרי אלו שלו. והא תנן: כדי יין וכדי שמן חייב להכריז!

16.  Rav Zera answered in the name of Rav: Our Mishna deals with sealed [jars]. Resolution of the difficulty through ukimta.

16. אמר רבי זירא אמר רב: מתניתין ברשום.

17.  Implying that the baraita deals with open [barrels]: but if [it is a case of one finding] open barrels, that  constitutes a deliberate loss! Difficulty arising from the implication of the above resolution

17. מכלל דברייתא - בפתוח, אי בפתוח - אבידה מדעת היא!

18.Rav Hoshaya answered: [It deals with] barrels which have been covered.   Resolution of the difficulty through ukimta

18.  אמר רב הושעיא: במציף. 

19. Abaye said: You may even say that both [the Mishnah and the Baraitha] deal with sealed [jars], yet there is no difficulty: Here  [the law refers to the time] before the opening of the cellars;  there [it refers to the time] after the opening of the cellars. Alternative resolution through ukimta.

19.  אביי אמר: אפילו תימא אידי ואידי ברשום, ולא קשיא: כאן - קודם שנפתחו האוצרות, כאן - לאחר שנפתחו האוצרות.

20.  Thus Rav Ya'kov bar Aba found a barrel of wine after the opening of the cellars.   He came before Abaye who said to him: Go and take it for yourself. Story in support of above resolution

20.  כי הא דרב יעקב בר אבא אשכח חביתא דחמרא לאחר שנפתחו האוצרות, אתא לקמיה דאביי, אמר ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך.

21.  Rav Bibi asked of Rav Nachman: Is location a siman or not? ba'aya

21. בעא מיניה רב ביבי מרב נחמן: מקום הוי סימן, או לא הוי סימן?

22. He [Rav Nachman] answered him: You have learned it: If one finds barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, they belong to him. Now if you assume that location is a siman, [the finder] ought to announce the location! Resolution of ba'aya through reference to a precedent and its implications.

22.  אמר ליה: תניתוה, מצא חביות של יין ושל שמן ושל תבואה ושל גרוגרות ושל זיתים - הרי אלו שלו. ואי סלקא דעתך דמקום הוי סימן, לכרוז מקום!

23.  R. Zevid answered: Here we are dealing with [barrels found] on the riverbank. Refutation of the relevance of the precedent through ukimta.

23.  אמר רב זביד: הכא במאי עסקינן - ברקתא דנהרא.

24.  R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain that the river-bank does not constitute a siman?  Because we say to him:  As it happened to you, so it may have happened to your fellow. Explanation of ukimta.

24.  אמר רב מרי: מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן רקתא דנהרא לא הוי סימן - דאמרינן ליה: כי היכי דאתרמי לדידך אתרמי נמי לחברך.

25.  Some have another version: R. Mari said: For what reason did the Rabbis maintain  that location is not a[valid] siman? Because we say to him: As it happened to you in this place, so it may have happened to your neighbour in this [same] place. Alternate version of previous passage.

25.  איכא דאמרי, אמר רב מרי: מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן מקום לא הוי סימן - דאמרינן ליה: כי היכי דאתרמי לדידך האי מקום, אתרמי נמי לחברך האי מקום.

26.  Once a man found some pitch in a winepress. he came before Rav, who said to him: Go and take if for yourself. When [Rav] saw that he hesitated [to do so] he said to him: Go and divide it with my son Chiyya. Story about a legal ruling.

26.  ההוא גברא דאשכח כופרא בי מעצרתא, אתא לקמיה דרב. אמר ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך, חזייה דהוה קא מחסם, אמר ליה: זיל פלוג ליה לחייא ברי מיניה.

Shall we then say that Rav is of the opinion that location does not constitute a siman? legal implication of above ruling.

27. לימא קא סבר רב מקום לא הוי סימן? 

 28.   R. Aba answered:  it was deemed to have been abandoned by the owners, as it was seen that weeds had grown upon it.

Refutation of above implication.

 28.  אמר רבי אבא: משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה, דחזא דקדחי ביה חלפי.

 

 

Selections from Rashi daf 23a

Translation

Rashi Text

ki ha de-Raba, as in the case of Raba - when he would send meat to his wife with a non-Jew.

כי הא דרבה - כשהיה שולח בשר לאשתו ביד נכרי.

be-rashum, referring to sealed - their barrels were ceramic; they would be closed with a ceramic lid, and then clay would be pressed around it to seal the lid so that the wine vapor could not escape.  In the late winter (Shevat) or spring (Nisan), when the producers (of wine) sell barrels to the shopkeeper, ten or fifteen together, they take off the lids and taste the wine and then reseal them with clay around the lid.  [This seal] is called a roshem.  The shopkeeper [then] takes the barrels home.  Our mishna refers to a sealed barrel (in this manner), which is a siman, since some reseal the barrels and others take them [to the store] to sell [the wine] immediately.

ברשום - חביותיהם של חרס היו, וגפין אותם במגופת חרס, ושורקין טיט סביב לדבק המגופה שלא יצא ריח היין, ובימי שבט או ניסן שמוכרין בעלי בתים חביות לחנווני כעשר או כחמש עשרה יחד, נוטלין מגופותיהם וטועמין את היין, וחוזר וסותמו וטח בו טיט סביב המגופה, והוא קרוי רושם, ונושאן החנווני לביתו, ומתניתין בחבית רשומה - והיינו סימן, שיש רושמין ויש שנושאין אותה פתוחה למוכרה מיד.

u-farkhinan: mikhlal de-baraita we ask: "implying that the baraita..." - that teaches that the [barrels of wine and oil] belong to him[the finder] is referring to open [barrels].  [This statement should be read as] a question. [The question is that] obviously [ the finder can keep the barrels] - they are deliberately abandoned property, as they were left open and vermin and snakes drink from them. 

ופרכינן מכלל דברייתא - דקתני הרי אלו שלו - בפתוחה קתני, בתמיה - פשיטא, דהא אבידה מדעת היא, שהניחה פתוחה וכל שקצים ורמשים ונחשים שותים הימנה.

kodem she-niftechu ha-otzarot, before the winecellars were opened -  the seal on a barrel is a valid siman only before the season for selling barrels [of wine or oil] has begun and it is merely an individual that is selling.

קודם שנפתחו האוצרות - שעדיין לא הגיע זמן מוכרי החביות, ויחיד בעלמא הוא דעביד - הוי רושם סימן.

be-rakta de-nahara, on the riverbank - the wine comes to town in a boat, and the purchasers unload the boat and put the barrels on the riverbank.  [The barrels] are then carried away, one by one, and occasionally one is forgotten. 

ברקתא דנהרא - והיין בא לעיר בספינה, והלוקחין מפנין הספינה ומניחו על שפת הנהר, ונושאין אחת אחת, ופעמים ששוכח.

 

Key Gemara Terms

idei ve-idei: lit.:these and these, both of them 

אלה ואלה

אידי ואידי

amar mar: lit. the master (teacher) said, reference to a passage quoted above.

אמר מר

itrami:  [it] has happened

התרחש

אתרמי

dayka nami:  lit. also precisely; reference to a close reading of a source that supports a certain position.

דיקא נמי

ha-hu gavra:  lit.  a certain man.  Opening of a story about some anonymous person.

האיש הזה

ההוא גברא

nafshakh:  yourself

עצמך

נפשך

shema minah:  lit.  'hear from it.'  Refers to a conclusive statement or deduction.

שמע מינה

tanya:  it is taught (ususally signals the beginning of a baraita)

תניא

tanituha:  we have learnt it (in a mishna or a baraita)

שנינו אותה 

תניתוה

General vocabulary

idei ve-idei: lit.:these and these, both of them 

אלה ואלה

אידי ואידי

amar mar: lit. the master (teacher) said, reference to a passage quoted above.

אמר מר

eshkach:  he found

מצא

אשכח

ata le-kamei:  lit. came in front of him, usually refers to a student who comes to study with a new teacher or a case that come before a judge. 

אתא לקמיה

itrami:  has happened

התרחש

אתרמי

dayka nami:  lit. also precisely; reference to a close reading of a source that supports a certain position.

 

דיקא נמי

ha-hu gavra:  lit.  a certain man.  Opening of a story about some anonymous person.

האיש הזה

ההוא גברא

chaza:  he saw

ראה

חזא

mida:  size, measurement

מדה

minyan:  number (as in number of items)

מנין

mishkal:  weight

 

משקל

nag'u bah:  lit. touched it; ruled on it, understood it

נגעו בה

nafshakhyourself

עצמך

נפשך

pelog:  divide, disagree

חלק

פלוג

tzaida:  hunter, fisherman

ציידא

katra: knot

קשר

קטרא

shema minah:  lit.  'hear, from it.'  Refers to a conclusive statement or deduction.

שמע מינה

shekol:  take

קח

שקול 

telata:  three

שלשה

תלתא

tanya:  it is taught (ususally signal the beginning of a baraita)

 

תניא

tanituha:  we have learnt it (in a mishna or a baraita)

שנינו אותה 

תניתוה