Elu Metziot shiur #18, 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 #18,  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 starting from 
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. 

    The shiur for the coming two weeks is dedicated to review

We have not reviewed since we finished the yeush she-lo mi-da'at sugya, so we have a lot to cover.  As I emphasized last time, review is an essential part of gemara learning.  Though it will not always be exciting, you will find that there is no comparison between your relationship to material that you have taken the trouble to review and material you have not.  Make the effort and I promise you will agree (afterwards) that it was worth it. 

The stages of your review should proceed as follows.  I suggest that rather than going through all three dapim as a whole, divide it into four separate units.  Go through steps 1-4 on each unit.  At the end try to pull it all together.  You can divide the material as follows: 

Unit 1:  Daf 22b: "kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim harei elu shelo כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו", until the bottom of 23a.

Unit 2.  Top of 23b, until "aleh echad be-bad echad עלה אחד בבד אחד" in the middle of 24a.

Unit 3.  From "ve-khen haya R. Shimon ben Elazar וכן היה ר"ש בן אלעזר" in the middle of 24a, until the mishna on the bottom of 24b.

Unit 4.  Mishna at bottom of 24b until mishna at bottom of 25b.

The review is divided into four units. In fact, there is a great deal of work to be done. I suggest you divide it between two weeks, two units each week. Due to my being in army reserve in the coming weeks, there will not be a new shiur next week.

Step 1. Go through the the text starting from kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim harei elu shelo כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו on 22b until either the end of the unit or further if you want.  As you review, remind yourself of the words and concepts with the help of the complete vocabulary page.  It is a good idea to try to memorize the key words list but do not focus on that now. 

Step 2. Once you have made your way through the gemara or part of it (it will probably take a while), take a look at the review questions below.  Try to answer them, briefly, preferably in writing, with the help of the gemara text and the shiurim (archived at http://www.vbm-torah.org/talmud65.html), as needed. 

Step 3. Check your answers against my answers, attached to the end of this shiur.

Step 4. Go back to the text of the gemara.  See if you can remember the flow of the sugyas as they appear.  Can you go through the progression of the gemara in your head without looking at the text?  If not, try to make a brief outline.  

   Review Questions:

Unit 1

    1.  How does Raba רבה read the mishna about kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim?  What is the principle upon which the gemara bases Raba's reading? 

    2.  How does Rava רבא read the mishna?  Since Rava rejects Raba's principle, what is the siman associated with kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim?  Does Raba accept this sort of siman?

    3.  How would Rava and Raba respectively explain the baraita that distinguishes between kerikhot and alumot

    4.  How would Raba explain the mishna's ruling that home-baked loaves must be announced?

    5.  How would Rava and Raba, respectively, explain the makhloket in the mishna between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama?  Which explanation do they both reject?  

    6.  What is the alternative interpretation offered in the gemara of the makhloket in the mishna between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama? 

    7.  What is the halakha, according to R. Zevid, in the name of Rava regarding lost kerikhot?  

 

Unit 2 

    8.  How does the gemara establish that size and number can be valid simanim?

    9.  Is the 'cut' (i.e. flank, breast, etc.) of a piece of meat a good siman?  What about meat cut in a unique shape?

    10.  What counts as a siman on a barrel of wine?  When, according to Abaye, is a rashum רשום barrel considered to have a siman?

    11.  Is location a good siman?  What is the argument against it being a siman

    12.  How does the gemara attempt to establish that Rav does not consider location to be a valid siman?  How is this refuted?  When can a finder take a lost object for himself even when it has a siman?

    13.  What new rule does the gemara derive from R. Shimon ben Elazar's ruling about klei anporia?

    14.  When is it permitted for a talmid chakham to lie?

    15.  What is the halakha regarding new kelim that have no simanim and also presumably are not yet familiar to their owner?  What about if they are found in pairs?

Unit 3

    16.  R. Shimon ben Elazar holds that there is a special rule regarding objects lost in a public place.  What are the two alternate versions of this rule?

    17.  The baraita teaches us that if one finds money in with a siman in a synagogue or a study hall, one may keep it.  What does the gemara attempt to derive from this baraita regarding R. Shimon ben Elazar's rule?  How is this conclusion rejected?

    18.  The gemara quotes a mishna to resolve the question of lost objects in public places.  The mishna distinguishes between places where the majority is Jewish and places where the majority is non-Jewish?  How does the gemara avoid committing itself to a position regarding the scope of R. Shimon ben Elazar's position?   

    19.  What is the halakha regarding objects lost in public places according to Rav Asi?

    20.  The baraita teaches that if one finds a barrel of wine in a town that is mostly non-Jewish, it is permitted as a lost object but one is forbidden to benefit from it.  How does Rav Ashi explain this ruling?

    21.  Name the characteristics of the Biran river that impact upon the laws of lost objects.

    22.  Under what circumstances does Shmuel consider returning a lost object 'lifnim mi-shurat ha-din' (supererogatory)? 

    23.  What are the issues that arise when one finds meat in a public place?

Unit 4

    24.  When must lost money be announced and when may it be kept by the finder?

    25.  What are the factors that must be considered when one finds money or fruit dispersed in front of a container?

    26.   What are the two views amongst the Amoraim regarding coins that are stacked in a pile?

    27.   What is the halakha regarding coins arranged like a ladder?  What about coins stacked one on top of two others?

    28.  What sort of simanim are invalid for coins and why?

    29.  The mishna relates a case of finding chicks bound together behind a fence.  According to R. Aba b. Zavda in the name of Rav, this case is an instance of what principle?

    30. Upon finding a keli hidden in a dump, under what circumstances:

      a.  may one keep it; 
      b.  must one take it and announce it; 
      c.  must one leave it be? 

 

 

Answers to Review Questions:

Unit 1

1.  How does Raba רבה read the mishna about kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim?  What is the principle upon which the gemara bases Raba's reading?   

According to Raba, kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim may be kept by the finder even if they have a siman.  This is because, according to Raba, a siman that is likely to be trampled upon is invalid.  The owner will not refrain from yeush because of the siman since he or she expects that the siman will be erased. 

2.  How does Rava רבא read the mishna?  Since Rava rejects Raba's principle, what is the siman associated with kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim?  Does Raba accept this sort of siman?

According to Rava, kerikhot be-reshut ha-rabim may be kept by the finder only if they do not have a siman.  A siman that is liable to be trampled is still a siman and would require the finder to announce the kerikhot.  The reason why kerikhot must be announced if found in reshut ha-yachid is because their location counts as a siman.  In reshut ha-rabim, location is not a valid siman since the kerikhot will be kicked around and will not stay in one place.  Raba disagrees with Rava about location and argues that location is never a good siman

3.  How would Rava and Raba respectively explain the baraita that distinguishes between kerikhot and alumot

Raba explains the baraita refers to both alumot and kerikhot that have a siman.  Since alumot are larger, they will not be trampled.   Alumot must be announced, both in reshut ha-yachid and in reshut ha-rabim because of their simanKerikhot, however, are liable to be trampled in reshut ha-rabim and hence their siman there is invalid, and they may be kept by the finder.

Rava explains that the baraita refers both alumot and kerikhot that do not have a physical siman.  Both must be announced when their location can furnish a siman.  For alumot, location is always a good siman - since they are heavy they will remain in the same place even in reshut ha-rabimKerikhot, on the other hand, will likely be kicked around in reshut ha-rabim and therefore their location cannot provide a siman, and they may be kept by the finder.

4.  How would Raba explain the mishna's ruling that home-baked loaves must be announced?

The difficulty here is that the siman on a loaf of bread is, at first glance, liable to be erased when trampled, and yet the mishna does not distinguish between reshut ha-rabim and reshut ha-yachid regarding loaves.  The gemara explains the mishna according to Raba by pointing out that people will not pass by a loaf of bread and trample upon it, thus the siman is not liable to be trampled.  Even non-Jews, who may lack the customary Jewish respect for foods, will not trample on a loaf of bread for fear of witchcraft.  With regard to animals, the gemara assumes that according to Raba the mishna is not referring to a place where animals walk through reshut ha-rabim.  Under these circumstances, the siman on home-baked loaves is not liable to be trampled, and is a valid siman

5.  How would Rava and Raba, respectively, explain the makhloket in the mishna between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama?  Which explanation do they both reject?

The gemara attempts to understand the makhloket between  R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama to be about the validity of a siman that is liable to be trampled upon.  According to R. Yehuda, who says that anything unusual requires the finder to announce the lost object, a siman that is liable to be trampled upon is a good siman while the Rabbis disagree.  This interpretation is rejected because it does not explain why a home-baked loaf found in reshut ha-rabim must be announced according to the Tana Kama.

    Instead, Rav Zevid, in the name of Rava, suggests that both R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama agree that a siman that is liable to be trampled upon is a good siman, and that people will pass by lost foodstuffs without attending to them.  The makhloket between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama is about a siman that could have come by itself.  R. Yehuda holds that we nonetheless presume that such a siman was placed there by the owner and it is a valid siman while the Tana kama does not regard it as a valid siman

    Raba understands the makhloket  in the same way, but with different assumptions.  According to Raba, both R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama agree that a siman that is liable to be trampled upon is a not a good siman.  However, regarding foodstuffs (like home-baked bread), this is not an issue since people will not pass by or trample on food.  The tannaim differ, as above, about the validity of a siman that could have happened by itself.

6.  What is the alternative interpretation offered in the gemara of the makhloket in the mishna between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama? 

The gemara suggests that the makhloket in the mishna between R. Yehuda and the Tana Kama, is about whether one may pass by lost foodstuffs, and both agree that a siman that is liable to be trampled on is not a good siman while a siman that could come by itself is a good siman.  This suggestion is rejected by R. Zevid because it does not account for the Tana Kama's ruling about home-baked loaves in reshut ha-rabim that they  must be announced.  The gemara thus returns to the analysis made above. 

7.  What is the halakha, according to R. Zevid, in the name of Rava regarding lost kerikhot?  

R. Zevid, in the name of Rava rules that if kerikhot have a siman, they must be announced, both in reshut ha-rabim and in reshut ha-yachid.  If they do not have a siman, then if they are found in reshut ha-rabim, the finder may keep them.  If they are found in  reshut ha-yachid, it depends:  if they appear to have been placed there deliberately, the finder must take them and announce them with their location furnishing the siman. If they appear to have fallen, then the finder may keep them.

Unit 2

8.  How does the gemara establish that size and number can be valid simanim?

The gemara quotes a baraita that understands the weight of various metal vessels is understood to be a valid siman.  The gemara then concludes that if weight can be a siman, so too can size and number.

9.  Is the 'cut' (i.e. flank, breast, etc.) of a piece of meat a good siman?  What about meat cut in a unique shape?

The gemara does not regard the cut of meat to be a siman, based on the fact that the mishna lists 'pieces of meat' among the lost items that belong to the finder.  On the other hand, if meat is cut into a particular shape, like that of Rav Huna who would cut meat into triangles to send to his wife, then the shape is a valid siman

10.  What counts as a siman on a barrel of wine?  When, according to Abaye, is a rashum רשום barrel considered to have a siman?

The gemara understands that barrels of wine have a siman when they  are rashum רשום, i.e. they have been opened and re-sealed.  Abaye claims that even a rashum barrel is considered to have a siman only before the wine-selling season has begun.  After that, the seal is too common to be a siman

11.  Is location a good siman?  What is the argument against it being a siman

Rav Nachman, based on the fact that the mishna does not mention it, holds that location is not a good siman.  Rav Zevid understands the mishna to refer to a the riverbank where everyone unloads barrels, such that the location is not useful in identifying the owner.  Under ordinary circumstances, however, location is a good siman.  The question of whether location is a valid siman depends upon the weight one gives to the argument that just like the claimant claims, that he or she forgot the object and some location, so too someone else could have done so.  Location is not sufficient to identify the specific object. 

12.  How does the gemara attempt to establish that Rav does not consider location to be a valid siman?  How is this refuted?  When can a finder take a lost object for himself even when it has a siman?

The gemara attempts to prove that Rav held the location is not a valid siman from the case of the person who found pitch at the olive press and Rav ruled that he could keep it.  This proof is rejected because it is possible that Rav held that location is a valid siman but in this case the validity of the siman is irrelevant.  Since weeds had already sprouted in the pitch, we may presume that it was lost long ago and that the owner was mityaesh, even though we have no record of his having done so.  From here we can learn that where circumstances indicate yeush, the finder may keep the lost object even if it has simanim.

13.  What new rule does the gemara derive from R. Shimon ben Elazar's ruling about klei anporia?

R. Shimon rules that klei anporia do not need to be announced because their owner will not recognize them anyway.  However, kelim that the owner could recognize on site do not belong to the finder and must be announced.  If someone does come forwards, he may be a Talmid Chakham to whom one must return the lost object. 

14.  When is it permitted for a talmid chakham to lie?

A talmid chakham is allowed to lie about things having to do with masekhet, i.e. what he is learning, puraya, i.e., bed, sexual matters, and ushpiza, his host, such that he will not cause harm by encouraging people to take advantage.

15.  What is the halakha regarding new kelim that have no simanim and also presumably are not yet familiar to their owner?  What about if they are found in pairs?

New kelim that are not yet familiar may be kept by the finder so long as they are found by themselves.  If they are found in pairs, the number can be a siman.

Unit 3

16.  R. Shimon ben Elazar holds that there is a special rule regarding objects lost in a public place.  What are the two alternate versions of this rule?

According to R. Shimon ben Elazar, objects found in a public place may  be kept by the finder even though they have simanim.  There is a question in the gemara as to whether R. Shimon ben Elazar's rule applies only in a place where the majority are non-Jewish or also in a place where the majority is Jewish.   

17.  The baraita teaches us that if one finds money with a siman in a synagogue or a study hall, one may keep it.  What does the gemara attempt to derive from this baraita regarding R. Shimon ben Elazar's rule?  How is this conclusion rejected?

The gemara tries to prove from the baraita about the synagogue and study hall that  R. Shimon ben Elazar's rule applies even to places where the majority is Jewish.  This conclusion is rejected because it is possible that the baraita refers to synagogues and study halls that non-Jews visit, thus making the majority of people who found in these places non-Jewish.

18.  The gemara quotes a mishna to resolve the question of lost objects in public places.  The mishna distinguishes between places where the majority is Jewish and places where the majority is non-Jewish?  How does the gemara avoid committing itself to a position regarding the scope of R. Shimon ben Elazar's position?   

The gemara gives two answers:  1.  The mishna is according to R. Shimon ben Elazar but refers to an object hidden in a dump that is not usually removed but is now being removed.  If the majority is Jewish, the finder must take the object and announce it rather than let it be lost or destroyed.  If the majority is non-Jewish the finder may keep it.

2.  The mishna is according to the Rabbis who disagree with R. Shimon ben Elazar.  It never says that one may keep the lost object if the majority is non-Jewish - only that one does not need to announce the lost object.  According to this reading, someone who finds a lost object in a place where the majority is non-Jewish must hold on to it until a Jew presents simanim.

19.  What is the halakha regarding objects lost in public places according to Rav Asi?

Rav Asi holds that if the majority is non-Jewish, one may keep even objects with simanim.

20.  The baraita teaches that if one finds a barrel of wine in a town that is mostly non-Jewish, it is permitted as a lost object but one is forbidden to benefit from it.  How does Rav Ashi explain this ruling?

The wine is forbidden because it is non-Jewish wine, but the barrel is permitted and may be kept by the finder.

21.  Name the characteristics of the Biran river that impact upon the laws of lost objects.

The Biran is full of obstacles such that an object found in it is not considered zuto shel yam, i.e. "lost to all" that belongs to the finder regardless of simanim.  In addition, since Jews dam and dredge the river, it is not regarded as a place where the majority is non-Jewish.

22.  Under what circumstances does Shmuel consider returning a lost object 'lifnim mi-shurat ha-din' (supererogatory)? 

Regarding an object found in the public marketplace, Shmuel ruled that one must return it to a Jew who presented simanim, 'lifnim mi-shurat ha-din'.

23.  What are the issues that arise when one finds meat in a public place?

Meat found in a public place must be is a lost object and can be taken by the finder if there is no siman.  However, it will then be basar she-nitalem min ha-ayin, which is forbidden by Rav. 

Unit 4

24.  When must lost money be announced and when may it be kept by the finder?

If the money was found in a purse or stacked in a purposeful way, it must be announced since it has a siman.  If it is scattered it may be kept by the finder. 

25.  What are the factors that must be considered when one finds money or fruit dispersed in front of a container?

1. Whether the substance, if it spilled out of the container, is likely to have left some in the container.

2.  Whether there is anything left in the container.

3.  Whether the opening of the container faces the dispersed fruit or money such that it looks like it came from there.

4.  Whether the container has an edge such that at least some of its contents are likely to get trapped inside. 

26.   What are the two views amongst the Amoraim regarding coins that are stacked in a pile?

According to R. Chanina, the stack furnishes a siman only if the coins are of different sizes and they are stacked pyramid-wise, with the largest on the bottom and the smallest on the top.  According to R. Yochanan, even if they are all the same size, if they are stacked, that is a siman.

27.   What is the halakha regarding coins arranged like a ladder?  What about coins stacked one on top of two others?

R. Yirmia asked about coins arranged like a ladder.  The gemara answered based upon Rav Nachman in the name of Raba bar Avuha that any coins arranged such that one can lift them together with a sliver of wood are considered to have a siman.   Coins arranged such that one is atop two others, i.e. like those is the shrine to Merculis, are considered to have a siman.   

28.  What sort of simanim are invalid for coins and why?

Physical marks on coins are not valid simanim.  Though someone may be able to identify a particular coin from its markings, that does not indicate that the coin belongs to him - it is possible that he spent it and it was lost by someone else.

29.  The mishna relates a case of finding chicks bound together behind a fence.  According to R. Aba b. Zavda in the name of Rav, this case is an instance of what principle?

This is an instance of "Safek Hinuach", of a doubt as to whether they were deliberately placed there.  The rule in such cases is that one must not touch the lost object but if one does, one is not obligated to return it. 

30. Upon finding a keli hidden in a dump, under what circumstances a.  may one keep it.  b.  must one take it and announce it.  c.  must one leave it be? 

a.  one may keep it if it was left in a dump that is usually removed, since it is an aveida mi-da'at, i.e.  the person who put it there presumably deliberately abandoned it.

b.  One must take it and announce it if it was not hidden but exposed in the dump and has simanim.  Even if it was hidden, according to R. Zevid one must announce it if it the type of keli that gets thrown out by accident (like knives and forks).  According to Rav Papa, if it is a dump that is not usually removed, but is now going to be removed, then one must take and announce items hidden in the dump.

c.  If it is a dump that is not ordinarily removed and the object is hidden therein - one should not touch it.