(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Metzia 27


(a) Our Mishnah permits someone who finds loose money among the fruit that he purchased from his friend or that his friend sent him, to keep it.
How does Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai qualify this? In which case would he have to return the money?

(b) The Beraisa-expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman.
What does the Beraisa say?

(c) What sort of fruit is the Tana referring to?

(d) How did Rav Nachman then establish our Mishnah, to avoid the Kashya that maybe it was one of the threshers who had lost the coin, and not the owner?

(a) Our Mishnah explains that the Torah inserts the word "Simlah" ("ve'Chein Ta'aseh le'Simlaso" - Ki Seitzei), to necessitate two conditions before the finder is obligated to return a lost article. One of them is that it must have an owner, the other, that it must have claimants.
What does the second condition mean?

(b) What problem does the Tana have with "Simlah"? Why is it superfluous?

(c) Which other three words does Rava list as being superfluous?

(a) Now that "Simlah" comes to require witnesses or Simanim of the actual object, why did the Torah need to add ...
  1. ... "Chamor"?
  2. ... "Shor"?
  3. ... "Seh"?
(b) Having obligated the return of the fluff of an ox's tail, is it not obvious that one is also obligated to return a sheep's shearings? So why does the Torah need to write "Seh"?

(c) What do the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Chamor" (in Mishpatim, in connection with the liability of 'Bor')?

(d) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? What problem does Rava have with that?

(a) Why does Rava have a problem with "Seh"? Why can it not come to include the obligation of returning ...
  1. ... a lost animal's dung?
  2. ... a lost article via Simanim (and "Simlah" comes to include only that witnesses?
(b) If not for "Seh", and assuming that "Simlah" comes to teach us witnesses exclusively, from where will we then learn Si'manim?

(c) What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Asher Tovad"?

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns this from "u'Metzasah".
According to Abaye, what are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(a) The Tana Kama learns "u'Metzasah" like Ravina.
What does Ravina Darshen from here?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Asher Tovad Mimenu" like Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Yochanan Darshen from "Asher Tovad Mimenu"?

(c) How will Rebbi Yehudah counter the Rabbanan, who learn this from "Mimenu" alone?

(d) And from where do the Rabbanan learn Ravina's Din?

(a) According to Rava, the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan do have ramifications.
Based on "Asher Tovad" and "u'Metzasah" respectively - which two suggestions does Rava try and present initially?

(b) On what grounds do we reject them both?

(c) How does Rava finally explain the case over which the Tana'im argue?

(d) What is then the Machlokes?

Answers to questions



(a) We ask whether Simanim are d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan.
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?

(b) Why does the Rabbanan's Takanah by Mamon not extend to Isur?

(c) Why can we not prove that Simanim are d'Oraysa from ...

  1. ... our Mishnah, which learns Simanim and Tov'in from "Simlah"?
  2. ... Rava, who learns from "Chamor" that one returns a donkey via the Simanim of the saddle?
(a) What will Rava shortly learn from "ve'Hayah Imcha Ad D'rosh Achicha Oso"?

(b) Why is there no proof that Simanim are d'Oraysa ...

  1. ... from Rava? If not by means of Simanim, how else will the owner prove his ownership?
  2. ... from the Mishnah in Bechoros, which specifically precludes Si'manim as a means of identifying the body or the clothes of a dead man to permit his wife to re-marry?
(c) If the Tana's reason regarding clothes is because we are afraid that the dead man was wearing borrowed clothes, how can we return a donkey via identification of the saddle? Why are we not afraid that it too, is borrowed?

(d) How else might we establish the Mishnah, to explain why we do not accept testimony on the dead man's clothes?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a Get that a Sheli'ach lost and then found tied to his purse, or among his household effects?

(b) How will this tie up with the Mishnah in Gitin, which validates a Get that the Sheli'ach lost and then found (and which we discussed earlier), but only if he found it soon afterwards?

(c) How do we resolve the case of the Get tied to his purse with what we just learned that we are worried about vessels being borrowed?

(d) Why do people not lend out ...

  1. ... a purse or a wallet?
  2. ... a signet-ring?
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa invalidates testimony that relies solely on the wart of a dead man (to allow his wife to get married). Elazar ben Mahava'i validates it.
How do we initially establish the Machlokes?

(b) Rava refutes this explanation in a number of ways. Perhaps, he says, they both hold Simanim are d'Oraysa, and they argue about a wart on a ben-Gil.
What does this mean? What is a ben-Gil?

(c) And perhaps they also both hold that a wart is not common on a ben-Gil. Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Finally, he suggests, they both agree that a wart does not tend to change after death, and that Simanim are de'Rabbanan.
What will then be the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) If Simanim is de'Rabanan, Rava suggests, the reason that the finder returns an Aveidah by means of Simanim, is because he would be only too pleased to be able to use Simanim to retrieve his article.
What objection does Rav Safra raise to Rava's suggestion?

(b) So how do we amend it? Who would in fact, be only too pleased?

(c) What problem does this create with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said in the Mishnah earlier in the Perek, 'Echad ha'Loveh mi'Sheloshah, Yachzir la'Loveh'?

(d) How do we answer this?

(a) We have the same problem with the Mishnah there 'Matza Tachrich shel Sh'taros O Agudah shel Sh'taros, Harei Zeh Yachzir'. Here too, there is no reason for the borrower to be pleased with the return of the Sh'tar.
What does this lead Rava to conclude?

(b) And he proves it from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Imcha ad D'rosh Achicha Osos".
What is the problem with the Pasuk as it stands?

(c) How does Rava therefore interpret it?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,