PAST DEDICATION
BAVA METZIA 27 - Dedicated by Drs. Shalom and Syma Kelman of Baltimore in honor of their children and grandchildren.

1)MONEY FOUND IN PRODUCE

(a)(Mishnah): If Reuven bought Peros...

(b)(Reish Lakish): This is only if he bought from a merchant (who buys fruit and sells it). If Shimon sold his own Peros, surely they are Shimon's coins.

(c)A Chacham recited in front of Rav Nachman a Beraisa teaching Reish Lakish's Halachah.

(d)Question (Rav Nachman): Even if they are Shimon's Peros, did he thresh them himself?! (Perhaps a worker dropped the coins!)

(e)The Chacham: I will no longer recite the Beraisa (there is a mistake in the text).

(f)Rav Nachman: It is not mistaken. The case is, Shimon's Kena'ani slave threshed it. (Even if it is from the slave, the money is Shimon's.)

2)THE PARTICULAR AVEIDOS MENTIONED IN THE TORAH

(a)(Mishnah): We already knew (from the verse, without "Simlah") that one must return a garment. It wrote "Simlah" to teach the general rule: just like a garment has signs and people claim it, also anything that has Simanim, and people will claim it, the finder must announce it.

(b)(Gemara - Question): How did the verse already teach that one must return a garment?

(c)Answer (Rava): It says "Kol Aveidas Achicha (any Aveidah of your brother)."

(d)Question (Rava): Why did the Torah write (four examples of Aveidos,) "ox, donkey, Seh (sheep or goat) and garment"?

(e)Answer (Rava): The Torah must teach all four cases:

1.Had it taught only about a garment, one might have thought that we return Aveidos only through witnesses about the object itself or Simanim on the object itself;

i."Donkey" teaches that we return a donkey through witnesses or Simanim on the saddle.

ii."Ox" teaches that we must return even the hair at the end of the tail.

iii."Seh" teaches that we must return the shearings.

(f)Question: Since "ox" obligates returning even the tail hair (which is worth very little), it need not teach that we must return shearings!

(g)Retraction (Rava): We do not know why the Torah wrote "Seh";

1.Also, according to R. Yehudah, we do not know why the Torah wrote "donkey" regarding animals that fall in a pit.

(h)Suggestion: Perhaps Seh teaches that one must return the dung!

(i)Rejection: People make it Hefker.

(j)Suggestion: Perhaps it teaches that Simanim are mid'Oraisa!

1.The Halachah is, we return Aveidos through a medium Siman. We are unsure if this is mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan. Perhaps it is mid'Oraisa, and "Seh" teaches this!

(k)Rejection: The Tana of our Mishnah said that "Simlah" teaches about Simanim, so we cannot say that "Seh" teaches this.

3)EXPOUNDING THE PARSHAH OF AVEIDOS

(a)(Beraisa): "Asher Tovad (that will be lost)" excludes an Aveidah worth less than a Perutah;

(b)R. Yehudah says, "u'Motzasah (and you will find it)" excludes an Aveidah worth less than a Perutah.

(c)Question: What do they argue about?

(d)Answer #1: They argue only about which verse teaches the law.

1.Question: What do Chachamim learn from "u'Motzasah"?

2.Answer: They learn Ravnai's law.

i.(Ravnai): "U'Motzasah" connotes that it came to your hand (and even so, you need return only your brother's object, but not a Nochri's).

3.Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "Asher Tovad"?

4.Answer: This teaches R. Yochanan's law;

i.Question (R. Yochanan): What is the source that one may keep an Aveidah taken by an overflowing river?

ii.Answer (R. Yochanan): "So you will do to any Aveidah Asher Tovad Mimenu (that will be lost from him) and you will find it" - (one must return) things that are lost from him only, not something that is lost (irretrievably) from everyone.

5.Question: How does R. Yehudah learn Ravnai's law?

6.Answer: He learns from the extra 'Vav' in "u'Motzasah."

7.Question: How do Chachamim learn R. Yochanan's law?

8.Answer: They learn from "Mimenu (from him)".

i.R. Yehudah holds that we cannot learn this from "Mimenu."

(e)Answer #2 (Rava): They argue about an Aveidah worth a Perutah that declined in value to less than a Perutah.

1.Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - anything worth a Perutah when lost must be returned, even if later it is worth less;

2.R. Yehudah learns from "u'Motzasah" - you must return an Aveidah only if it is worth a Perutah when you find it.

(f)Objection: Chachamim should admit that "u'Motzasah" implies that it is worth a Perutah when you find it!

(g)Answer #3 (Rava): Rather, they argue about an Aveidah worth less than a Perutah that rose in value to a Perutah.

1.Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - if it was not worth a Perutah when it was lost, it need not returned;

2.R. Yehudah learns from "u'Motzasah" - you must return it if it is worth a Perutah when you find it.

(h)Objection: R. Yehudah should admit that "Asher Tovad" implies that it was worth a Perutah when it was lost!

(i)Answer #4 (Rava): Rather, they argue about an Aveidah worth a Perutah that declined in value, then rose and is again worth a Perutah.

1.Chachamim learn from "Asher Tovad" - since it was worth a Perutah when it was lost, it must be returned;

2.R. Yehudah learns from "u'Motzasah" - you must return it only if it was worth a Perutah from when it was lost until you found it.

4)ARE SIMANIM MID'ORAISA?

(a)Question: The Halachah is, we return Aveidos through a (medium) Siman. Is this mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?

1.Question: What difference does it make?

27b----------------------------------------27b

2.Answer: This determines whether we can rely on a Siman to (say that a Get found is the same Get that a Shali'ach lost, and) return the Get to him (and he will use it to divorce);

i.If the law is mid'Oraisa, it applies also to a Get;

ii.If it is an enactment mid'Rabanan, it was enacted only for money, but not for Isurim.

(b)Answer #1 (Mishnah): We already knew that one must return a garment. It wrote "Simlah" to teach the general rule: just like a garment has signs and people claim it, also anything that has Simanim, and people will claim it, the finder must announce it. (Since we learn from a verse, it is mid'Oraisa.)

(c)Rejection: The verse teaches only that it must have people who will claim it. The mention of Simanim is an allusion to the Rabbinic enactment.

(d)Answer #2 (Beraisa): "Chamor" teaches that we return a donkey through Simanim on the saddle.

(e)Rejection: It means, through witnesses that recognize the saddle.

(f)Answer #3 (Beraisa) Question: Why does it say "it will be with you until Derosh Achicha (your brother demands it)"? Surely one does not return it before this!

1.Answer: Rather, this teaches that you must be Doresh (investigate) if he is lying.

2.Suggestion: You ask him to give a Siman!

(g)Rejection: No, you require him to bring witnesses testifying that it is his.

(h)Answer #4 (Mishnah): Witnesses may testify (to identify a corpse to permit the widow to remarry) only if they saw the face with the nose, even if there are Simanim on the body and clothes.

1.This shows that Simanim are not mid'Oraisa!

(i)Rejection: The Mishnah discusses unreliable Simanim on the body, e.g. he was tall or short;

1.We do not rely on Simanim on the clothes. We are concerned lest the deceased was wearing borrowed clothes.

2.Question: If so, why do we return a donkey through Simanim on the saddle? Perhaps the saddle was borrowed!

3.Answer #1: People do not borrow saddles, for it wounds the donkey.

4.Answer #2: Indeed, we are never concerned for borrowing;

i.The Mishnah teaches that we do not rely on unreliable Simanim on the clothes, e.g. they were black or red.

5.Question (against Answer #1 - Beraisa): If a Shali'ach lost a Get and found it tied to his moneybag or in his ring, or among his clothes, even after a long time, the Get is valid (we assume that it is the one he lost).

i.If we are concerned for borrowing, when it is tied to his wallet, why is it valid?

6.Answer: People do not lend these articles.

i.Lending a moneybag is a bad omen. One would not lend his signet ring, lest the borrower use it to forge.

(j)Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not Simanim are mid'Oraisa.

1.(Beraisa): We do not testify (to identify a corpse) based on birthmarks;

2.Elazar ben Mehavai permits.

3.Suggestion: The first Tana holds that Simanim are mid'Rabanan, and Elazar ben Mehavai holds that they are mid'Oraisa.

(k)Rejection #1 (Rava): All agree that Simanim are mid'Oraisa. They argue about whether or not we are concerned that someone with the same Mazal (configuration of the stars when he was born) has similar birthmarks.

1.Chachamim say that this is common, so we are concerned. Elazar says that it is rare, so we are not concerned.

(l)Rejection #2: All agree that it is rare that someone with the same Mazal has similar birthmarks;

1.They argue about whether or not birthmarks are prone to change appearance after death.

2.Chachamim say that they change. Elazar says that they do not change.

(m)Rejection #3: All agree that birthmarks are not prone to change appearance after death; and that Simanim are mid'Rabanan;

1.They argue about whether or not birthmarks are considered an infallible sign.

2.Elazar says that it is. Chachamim say that it is not.

5)WHY THE ENACTMENT WAS MADE

(a)Question (Rava): If Simanim are mid'Rabanan, why was the enactment made?

(b)Answer #1 (Rava): The finder is happy to return it through Simanim, so that when he loses something, he will get it back through Simanim.

(c)Objection (Rav Safra): We are not concerned for the finder, rather for the owner!

(d)Answer #2 (Rava): The loser knows that he cannot bring witnesses, therefore he wants to be able to get it through Simanim;

1.He is confident that only he knows good Simanim.

(e)Question (Rav Safra - Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): If Reuven borrowed from three people, we return the documents to him. If Shimon lent to three people, we return them to him.

1.The borrower does not want the lender to receive the documents through a Siman!

(f)Answer (Rava): That is based on logic, not on Simanim!

1.When they are from the same borrower, surely he dropped them. Had they fallen from the lenders, there is no reason why they would be together;

2.When they are from the same lender, surely he dropped them. Had they fallen from the borrowers, there is no reason why they would be together.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF