23b-24a: Objects Found in Public Places (1)
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 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 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 discussed the nature of simanim as they appear in different contexts. We investigated characteristics such as number, size, weight and location and saw when and how they can and cannot function as simanim. This week will continue our explication of the mishna. Before we start the gemara, take a look back at the mishna on daf 21a. As you can see, we have discussed nearly the whole mishna and all that remains is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's ruling about "klei anporia." The gemara now turns to discuss this ruling, but first it must clarify the meaning of the term "klei anporia." Turn back to daf 23b and learn from "Rabi Shimon ben Elazar ...רבי שמעון בן אלעזר " (nine lines from the bottom) until "ve-la mehadrinan lei ולא מהדרינן ליה." (second to last line). Schematic analysis lines 1-5.
As usual, the gemara opens with a quote from the mishna. Before discussing the legal implications of R. Shimon ben Elazar's ruling, the gemara first clarifies for us what that ruling actually is. 'Klei anporia' are explained, to translate the Aramaic idiom literally, as: 'new vessels that the eye is not satisfied with.'
The gemara, having clarified what klei anporia are, is still troubled by R. Shimon's statement. Why is is relevant whether or not the item is new such that the owner is not familiar with it? If the item has a siman, the owner can identify it and claim it it regardless of the degree of his or her general familiarity with the object. If it does not have a siman, the owner has no way of demonstrating to the finder that the lost object is his - why should the finder give it to the owner just because he says it is his? The gemara explains that there are indeed situations in which the finder should return an object based upon someone's bare assertion that the lost object is his or hers. It depends upon the claimant. If the claimant is a talmid chakham, a scholar, whose word can be trusted, one must return the lost object to him when he recognizes it by sight, even if he cannot present a siman. R. Shimon ben Elazar teaches us that with new articles, that could not have become familiar to their owners, one does not have to announce the find and return it when recognized on sight by a talmid chakham. Some of you may be wondering what is going on. The gemara above has just concluded that one is also required to announce objects that do not have a siman. The only things the finder can keep are new merchandise without simanim that could not possibly be recognized by their owner. To be sure, one need not return a lost object to someone who claims he recognizes it unless,
This issue was addressed by Ramban. Ramban asks how is it that the mishna lists items without simanim that may be kept by the finder? Do we not need to worry that perhaps these items belonged to a talmid chakham who can recognize them by sight and claim them. According to the gemara's conclusion, we should have to
Ramban's language is often difficult so I will sum up his answer for you. The text and translation appear here. Ramban offers three answers to his question: 1. We should distinguish between different types of lost objects. The items listed in the mishna which may be kept without announcing are not things people use regularly - they are either foods or money or generic materials that have no specific identity. They will never be recognizable on sight and thus never need to be announced. However, tools, clothing and the like, that people do become intimately familiar with, will indeed need to be announced even when there is no siman, in order to allow a talmid chakham to come forward and identify his lost object. 2. In addition, claims Ramban, the requirement to announce recognizable items that do not have simanim is not universal. It is limited to locales in which such talmidei chakhamim (pl.) are frequently found. One would need to announce a recognizable object only if it is found in such a place. In an ordinary location, there is no requirement to announce since it is extremely unlikely that the loser was one of these reliable talmidei chakhamim, and the finder may keep the lost object. 3. Ramban quotes the opinion of Ravad who holds that siman-less objects do not require regular announcing. They must be announced only in the study halls and synagogues where talmidei chakhamim are found. According to this position, claims Ramban, if, after three days or so, there is no response to one's announcements in the study halls etc., one may presume that the loser was not a talmid chakham and keep the lost object. The three explanations are distinct but not mutually exclusive. In the first, we accept that the divide is no longer between objects with simanim and objects without. Ramban merely points out that there remain many instances of lost objects that are not recognizable by sight and thus may be kept by the finder. The second explanation is more radical. It institutes a distinction, which does not appear in the gemara, between locales in which talmidei chakhamim are found and those where they are not. According to this explanation, the scope of the consideration that a talmid chakham may have lost it is severely limited. Generally one does not have to worry that the found object belonged to a talmid chakham. The presumption of yeush remains with siman-less objects unless it was found in a place where it is likely to have been lost by a talmid chakham. Only then does one need to announce an object that is potentially recognizable. The last explanation, brought in the name of Ravad, addresses the question from a different angle. Siman-less objects do not need to be announced in the same way as objects with simanim. Since only talmidei chakhamim are candidates for recovery through recognition on sight, one need announce only to them. Accordingly, claims Ramban, once a short period of time has passed with no response, the object 'reverts' to a regular siman-less lost object, and may be kept by the owner. We have focussed at such length on this point that a talmid chakham does not need simanim because it appeared to shake up the system of rules as we have understood it until now. The Ramban addresses this concern by limiting the scope of the "talmid chakham rule", as above. We will now turn to the definition of the talmid chakham to whom this rule applies. Learn, on dapim 23b-24a from "de-amar Rav Yehuda amar Shmuel... דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל" until "kaftei ve-odi כפתיה ואודי." Lines 6-9 in the schematic analysis. The gemara quotes a statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. The Rabbis diverge from the truth concerning only three subjects: tractate, bed and hospitality. What do these mean? Why is it permitted to lie about these things? Look in Rashi, at the end of 23b and the beginning of 24a, s.v. be-masekhet במסכת, s.v. be-furia בפוריא , s.v. be-ushpiza באושפיזא. As Rashi explains, one is allowed to lie if the alternative is to appear arrogant, or if the true response would not conform to the value of sexual modesty, or in order to protect someone else from harm. The gemara explains that this is the definition of a reliable talmid chakham - someone who can be counted upon to lie only under such circumstances and never for personal gain.
Mar Zutra points out that the application of this definition is that one returns a lost object on recognizance only to someone of such high moral standards. Since we know that such a person would not lie, we trust that the lost object is his, and return it. Someone who is known to be freer with the truth does not inspire this trust and one need not return the object without proof. In the context of its discussion of the relationship between moral qualities, the gemara records a story concerning Mar Zutra. Mar Zutra, was present when a a silver cup was stolen in a hotel. When he noticed a student (presumably staying at the same hotel) who dried his hands using someone else's towel, Mar Zutra accused him of the theft, as this was clearly a person who was not careful with other people's property. The student was detained and confessed to the theft. This little story, in my opinion, is inserted as an elaboration of the relationship between being a a talmid chakham and reliability. To be called a talmid chakham, one must live up to the highest standards - never to lie except when dishonesty is the best moral option. Someone who is scrupulous about even the smallest white lie can be relied upon such that his word is his bond and ordinary requirements of proof are waived. The story illustrates how the inverse is also true. Someone who is unscrupulous about small things - drying one's hands with someone else's towel - is legitimately suspect about larger things such as outright theft.
Learn now, on 24a, from "Tanya: modeh R. Shimon ben Elazar תניא: מודה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר until "be-vad echad בבד אחד." Lines 10-12 in the schematic analysis. The gemara concludes our discussion with a baraita that elaborates R. Shimon ben Elazar's statement in the mishna. In the baraita we find that the gemara's definition of "klei anporia" as items that the owner is not sufficiently familiar with already appears in the name of R. Shimon ben Elazar. He then gives a list of examples of such items. When found by themselves, these items may be kept by the finder and need not be announced. If, however they are found in pairs, they must be announced. The number, as Rashi s.v. chayav le-hakhriz explains, counts as a siman. The gemara is not sure of the meaning of one of the items on this list, "badei" and proceeds to explicate it, based upon usage elsewhere. The subject of recognition on sight (tevi'ut 'ayin) and its implications for hashavat aveida can be discussed further, but we will conclude here. As we have seen, the question of when one must return a lost object has become complicated. As was the case in the sugya of yeush she-lo mi-da'at, the absence of simanim is not enough to make the find permissible to the finder. This time we learned that there is another class of objects, objects the owner can presumably recognize, that also may be recoverable by the owner. This is only the case if the owner is a talmid chakham, since we can believe he is telling the truth despite the fact that he has no evidence. In any case, the finder may not keep for himself objects of this sort but must announce them in order to provide a talmid chakham the opportunity to recover his property. |
Translation of gemara | Schematic Analysis | Text of gemara 23b |
Quote from the mishna | ||
2. What is meant by 'anporia'? | Question about a term used in the mishna | |
3. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: New articles with which one is not yet sufficiently familiar. | Explanation of term. | |
4. In what circumstances? If they have a siman, what does it matter if they are not yet sufficiently familar? If they do not have a siman, -what does it matter if they are familar enough? | Difficulty with the mishna's ruling. |
4. היכי דמי? אי אית בהו סימן - כי לא שבעתן העין מאי הוי? אי דלית בהו סימן - כי שבעתן העין מאי הוי? - |
5.[The mishna] is only [talking about vessels] that have no siman. [The point] is significant [in regard to the question whether the lost articles] should be returned to [a claimant who is] a talmid chakham [who recognises them] by sight: If [it is a case where] he is sufficiently familiar, he is sure to know them, and we give them back to him. But if he is not sufficiently familar with them, he cannot be sure to know them, and we do not give them back to him. | Explanation of the case in the mishna. |
5. לעולם דלית בהו סימן, נפקא מינה לאהדורי לצורבא מרבנן בטביעות עינא. שבעתן העין - קים ליה בגוייהו, ומהדרינן ליה. כי לא שבעתן העין - לא קים ליה בגוייהו, ולא מהדרינן ליה. |
6. For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: In the following three matters learned men do not [necessarily] tell the truth: In matters of a tractate, bed, [24a] and hospitality. | Amoraic statement |
6. דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: בהני תלת מילי עבידי רבנן דמשנו במלייהו: במסכת, ובפוריא, [דף כד עמוד א] ובאושפיזא. |
7. What is the point [of this observation]? | Relevance question |
7. מאי נפקא מינה? |
8. Mar Zutra said: [It is important in regard to the question] of returning a lost article, [recognised] by sight: If we know that [the claimant] does not tell the truth in only those three matters, we give it back to him, but if he does not speak the truth also in other matters we do not give it back to him. | Explanation how the above statement is relevant to the explanation of the mishna. |
8. אמר מר זוטרא: לאהדורי ליה אבידתא בטביעות עינא. אי ידעינן ביה דלא משני אלא בהני תלת - מהדרינן ליה, ואי משני במילי אחריני - לא מהדרינן ליה. |
9.Mar Zutra the pious once had a silver vessel stolen from him in a hotel. When he saw a student wash his hands and dry them on someone else's garment he said, 'This is the person [who stole the vessel], as he has no consideration for the property of his fellow.' [The student] was then detained, and he confessed. |
Story related to above point. |
9. מר זוטרא חסידא אגניב ליה כסא דכספא מאושפיזא, חזיא לההוא בר בי רב דמשי ידיה ונגיב בגלימא דחבריה. אמר: היינו האי דלא איכפת ליה אממונא דחבריה. כפתיה ואודי. |
10. It has been taught: 'R. Shimon ben Elazar admits that new vessels which are sufficiently familiar have to be announced. And these are new vessels which are not considered to be sufficiently familar such that one does not need to announce them: poles of needles, knitting needles, and bundles of axes. All these objects mentioned above are permitted only if they are found singly, but if found in twos one must announce them.' |
Baraita related to above discussion |
10. תניא: מודה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר בכלים חדשים ששבעתן העין שחייב להכריז. ואלו הן כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין, שאינו חייב להכריז - כגון בדי מחטין וצינוריות, ומחרוזות של קרדומות. כל אלו שאמרו אימתי מותרים - בזמן שמצאן אחד אחד, אבל מצאן שנים שנים - חייב להכריז. |
11. What are badei ['poles']? Rods. | Clarification of terminology |
11. מאי בדי - שוכי, |
12. And why are they called badei ['poles']? Because an object on which things hang is called 'bad' as is stated there: One leaf on one branch ['bad']. | explanation of terminology |
12. ואמאי קרו ליה בדי? - דבר דתלו ביה מידי, בד קרו ליה. כי ההוא דתנן התם: עלה אחד בבד אחד. |
|
Key Gemara Terms
nafka mina: lit. comes out of it, the point or significance of it. |
נפקא מינה |
|
avidi: are likely, are liable |
עשויים |
עבידי |
kim lei: lit. it is established for him, he knows |
|
קים ליה |
General vocabulary
ushpiza: 1. hotel, guest house, 2. hospitality |
מלון |
אושפיזא |
gelima: garment. |
בגד |
גלימא |
mashi: he washed |
רחץ |
משי |
meshanu be-milayhu: lit. change with their words, lie, diverge from the truth |
משנים דבריהם |
משנו במלייהו |
avidi: are likely, are liable |
עשויים |
עבידי |
nafka mina: lit. comes out of it, the point or significance of it. |
נפקא מינה |
|
tzurba me-rabanan: lit. a student of the Rabbis, a talmid chakham, a scholar. |
תלמיד חכם |
צורבא מרבנן |
kim lei: lit. it is established for him, he knows |
קים ליה |
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!