Review of 21a-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 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 finally concluded the discussion of yeush she-lo mi-da'at. We looked at two baraitot. The first was about the "ki yutan" כי יותן rule requiring the owner's approval of the contact with liquid for that liquid to prepare foodstuff to be subject to tum'ah. At first glance it appeared that the baraita, in its insistence that the owner's awareness and approval is relevant only if the produce is still wet, supported Abaye. The gemara explained this rule according to Rava to be unique to the laws of hekhsher (preparation of) tum'ah and therefore not relevant. The gemara continued with a baraita about the law of "lost to all," where the owner may keep the lost object even though it has simanim. The gemara deduced from this baraita that the halakha is like Abaye and could find no refutation that would accord with Rava's opinion. We then concluded that the halakha is like Abaye.
This week, we will have only a very short shiur dealing with some of the offshoots of the ruling in accordance with Abaye. The rest of this week's shiur will be dedicated to two things:
1. The first Aramaic grammar lesson, which is in a separate file (01grammar.htm) attached to the mailing. I have sent it out as a separate file to encourage you to print it out, even if you usually read the shiur on computer. The lesson consists of a table with the conjugation of a sample verb. I suggest that you complete the exercise in writing. I cannot overemphasize to any of you who are trying to make your way through the Aramaic text how useful it will be to take ten minutes to learn a little grammar. In something like five lessons, you can learn most of the grammar that you will need to read Talmudic Aramaic fluently.
2. The main of focus this week is on review. We have learned nearly two daf of gemara and must take the time to digest what we have learned. Here too, it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of review, called chazara in (yeshivish) Hebrew. In our case, the chazara serves a double purpose. In addition to being the only way to actually remember what you have learned, to internalize a small part of the Torah, it is also the only way to be self-critical of one's skill progress. Through review you will acquire a better sense of what you can do and what you still need to work on.
Before we turn to review, let's tie up a few loose ends in the gemara. On daf 22b, learn from "Amar lei Rav Akha berei de-Rava....אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא" until "... Amar lei: asiran אמר ליה: אסירן." Make use of the schematic analysis.
The gemara reports on the exchange between two Amoraim as to the proper application of the ruling that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is invalid. Rav Acha berei de-Rava challenges Rav Ashi to explain the commonly accepted practice of eating windfallen dates, since we have rejected Rava's opinion and concluded that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is invalid. What is the difficulty raised by Rav Acha? Let us look in Rashi, s.v.heikhi akhlinan le-hu. Rashi explains that the problem with the dates lies in the fact the owner of the date palm has not been mityaesh. Since we hold like Abaye, and the dates are permitted only if the owner is aware of the loss, and therefore is explicitly mityeush, these dates (that the owner presumably is unaware of their having fallen) are not permitted.
However, as Rashi points out, it is hard to understand why Rav Acha berei de-Rava frames this question in the context of yeush she-lo mi-da'at. After all, as we learned on the bottom of daf 21b, even Rava agrees that fallen fruit, since its origins are easily identifiable, is considered to have a siman, and therefore there can be no presumption of yeush. Rashi answers that Rav Acha berei de-Rava is not really challenging the ruling that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is invalid. Rather he is using that ruling as a rhetorical device - since we have decided to be so strict regarding the question of yeush, how is it that we eat the windfallen dates?
Rav Ashi replies (in a manner we have come to expect) that fallen dates are another exception. Just as an owner is originally mityaesh from fallen figs, since they are generally repulsive from the fall, so too he initially despairs of any dates that fall, since they are subject to the attentions of various creeping and crawling creatures.
Rav Acha berei de-Rava then addresses this notion of the owner initially giving up on the fallen dates. This works regarding an adult who can dispose of his or her property as they wish, and can relate to the dates on the tree as his own only if they do not fall. Minor orphans, or minors in general, do not have the legal ability to waive property rights (it is an interesting question whether this is some sort of protection or merely that they are considered legally incompetent). Thus we cannot regard the windfallen dates that come from trees belonging to minors as permitted. Their owners could not have initially given up on them since they do not have that legal capacity.
Rav Ashi answers this objection by pointing out that generally we do not know whether the owners of a particular field are minors. Since this is a relatively unusual situation, we can presume that any particular field does not belong to minors and thus the fallen dates are permitted.
Rav Acha berei de-Rava concludes with one final sally: what if we know that the field belongs to orphans? Alternatively what if the field is well fenced such that the fallen dates will not be eaten by animals? In these cases, Rav Ashi admits that there is no presumption of yeush and it is forbidden to eat the dates.
At this point I would like to begin the chazara - review. You should work as follows:
Step 1. Go through the the text from the mishna on 21a until "...Amar lei: asiran אמר ליה: אסירן on 22b. 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. If you want, figure out what the letters of the siman that appears on 21a stand for. Do you find the siman helpful? (I'll admit that I do not).
This sounds like a lot of work and it may be. All I can say is that if you take the trouble to do chazara, tedious as it may be, you will almost immediately be gratified with the results. Good luck!
Review Questions:
1. The mishna on 21a contains a list of consumer items that may be kept by one who finds them. What are the defining features of this list? What is the difference between the list here and the list in the next mishna (23b) of items that must be announced? (mishna on 21a with Rashi)
2. According to Rashi (on the first mishna), why can the finder keep the lost objects listed in the mishna? (Rashi on the mishna 21a)
3. What is the first issue the gemara deals with following the mishna? What is the problem with using R. Yitzhak's rule to resolve this issue? (21a)
4. To what case does R. 'Ukva bar Chama apply R. Yitzchak's rule? (21a)
5. What is the theme of R. Yirmiah's series of questions? How are they resolved? (21a)
6. In what case do Rava and Abaye disagree about yeush she-lo mi-da'at? Explain their respective positions. (21b)
7. How does the case described in the mishna of "scattered fruit" furnish support to Rava's position about yeush she-lo mi-da'at? How does the gemara explain it according to Abaye? (22b)
8. What is the difficulty for Abaye with most of the other cases in the mishna? How does the gemara resolve them? (21b)
9. Can the finder keep money found in a public place according Abaye? Explain. (21b)
10. What is the difficulty raised by the halakha that leket becomes permitted to all once the nemushot have gone through? How does the gemara resolve it? (21b)
11. What is the law regarding fruit that has fallen from a tree overhanging a road? Is there a difference between different kinds of fruit? How is this halakha relevant to the discussion of yeush she-lo mi-da'at? (21b)
12. What is the halakha regarding stolen property that the thief has passed on to a third party? (22a)
13. How does the baraita about the building materials swept away by a river pose a problem for Rava? (22b) How does the gemara interpret this baraita according to Rava?
14. Under what circumstances can one separate teruma from someone else's produce? (22a)
15. What does it mean when an the owner of the field says to his agent, "why did you not take from the better quality produce"?
16. Does the rule about "why did you not take from the better quality produce?" apply to other situations than teruma? Explain.
17. Under what circumstances does the owner's expression of approval that his foodstuff came into contact with liquid not make that food mukhshar lekabel tum'ah? (22b)
18. How is the baraita about "ki yutan" relevant to the discussion of yeush she-lo mi-da'at?(22b)
19. What is the conclusive argument that leads to the resolution of the machloket in favor of Abaye? (22b)
20. Under what circumstances is it forbidden to eat windfallen dates? Explain. (22b)
Schematic analysis from 22b "Amar lei Rav Akha berei de-Rava....אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא" until "... Amar lei: asiran . אמר ליה: אסירן" |
Translation |
Rashi Text |
heikhi akhlinan le-hu, how do we eat them - after all, he [the owner] has not been mityaesh. The fact that the questioner bases his question on the refutation of Rava is problematic (to me): even if Rava had not been refuted one could ask the question, as Rava concedes [that there is no yeush] regarding anything whose appearance identifies it, with the exception of figs that become disgusting upon falling.(see shiur #5 and the gemara on 21a). It appears to me that [the gemara] asked the question in this way only in order to emphasize the severity of the transgression: Since we have established [through the refutation of Rava] that even things that have no siman are forbidden, all the more so these [dates], that have a siman. |
היכי אכלינן להו - הא לא מיאש, והא דנקט למיבעי בעיא מאחר דאיתותב רבא קשיא לי, דבלא איתותב רבא איכא למיבעי, דהא מודה רבא בכל דבר שחזותו מוכיח עליו חוץ מן התאנה מפני שנמאסת על נפילתה. ונראה בעיני: דלא נקט לה אלא להרבות בחומר איסור, כלומר: מאחר דאיתותב אפילו בדבר שאין בו סימן, כל שכן שאלו אסורין שיש בהן סימן. |
Key Gemara Terms
heikhi - how, what for | איך,כיצד |
היכי |
lehu - them (direct object) |
אותם |
להו |
ninhu - they |
הם |
נינהו |
tiyuvta, itotiv - refutation, has been refuted. tiyuvta de-Rava tiyuvta תיובתא דרבא תיובתא means that this is a conlusive refutation of Rava's position. |
|
תיובתא, איתותיב |
General vocabulary
baga be-ar'a - a peice of land |
באגא בארעא |
|
heikhi - how, what for | איך, כיצד |
היכי |
zika - the wind |
הרוח |
זיקא |
karkhata - fenced |
כרכתא |
|
lehu - them (direct object) |
אותם |
להו |
muchzak, mechazkinan - it is established, we hold as established |
מוחזק, מחזקינן |
|
mechila - renunciation, forgiving (of a loan) |
מחילה |
|
ninhu - they |
הם |
נינהו |
tiyuvta, itotiv - refutation, has been refuted. tiyuvta de-Rava tiyuvta תיובתא דרבא תיובתא means that this is a conlusive refutation of Rava's position. |
|
תיובתא, איתותיב |
4. To what case does R. 'Ukva bar Chama apply R. Yitzchak's rule? (21a)
5. What is the theme of R. Yirmia's series of questions? How are they resolved? (21a)
9. Can the finder keep money found in a public place according Abaye? Explain. (21b)
14. Under what circumstances can one separate teruma from someone else's produce? (22a)
18. How is the baraita about "ki yutan" relevant to the discussion of yeush she-lo mi-da'at?(22b)
20. Under what circumstances is it forbidden to eat windfallen dates? Explain. (22b)
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!