Explanation Sheet · 25a

① The Gemara now makes an implied ruling based on our Mishnah.

② The Mishnah states that if someone finds:

Ⓐ Fruits in a vessel.

Ⓑ Or money in a purse.

③ The fruits/money are to be returned with the vessel/purse.

The Mishnah says, that the fruits are to be returned with the vessel.

When the fruits are found inside the vessel.

⑦ And the same by the money. Inside the purse.

⑧ This implies that the Mishnah holds.

⑨ Ⓐ If the fruits were outside but in front of the vessel.

Ⓑ Or the money was outside but in front of the purse.

⑩ Then the ruling would be to return the vessel/purse.

⑪ but the finder may keep the fruits/money

It's following the same model as a Tashma.

Why do we authenticate the Mishnah?

Because... There's a strong logic to say not like the inference.

But the reason why we're opting for inference, because Mishnahs are usually written to mean what they say.

They don't give baseline cases.

The Mishnah is like a Tashma.

גמרא דף כה. ורמינהו

① The Gemara now brings another Braisa that seems to contradict the first one.

② This Braisa says:

③ Ⅰ The case:

Ⓐ ⓐ Someone found something without a sign.

ⓑ by the side of something with a sign.

Ⅱ The ruling:

The finder must announce and return everything.

④ Ⅰ The case: The owner of the vessel came and gave a sign on the vessel.

Ⓑ but he said, the thing without a sign, outside the vessel, is not his.

Ⅱ The ruling:

Ⓐ the finder:

ⓐ must return the vessel.

ⓑ but he may keep the thing without the sign. Which was outside the vessel.

⑤ So we see, that the two Braisos seem to contradict each other regarding the object outside the vessel which has no sign.

Ⅰ Braisa number one:

The finder may keep it.

Ⅱ Braisa number two: The finder must return it.

① Rav Zvid answers:

② In truth, the two Braisos are not contradicting each other.

③ but rather, each Braiso is talking about a different case:

④ Ⅰ Braiso number one:

Ⓐ it is talking about finding:

ⓐ flax

ⓑ outside of a barrel.

Ⓑ if the flax had originally come from inside the barrel.

Ⓒ some flax would surely have remained inside the barrel when it fell.

Ⓓ since all of the flax was found outside the barrel.

Ⓔ it shows that the flax did not come from inside the barrel.

Ⓕ therefore:

ⓐ the barrel, with its sign, is one lost object.

ⓑ and the flax is a totally separate lost object.

Ⓖ since the barrel has a sign.

Ⓗ when the claimer gives his sign on the barrel.

Ⓘ he gets the barrel.

Ⓙ but the flax belongs to the finder.

Ⅱ Braiso number two:

Ⓐ it is talking about finding:

ⓐ a basket.

ⓑ with fruits outside of it.

Ⓑ

Ⓒ We assume that even when they are all outside.

Ⓓ They originally came from inside.

Ⓔ Therefore, the finder must return them with the basket.

① Tosfos now brings from our Gemara that says:

② Of the two Braisos that seem to contradict each other.

③ Ⓐ One saying that if fruits are found outside a vessel,

Ⓑ Or money outside a purse.

④ Although the vessel must be returned to the owner. Upon his giving an identifiable sign.

⑤ The finder may keep the

Ⓐ fruits.

Ⓑ money.

⑥ And the other Braisa, which says, that something found without a sign. Next to something with a sign.

7 It is necessary to return that which is found outside. Together with the vessel.

⑧ then in truth. The two Braisos are not contradicting. As one is referring to a barrel and flax.

① Tosafos now brings the explanation of Rashi.

② That it is our Mishna (and the first Braisa). That talks about a barrel and flax.

3 And therefore, even though the finder must return the vessel,

④ He may keep the flax.

① Tosafos now asks on Rashi:

② It would appear that the explanation of Rashi is difficult.

③ Since the language of our Mishna is that the finder found fruits.

④ Not flax.

① On this question, Tosafos brings… That there are those who say… That we find in a posuk… That flax is called fruits.

② Tosafos brings the posuk… That says:

"And Kayin brought… From the fruits of the ground."

③ That the fruits… Which are being referred to in the posuk… is flax.

④ So we see that flax can be called fruits.

⑤ So too in our Mishnah, when it says: a vessel and fruits.

⑥ Fruits can be explained to mean flax.

① On this, Tosafos asks:

② This explanation is forced and difficult.

① Tosafos now explains the answer of the Gemara.

② That there is a difference between: and:

Ⓐ A barrel with flax outside.

Ⓑ And a basket with fruits outside.

③ He explains it as follows:

④ Ⅰ Our Mishnah and Brisa number one:

Ⓐ It is talking about finding a basket with fruits outside.

Ⓑ Since all of the fruits were found outside the basket.

Ⓒ That is a strong proof that the fruits did not come from the basket.

Ⓓ The reason is because all the fruits are separate from each other.

Ⓔ Therefore, if the fruits had initially come from the basket,

Ⓕ Some fruits should have remained in the basket.

Ⅱ The second Brisa:

Ⓐ It is talking about finding a barrel with flax outside it.

Ⓑ Since the pieces of flax are all connected.

Ⓒ It could be that the flax all came from inside the barrel.

Ⓓ And when part of it fell out of the barrel, the rest followed.

Ⓔ Therefore, since it is possible for the flax to have come from the barrel.

Ⓕ And there is no strong proof that it did not come from the barrel.

Ⓖ We must assume that the flax did come from the barrel.

Ⓗ And therefore, the finder must return the flax with the vessel.

Rashi

Ⅰ Rav Zvid.

① basket and fruits.

Ⓐ Bryso number two. (Unidentified objects)

ⓐ You must return the fruits with the basket.

ⓑ Since they are slippery.

ⓒ The fact that they are all outside does not prove that they did not start inside.

Ⅱ Rav Papa.

① Brasa number 1:

Ⓐ It is talking about a basket and fruits.

Ⓑ The ruling is? The finder may keep them.

Ⓒ It is talking about where all the fruits were outside.

Ⓓ Therefore, it is a proof that they did not come from inside.

Ⓔ Since none of them remained inside.

Ⅱ Bryza number 2:

Ⓐ It is talking about a basket and fruits.

Ⓑ It is in a case where some fruits were in and some were out.

Ⓒ Therefore, it is clear that even the fruits that were out were originally in the basket.

Ⓓ Therefore, the finder must return the fruits outside with the basket.

Ⅰ Rav Zvid:

The finder must return the fruits.

Ⅱ Rav Papa:

The finder may keep the fruits.

There is a dispute between:

① Rav Zvid.

② And Rav Papa.

① The Gemara now brings three additional answers to resolve the contradiction

② between the two Braisos raised above.

Ⓐ One ruling that fruits found outside a vessel must be returned with the vessel.

Ⓑ and the other one ruling that the fruits outside may be kept by the finder.

③ the three explanations are given by Rav Papa.

④ all three explanations are talking about finding:

Ⓐ a basket.

Ⓑ and fruits.

⑤ Ⅰ Explanation number one:

Ⓐ Braisa number one: the finder may keep the fruits.

All fruits were found outside of the basket.

Ⓑ Braisa number 2: the finder must return the fruits.

Some fruits remained in the basket.

Ⅱ Explanation number 2:

Both Braisos are talking about no fruits having been left back in the basket.

Ⓐ Braisa number 1: the finder may keep the fruits.

The opening of the basket does not face the fruits.

Ⓑ Braisa number 2: the finder may not keep the fruits.

The opening of the basket does face the fruits.

Ⅲ Explanation number 3:

Both Braisos are talking about where all of the fruits are outside the basket. And the opening of the basket is facing the fruits.

Ⓐ Braisa number 1: the finder may keep the fruits.

The basket has a rim.

Ⓑ Braisa number 2: the finder may not keep the fruits.

The basket has no rim.

① The Gemara now brings from our Mishna that says

② Ⅰ The case:

Someone found:

Ⓐ Piles of fruit.

Ⓑ Or piles of money.

Ⅱ The ruling:

The finder must announce them.

① The Gemara now says:

② From the fact that the Mishnah rules

③ In a case where someone finds:

Ⓐ Piles of fruit.

Ⓑ Piles of money.

④ That the finder must announce his find.

⑤ This ruling implies that the owner does not give up hope.

⑥ Due to the fact that his lost object has a sign.

⑦ The only sign that is possible by these piles is the number of piles.

⑧ So we see that number is a good sign.

① The Gemara now states:

② So the language of the Mishnah is plural:

Ⓐ Piles of fruits.

Ⓑ Piles of money.

③ The Mishnah can be understood to be stating a case of someone finding a single pile.

④ If so, number would not be the sign.

① It is clear from the Mishnah that there is some type of sign associated with the fruits / money.

② If it is a single pile.

③ The sign must be the place.

④ So we can learn from our Mishnah that place is a good sign.

① The Gemara now says,

② Perhaps, the case of the Mishnah is, that someone found more than one pile,

③ In which case, the sign would be, the number of piles.

④ Therefore, since the Mishnah can be learned in two different ways.

⑤ And there is no resolution as to which is the proper way.

⑥ We cannot bring any proof from our Mishnah regarding

Ⓐ Number

Ⓑ Or place

⑦ As being a valid sign.

① The Gemara now brings from our Mishnah, which says:

② If someone finds three coins.

③ one upon another.

④ the finder must announce them.

① Our Mishnah says that if someone finds three coins on top of each other, he must announce them.

② The Gemara brings that.

Rabbi Yitzchak Migdala said, Regarding this ruling of the Mishnah,

③ The Mishnah is talking about finding the three coins.

④ One on the other.

⑤ When they are stacked like towers.

① The Gemara now brings a Braisa in support of Rabbi Yitzchak Migdala.

② The Braisa mentions two connected cases/rulings.

③ Ⅰ Case #1:

Someone found scattered money.

Ⅱ The ruling:

the finder may keep the money.

④ Ⅰ Case #2:

the coins were made like towers.

Ⅱ The ruling:

the finder must announce them.

⑤ The Braisa concludes by saying

⑥ this is what is meant by: stacked like towers:

⑦ 3 coins, one on top of the other.

① The Gemara now asks:

② There seems to be a contradiction within the Braisa.

③ The ratio of the Braisa says…

④ If someone finds scattered coins, he may keep them.

⑤ This implies that if the coins are sitting partially, one atop the other, the finder must announce them.

⑥ However, the end of the Braisa says that if someone finds coins stacked like towers, he must announce them.

⑦ This implies that if the coins are just overlapping each other, the finder may keep them.

⑧ So we see that the ruling regarding finding overlapped but not stacked coins seems to be a contradiction between the inference regarding it based on the beginning of the Braisa (finder may keep it)

⑨ and the inference of this ruling based on the end of the Braisa (that the finder may keep it)

① The Gemara answers:

② The way we are to understand the ruling of overlapped coins is as follows:

③ The beginning of the Braisa teaches that a person may keep scattered coins

④ The end of the Braisa

⑤ which talks about finding coins stacked like a tower

⑥ is being brought as a closure and clarification of the first part of the Braisa

⑦ The end of the Braisa is saying

⑧ any coins that are found

⑨ and they are not stacked like a tower.

⑩ they are called scattered.

⑪ and the finder may keep them.

① Our Mishnah says:

② If someone finds:

Ⓐ three coins

Ⓑ one on top of the other

③ the finder must announce them.

④ The Gemara now brings that Rabbi Hanina said:

⑤ this ruling of our Mishnah

⑥ that the three stacked coins must be announced by the finder

⑦ this ruling applies only if the three coins are from three different kings

⑧ but if they are from one king

⑨ the finder does not have to announce them.

① The Gemara now asks on the teaching of Rabbi Hanina.

② What exactly are the details of the case of the Mishnah of the three stack coins?

③ in order to better understand what Rabbi Hanina meant to say, when he differentiated between:

Ⓐ of three kings

Ⓑ as opposed to of one king.

① The Gemara suggests that perhaps we should say that the three coins were found made like towers.

② And it is regarding such a case that Rabbi Hanina is differentiating between finding:

Ⓐ Three coins from three different kings were found (you must announce them)

Ⓑ As opposed to three coins from the same king (the finder may keep them)

① The Gemara asks:

② If it were true

③ That Rabbi Hanino

④ Who differentiates in ruling between:

Ⓐ Three coins of three different kings.

Ⓑ And three coins of the same king.

⑤ If Rabbi Hanino were to be talking about. Three coins stacked like towers.

⑥ Why should there be any difference whether the three coins are from three different kings?

⑦ Or all three are from the same king?

⑧ It is:

Ⓐ The number of coins.

Ⓑ And how they are placed.

⑨ That determines their obligation to announce them.

⑩ And that whose picture is on the coin.

① The Gemara now suggests that perhaps we should say that Rabbi Hanino understood the Mishnah to be talking about finding three coins that are not stacked like towers.

② And it is on such a case that Rabbi Hanino is differentiating between Finding three coins.

Ⓐ From three different kings.

Ⓑ Or from the same king.

① The Gemara now asks:

② If Rabbi Hanina is talking about three coins (in our Mishnah) that are not stacked like towers,

③ then the reason why the finder may keep the three coins, if they were from the same king, is because it is not considered enough a proof that the coins were found in a way of having been placed down.

④ if so, the fact that the three coins are of three different kings, Would not help either.

Because as long as the coins are not stacked like a tower then you know for sure that they were placed there.

⑥ The truth is ad-libbing. The ruling is, the finder may keep them.

⑦ If so, the question returns. What is the explanation of Rabbi Hanino who differentiates between the three coins being

Ⓐ from the same king?

Ⓑ or from three different kings?

① The Gemara answers:

② The three coins must be stacked like a tower.

③ That is, they must be three different sizes.

④ and they must be configured in the form of a tower.

Ⓐ the widest coin on the bottom.

Ⓑ the middle-sized coin resting on top of the widest coin.

Ⓒ and the smallest coin resting on top of the middle-sized coin.

⑤ then it is indicative that they were deliberately placed there by their owner.

⑥ and the finder must announce them.

⑦ but if they are all three of the same size, then

⑧ even if they are stacked one upon the other.

⑨ the finder may keep them.

⑩ because we say that they happened to land in that formation,

11 after having fallen from their owner.

① The Gemara concludes that this is what Rabbi Hanina said:

② In our Mishnah, when it says that if someone finds three coins, one on top of the other,

③ that he must announce them.

④ That is only if the three coins are three different sizes.

⑤ but if the three coins are all the same size,

⑥ the finder may keep them.

⑦ in other words, what Rabbi Hanina meant to say is:

⑧ even if the three coins are from the same king.

⑨ they must appear as if they are from three different kings.

⑩ by all three being a different size.

① The Gemara just finished explaining what was meant by Rabbi Hanina who said:

② when the Mishna says that the finder of three coins One on top of the other, must announce that.

③ it is only if the three coins are of three different kings.

④ but not if they are of one king.

⑤ the Gemara explained Rabbi Hanina to be saying:

⑥ in truth, the three coins referred to in our Mishnah, can all be from the same king.

⑦ but the three coins must be like they are from three different kings.

⑧ on this the Gemara now asks.

⑨ what exactly does this mean?

① The Gemara now brings that Rabbi Yochanan said,

② even if the three coins are of the same size.

③ Even if they are stacked one upon the other.

④ it indicates that they were placed there by their owner

⑤ and the finder must announce them.

① The Gemara now asks:

② When the finder finds the three coins. One atop the other. What does he call out?

He calls out the number of coins he found.

① The Gemara now asks:

② By stating the case in the Mishnah of finding three coins,

③ This implies that in a case of finding two coins, one on top of the other,

④ The ruling would be That the finder could keep them.

⑤ The Gemara asks:

6 why should there be a difference between finding three coins or only two coins?

⑦ If the claimer can give his sign that they were one atop the other.

⑧ That should serve as a good sign even by two coins.

① The Gemara answers.

② Ravina said.

③ The finder Must call out: I found coins.

④ without stating the number of coins.

⑤ therefore, the claimer cannot say it was two coins.

⑥ since, by saying coins.

7 which is plural.

8 it is like saying two coins.

⑨ therefore, the claimer must say at least three.

⑩ in order to be a good sign.

① Rabbi Yirmiyo S

② What is the ruling regarding finding coins in the following configurations?

Ⓐ In a circle, like a bracelet. An anklet.

Ⓑ In a straight row. Side by side.

Ⓒ like a tripod. Each coin opposite the airspace of the other two.

Ⓓ like a ladder where the bottom coin is on the ground, and half [a little more than half] of the middle coin is resting on the bottom coin, and the rest of the coin is not resting on anything, and a majority of the top coin is resting on the middle coin. And the other half of the coin, the other part of the coin, is not resting on anything, like steps.

① Rabbi Yirmiah asked:

② What is the ruling regarding finding coins in the following configurations:

Ⓐ In a circle like a bracelet.

Ⓑ In a straight row, side by side.

Ⓒ Like a tripod. Each coin opposite the airspace of the other two.

Ⓓ Like a ladder. Where the bottom coin is on the ground. And half of the middle coin is resting on the bottom coin. And the other part is suspended. And half of the top coin is resting on the middle coin. And the other part is suspended. That the three coins are configured like steps.

① The Gemara now says:

② Based on a ruling made by:

Ⓐ Rav Nachman

Ⓑ son of Rabbo

Ⓒ son of Avuha

③ We can resolve one of the four questions of Rabbi Yirmiyah.

④ Rav Nachman said:

⑤ Any configuration of coins

⑥ which would allow a person to be able to take a wood chip

⑦ and enter it into the configuration of coins

⑧ and take them all at once.

⑨ Such a configuration of coins must be announced by the finder.

⑩ An example of such a configuration would be coins placed like a ladder.

⑪ Therefore, we can resolve that configuration only

⑫ that the finder would have to announce it.

⑬ All of the other configurations remain unresolved.

Baya delo ifshita

① Rav Ashi asked:

② What is the ruling?

③ Regarding finding coins

④ that are stacked in the same formation

as the stones of the idol worship called Markolis.