1)

(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. Reish Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai qualifies this by restricting it to someone who buys from a merchant, but if he purchased it from a private individual, he is obligated to return the money to him.

(b)The Beraisa-expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman which corroborates what Reish Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai just said.

(c)The fruit referred to by the Tana is threshed corn.

(d)To avoid the Kashya that maybe it was one of the threshers who had lost the coin, and not the owner, Rav Nachman establishes our Mishnah when the corn was threshed by the owner's slaves.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah explains that in the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Chein Ta'aseh le'Simlaso", the Torah inserts the word "Simlah", to teach us that the finder is only obligated to return a lost article, if it has Simanim and Tov'in claimants (meaning that it has Simanim by means of which the claimant can identify it).

(b)The problem the Tana has with "Simlah" is that, seeing as the Torah has already written "u'le'Chol Aveidas Achicha", it is 'superfluous'.

(c)Besides "Chamor" and "Shor" Rava also considers "Seh" 'superfluous'.

3)

(a)Now that "Simlah" comes to require witnesses or Simanim of the actual object, the Torah needs to add ...

1. ... "Chamor" to teach us that the finder is obligated to return a donkey if the claimant can identify the saddle.

2. ... "Shor" ... that the finder must even return the fluff on the ox's tail (see Tosfos DH 'le'Gizas Z'navo'.

3. ... "Seh" ... that he must return the wool that he sheared off the sheep's back.

(b)Having obligated the return of the fluff of an ox's tail it is obvious that one is also obligated to return the shearings of a sheep. Consequently, Rava does not know why the Torah needs to write "Seh".

(c)The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Chamor" (by 'Bor') that the owner of a pit is not liable to pay for vessels that fall into it and break.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah holds that he is which is why Rava doesn't know why, according to him, the Torah writes "Chamor" (by Bor)", either.

4)

(a)Rava has a problem with "Seh" in that it cannot come to include the obligation of returning ...

1. ... a lost animal's dung because we take for granted that the owner declares it Hefker (and it would be illogical to obligate the finder to return it).

2. ... a lost article via Simanim (and "Simlah" comes to include only that witnesses because since our Mishnah quotes "Simlah" in connection with both Simanim and witnesses, it is clear that if Simanim are d'Oraysa, then the source is "Simlah" (and not "Seh").

(b)If not for "Seh", and assuming that "Simlah" comes to teach us witnesses exclusively Simanim would not be d'Oraysa at all, but de'Rabbanan (as we already discussed in the first Perek).

(c)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Asher Tovad" that the finder is not obligated to return a lost article that is worth less than a Perutah (see Tosfos 'P'rat').

(d)Rebbi Yehudah learns this from "u'Metzasah". According to Abaye their Machlokes has no ramifications. One learns it from the one, and the other one, from the other.

5)

(a)The Tana Kama learns "u'Metzasah" like Ravnai, who learns from there that even if the finder has already picked up the Aveidah, he is not obligated to return it to a Nochri ("u'Metzasah", 'de'Asi li'Yedeih Mashma' [as we learned in the first Perek]).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Asher Tovad Mimenu" like Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon who Darshens from here that if an Aveidah is not attainable by anybody at the time that it goes lost (e.g. if it is swept away by a raging torrent), the finder may keep it (as we learned above).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah counters the Rabbanan, who learn this from "Mimenu" alone by arguing that "Mimenu" on its own does not imply anything ...

(d)... whereas the Rabbanan learn Ravnai's Din from the extra 'Vav' in "u'Metzasah".

6)

(a)According to Rava, the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan do have ramifications. Based on "Asher Tovad" and "u'Metzasah" respectively, he suggests initially that they argue either when the article was worth a Perutah when it was lost, but had been devalued by the time it was found, or vice-versa.

(b)We reject both suggestions however, on the grounds that now that the Torah writes both "Asher Tovad" and "u'Metzasah", it is clear that the object must be worth a Perutah both when it goes lost and when it is found.

(c)Rava finally explains the case over which the Tana'im argue as where the article was worth a Perutah both when it was found and when it was lost, but in between, it was devalued to less than a Perutah before rising to its former value ...

(d)... and the basis of their Machlokes is whether the finder is obligated to return it, since it was worth a Perutah both when it was lost and when it was found (the Tana Kama) or whether it needs to be worth a Perutah from the time that the Aveidah is lost right up to the time that it is found (Rebbi Yehudah).

7)

(a)We ask whether Simanim are d'Oraysa or de'Rabbanan. If they were de'Rabbanan we would not return a lost Get with Simanim, (because the Rabbanan's Takanah does not extend to Isur).

(b)The reason for this is because 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' (the underlying principle that authorizes the Chachamim to initiate such a Takanah) is confined to Mamon.

(c)We cannot prove that Simanim are d'Oraysa from ...

1. ... our Mishnah, which learns Simanim and Tov'in from "Simlah" because perhaps it is only Tov'in that we learn from "Simlah", and the Mishnah only mentions Simanim by the way.

2. ... Rava, who learns from "Chamor" that one returns a donkey via the Simanim of the saddle because perhaps what he really meant was 'Eidei Ukaf' (and not 'Simnei Ukaf').

8)

(a)Rava will shortly learn from "ve'Hayah Imcha Ad D'rosh Achicha Oso" that the finder is not permitted to part with the Aveidah until the claimant proves that he is the rightful owner.

(b)There is no proof from ...

1. ... Rava that Simanim are d'Oraysa" because the owner can prove his ownership by means of witnesses.

2. ... from the Mishnah in Bechoros, which specifically precludes Simanim as a means of identifying the body or the clothes of a dead man to permit his wife to re-marry because the Tana might be referring to weak Simanim, such as 'tall' or 'short'.

(c)In spite of the fact that the Tana's reason for not accepting Simanim regarding the dead man's clothes is for fear that they were borrowed, we return a donkey via identification of the saddle because people do not borrow saddles, because the borrowed saddle (to which the donkey is unaccustomed) will likely result in a sore back.

(d)Alternatively, to explain why we do not accept testimony on the dead man's clothes, we establish the Mishnah by weak Simanim such as 'white' or 'red' (in the same way as we explained the Simanim on the dead man's body).

9)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a Shali'ach loses a Get and subsequently finds it tied to his purse, or among his household effects it is valid, even if a long time elapses until he finds it.

(b)This, in spite of the Mishnah in Gitin, which validates a Get that the Shali'ach lost and then found (and which we discussed earlier) only if he found it soon afterwards because the Tana there is speaking where he lost it on the street, and we are afraid that perhaps in the interim, someone else from a different town also dropped a Get there too; whereas in our case, where he lost it in the house, that is highly unlikely.

(c)We resolve the Get tied to his purse with what we just learned that we are worried about vessels being borrowed by pointing out that, on principle, a person does not lend out a purse, a wallet or a ring.

(d)They will not lend out ...

1. ... a purse or a wallet because it is considered a bad omen (as if he was selling his Mazel).

2. ... a signet-ring because it provides the borrower with the opportunity of forging his signature.

10)

(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. Initially, we establish the Machlokes whether Simanim are d'Oraysa (Elazar ben Mahava'i) or de'Rabbanan (the Rabbanan).

(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 (someone born under the same Mazel). The Tana Kama holds that it is common for people born under the same Mazel to have similar-looking warts (in which case, a wart cannot be considered a Siman, because the corpse might be that of a ben-Gil of the woman's husband); whereas Elazar ben Mahava'i holds it is not common.

(c)Perhaps, he says, they also both hold that a wart is not common on a ben-Gil and they argue over whether a wart tends to change after death (the Rabbanan) or not (Elazar ben Mahava'i).

(d)Finally, he suggests, they both agree that a wart does not tend to change after death, and that Simanim are de'Rabbanan. In that case, the basis of their Machlokes will be whether a wart is a clear Siman (Elazar ben Mahava'i [which everyone agrees is d'Oraysa]) or not (the Rabbanan).

11)

(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. Rav Safra objects to this however, on the grounds that it is all very well for the finder to be pleased, at the expense of the owner.

(b)So we amend Rava's reason to read that it is (not the finder, but) the loser who is pleased. Knowing that he has no witnesses, he will gladly agree with the Takanah to return his article with Simanim because he knows that a stranger will be most unlikely to identify his article.

(c)If that is the reason for returning a lost article with Simanim, we ask how can we justify Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who ruled in the Mishnah earlier in the Perek, 'Echad ha'Loveh mi'Sheloshah, Yachzir la'Loveh'. Surely there, the borrower would not agree to the return of the Sh'tar, in case one of the creditors identifies it.

(d)And we answer that the reason that we return the Sh'tar there is because how would all the Sh'taros have been collected into one bundle, unless they had been paid (as we explained there). This is a 'S'vara' (and 'S'vara' is d'Oraysa).

12)

(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 Sh'tar's return leading Rava to conclude that Simanim must be d'Oraysa.

(b)And he proves it from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah Imcha ad D'rosh Achicha Osos". The problem with the Pasuk as it stands is why would anyone think that one should (or could) return an article before the owner comes to claim it.

(c)Rava therefore interprets the Pasuk to mean that it is the finder who seeks (examines) the claimant, and who refuses to return the article until the latter proves that it is his by means of Simanim.