sholem aleichem, i hope you are well. my name is chayim and i have question. first let me say how grateful i am for the work you do. i am far from the level of learner i expect you are use to dealing with, so please forgive me if my question is foolish.
in the insights on the Daf for BM 21b it says,
In fact, if one finds an object without a Siman and then sees that the owner clearly did not give up hope of retrieving it, he is not permitted to keep it, as the Gemara says later (26b)
i am having a difficult time seeing this. i use the Steinsaltz Gemora, and have read through this page and i do not understand the reference. in fact, at the beginning of the sugya, R. Steinsaltz says, based on the language of the Mishna, " which finds belong to the finder, which finds must he announce" that even if the owner comes forward and "proves" his ownership, the finder can still keep it because the finder has and absolute claim to it, according to the Ritva, i think.
if you have time, can you help me learn how the statement in the "Insights" should be understood?
thank you,
chayim
The Ritva referred to in the Steinsaltz Gemara simply states that we may rely on a "Rov". That is, even if the owner proves that the object without a Siman fell from him, we do not return it to him based on his personal claim that he was not Meya'esh because he probably was Meya'esh.
The source on 26b is at the top of the page. The Gemara describes a situation where two people are walking together and a coin (without a Siman) falls from one of them. The loser is so certain that his friend found it and that he will eventually make his friend admit to this, that he will never have Ye'ush (see Tosfos there DH she'Nafal).
But the truth is that is not a clear proof. In the case on 26b, although the object had no Siman the owner had no reason to lose hope of receiving it back, since he thought that the finder knew who lost it despite the lack of a Siman.
In any case, I would qualify my statement in the Insights as follows. My statement is correct only according to Abaye, who maintains that Ye'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as does not work for an object without a Siman (although it does work for Zuto Shel Yam). Rava, however, equates an object without a Siman to Zuto Shel Yam (as the Ritva writes on 21b), and according to him if an object is lost without a Siman it will be considered Ye'ush whether or not the loser admits to being Meya'esh. (In the end, the Gemara proves Abaye correct because the Beraisa seems to differentiate between Zuto Shel Yam and objects lost in the normal fashion but without a Siman, as I contended in the Insights.)
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf