Mishna 5

689 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
689
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mishna 5

  1. 1. Back to DafListen to explanation
  2. 2. Back to Daf
  3. 3. Back to Daf
  4. 4. Goal #1 The asks aclarifying question on the . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal
  5. 5. Goal #2 answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  6. 6. Goal #3 asks whysomething is necessary to betaught. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  7. 7. Goal #4 The answers andexplains that the question is wrongand that the information isnecessary. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  8. 8. Goal #5 The asks whysomething is necessary to betaught. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  9. 9. Goal #6 The answers andteaches us why the information isnecessary. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  10. 10. Goal #7 The asks achallenge on the answer just given.The asks if what was saidabove is true the in theshould have been writtendifferently. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  11. 11. Goal #8 agrees with thequestion and presents analternative answer to the originalquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  12. 12. Goal #9 The asks aquestion on ‘s answer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  13. 13. Goal #10 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  14. 14. Goal #11 The posesanother possible question on ‘sanswer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  15. 15. Goal #12 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Previous Goal
  16. 16. •The wants to know what is the referring to when it says “ ”? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  17. 17. • explains that when the said “ ” it was referring to the partof the that says, “ ”, . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  18. 18. • asks, if the says, “ ”, why does the need to specificallylist: ? Aren’t these itemsincluded in “all lost objects of your brother”? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  19. 19. •The already explained why it is necessary for the to write thecase of . The therefore explainsthat if the would have only writtenand not the case of , I would have cometo a wrong conclusion. I would havethought that a you must return sincethe are on the object itself. However,by a the are on the saddle andnot the donkey itself. Therefore, I wouldhave thought you do not need to return the . We now see that it is necessary toinclude the case of in the to teachus that you need to return even the . Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  20. 20. •Now that we understand why the needed to write and the asks why is it necessary for the towrite and ? Aren’t they included in thepart of the that says, “all lost objects ofyour brother”? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  21. 21. •The needs to write to teach us that a person is even obligated to returnthe sheerings of an ox’s tail. The alsoneeds to write to teach us that a person iseven obligated to return the sheerings of asheep. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  22. 22. •The says if it is true that the wrote to include its tail’s sheerings and to include its sheerings, then there is aquestion. The should have only writtenthe case of and not . Certainly if youneed to return the sheerings of the ox’s tailthen you need to return the sheerings of asheep. Why does the need to list ? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  23. 23. • explains that the writing is a difficulty. There are two cases that explains where the writes a specificitem and there seems to be nothing to learnfrom them. According to there isnothing to be learnt from the writing thecase of a donkey getting damaged by a pit.According to everyone there is nothing to belearnt from the writing the case ofbeing returned. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  24. 24. • Maybe the writes the case of to teach us that a person even needs toreturn lost manure. Therefore, the wordis not extra and is needed. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  25. 25. • Since manure is not worth a lot no one is going to claim it, making it ownerless.Therefore, if some one found manure hewould not need to return it. The word isnot coming to include manure. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  26. 26. • There was a question if the concept of is from the or from the . Perhaps the word teaches us thatthe ability to get back an object by giving is from the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  27. 27. • The word is not coming to teach us that the concept of are from the . We taught in our that the word is needed to teach us that any objectwith a and a claimer, a person isobligated to return. So we see that the word is used to teach that the concept of is from the . Therefore, the word still seems not to be needed. Back to Daf Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  28. 28. – The will explain it. Back to Daf Back to Mishna Next Rashi
  29. 29. – To exclude something that we know the owner has given uphope on. Back to Daf Back to Mishna Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  30. 30. – The says, “ ”, and “ ”. Back to DafBack to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  31. 31. – There is no on the donkey, but there is a on the saddle thatis on the . Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  32. 32. – It is an extra to teachus something else. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  33. 33. – Even the hair at the end of thetail you need to return. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  34. 34. – To return the manure. If the only wrote , I would have thoughtthat you are not obligated to return manure.Therefore, the wrote to include theobligation to return manure. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  35. 35. – No one is going to trouble himself to return for the manure andclaim it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Previous Rashi
  36. 36. Back to Daf
  37. 37. Replace Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Chart
  38. 38. Object listed in Law it teaches - ? clothing - ? donkey – ox ? - sheep ? Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  39. 39. Object listed in Law it teaches - ? clothing You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. – ox ? - sheep ? Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  40. 40. Object listed in Law it teaches - clothing You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. – ox ? - sheep ? Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  41. 41. Object listed in Law it teaches - clothing You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. You even need to return the – ox sheerings of an ox’s tail. You even need to return the - sheep sheerings of a sheep. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  42. 42. Object listed in Law it teaches - clothing You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. You even need to return the – ox sheerings of an ox’s tail. You even need to return - sheep manure. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  43. 43. Object listed in Law it teaches - clothing You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. You even need to return the – ox sheerings of an ox’s tail. The idea that you return - sheep something with a is . Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  44. 44. Object listed in Law it teaches Anything with a and the - owner has not given up hope – clothing you need to return it. You need to return something - that does not have a if donkey there is something with a with it. You even need to return the – ox sheerings of an ox’s tail. - sheep EXTRA! Back to DafBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  45. 45. Goal #1 The quotes a between and the . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal
  46. 46. Goal #2 The asks what thepractical difference is between thetwo practices. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  47. 47. Goal #3 makes adistinction between the twoopinions. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  48. 48. Goal #4 The asks aquestion on the . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  49. 49. Goal #5 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  50. 50. Goal #6 The asks aquestion on . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  51. 51. Goal #7 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  52. 52. Goal #8 The asks aquestion on . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  53. 53. Goal #9 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  54. 54. Goal #10 The asks aquestion on the . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  55. 55. Goal #11 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  56. 56. Goal #12 The asks aquestion on . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  57. 57. Goal #13 The answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  58. 58. Goal #14 argues withand presents a different distinctionbetween the and . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  59. 59. Goal #15 The asks aquestion on ’s answer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  60. 60. Goal #16 The gives adifferent distinction between the and according to . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  61. 61. Goal #17 The asks aquestion on ’s answer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  62. 62. Goal #18 The gives adifferent distinction between the and according to . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Previous Goal
  63. 63. •The quotes a that brings a between the and , with regard to the source from thefor not needing to return an object that isworth less than a . •The learns it from the words , . •The learns it from the word , . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  64. 64. •The asks what is the practical difference between the and . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  65. 65. • explains that the difference between the and is how theyunderstand the words of the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  66. 66. •The asks, according to the who learn the of the from thewords what do they do with theword ? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  67. 67. •The answers that the use the word to teach us the islike .• says that you might have thought that a person is not obligated to pick upand return the lost object of a non-Jew, butonce he picked it up, then there is anobligation to return the object to him. Theword teaches us that even once youpick up a lost object of a non-Jew, there stillis no obligation to return it. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  68. 68. •The asks, according to who learns the of the from theword what does he do with words ? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  69. 69. •The answers that uses the words to teach us the is like .• says in the name of that the words teaches usthat in the case of where a river would sweepaway an object and although you can save it,the owner cannot, then you may keep it,even if the object has a . Theimplies only things that are lost to the owner,but “findable” to everyone else are youobligated to return. However, something thatis “lost” to everyone else also, those itemsyou may keep. Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  70. 70. •According to that uses the word to teach us that somethingworth less than a you do not need toreturn, then where does he know the of from? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  71. 71. •The explains that according to the letter in the beginning of theword is really extra. The letterimplies that the object has already beenfound, meaning it has already come into thefinder’s hand. Therefore, according to , ’s is derived from the extra . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  72. 72. •According to the who use the words to teach us that somethingworth less than a you do not need toreturn, then where do they learn the of from? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  73. 73. •The answers that according to the the word in the is used toteach us the ruling of . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  74. 74. •According to who derives the of from the word ,what does he use the word for? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  75. 75. •The answers that according to the entire phrase, , is needed to teach the of . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  76. 76. • explains that a situation of where at the time the object was lost it was worth a , but by the time the object was found ithad depreciated and was worth less than a .• According to the who focus on the words , you would need toreturn the object since at the time it was lostit was worth a .• However, according to , who derives the law of the from theword , you would not need to returnit since it was worth less than a at thetime it was found. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  77. 77. •The asks that even according to the , who focus on the words , they would agree that since thealso writes , if the object is not wortha at the time it was found then you donot need to return it. Therefore, a casewhere the object is worth a at the timeit was lost and then depreciates to less thana worth by the time it was found,everyone would agree you do not need toreturn it. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  78. 78. • explains that a situation of where at the time the object was lost it was worthless than a , but by the time the objectwas found it had appreciated and was worthmore than a .• According to the who focus on the words , you would notneed to return the object since at the time itwas lost it was worth less than a .• However, according to , who derives the law of the from theword , you would need to return itsince it was worth a at the time it wasfound. Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  79. 79. •The asks that even according to the , who focus on the words , he would agree that since thealso writes , if the object is notworth a at the time it was lost then youdo not need to return it. Therefore, a casewhere the object is worth less than a atthe time it was lost even though itappreciated to a worth by the time itwas found, everyone would agree you do notneed to return it. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  80. 80. • explains that when the object was lost it was worth a . Later, while the object was stilllost, it depreciated to less than a worth.However, by the time the object was found it hadappreciated to value of a .• According to the , who derives the of the from the words , you wouldbe obligated to return the object since it was worth a at the time it was lost, and it is worth a atthe time it was found.• According to , who derives the of the from the word , you would notbe obligated to return the object since it was not wortha from the time it was lost until the time it wasfound. According to the obligation to return alost object is only when the object has maintained avalue of a or more the entire time it was lost. Back to Daf Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  81. 81. – That it is considered a lostobject. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi
  82. 82. – That it is considered a foundobject. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  83. 83. – You might have thought that the obligated you to returnan object of a non-Jew if you had picked itup. This is not true. Even if you have pickedup the object, you are still not obligated toreturn it to a non-Jew. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  84. 84. – Since it wrote in thethe word , it wrote . Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  85. 85. – The extra implies that it wasalready found. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  86. 86. – At the time it was lost it was worth a and at the time it was found ithad depreciated. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Previous Rashi
  87. 87. Back to Daf
  88. 88. 1 1 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll
  89. 89. 1 ???? 1 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  90. 90. 1 2 1 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  91. 91. 1 2 ???? 1 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  92. 92. 1 2 3 1 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  93. 93. ???? 1 2 3 1 2 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  94. 94. of 1 2 3 1 2 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  95. 95. of ???? 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  96. 96. of 1 2 3 3 1 2 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  97. 97. of 1 2 3 3 1 2 ???? 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return.2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it. Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  98. 98. of 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 – Something worth less than a you are not obligated to return. 2 – You are not even obligated to return a lost object of a non-Jew, even if you have already picked it up. 3 – If an object is not retrievable by everyone, even if the object had a , you may keep it.---4 – According to the word is taught with the words . Back to Daf Next Chart Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  99. 99. 8:35 AM 6:47 PM ½ 1 – Keep it – Return it Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  100. 100. 8:35 AM 6:47 PM 1 ½ – Return it – Keep it Back to Daf Next ChartBack to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  101. 101. 8:35 AM 6:47 PM 1:04 PM ½ 1 1 – Keep it – Return it Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart
  102. 102. h
  103. 103. Goal #1 The asks aquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal
  104. 104. Goal #2 The asks aquestion on the above question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  105. 105. Goal #3 The explainswhat the practical difference is. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  106. 106. Goal #4 The quotes a to answer the originalquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  107. 107. Goal #5 The explainswhy this is not a proof. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  108. 108. Goal #6 The quotes a to answer the originalquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  109. 109. Goal #7 The explainswhy this is not a proof. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  110. 110. Goal #8 The quotes a to answer the originalquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  111. 111. Goal #9 The explainswhy this is not a proof. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  112. 112. Goal #10 The quotes a to answer the originalquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  113. 113. Goal #11 The explainswhy this is not a proof. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  114. 114. Goal #12 The challengesthe above explanation. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  115. 115. Goal #13 The answersthe challenge. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  116. 116. Goal #14 The presentsa different reason why clothingwould not be a good . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  117. 117. Goal #15 The asks aquestion on the idea that clothingis lent out based on a . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  118. 118. Goal #16 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  119. 119. Goal #17 The says thatour question is abetween the . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  120. 120. Goal #18 The explainsthe . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  121. 121. Goal #19 explains why the is not the same as ourquestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  122. 122. Goal #20 Another possibleexplanation why the isnot the same as our question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  123. 123. Goal #21 Another possibleexplanation why the isnot the same as our question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  124. 124. Goal #22 answers the ’s original question byposing a question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  125. 125. Goal #23 The asks aquestion on ’s answer byanswering ’s question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  126. 126. Goal #24 asks aquestion on . Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  127. 127. Goal #25 gives a newanswer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  128. 128. Goal #26 The asks aquestion on ’s new answer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  129. 129. Goal #27 answers thequestion. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  130. 130. Goal #28 The asksanother question on ’s newanswer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  131. 131. Goal #29 gives a newanswer. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  132. 132. Goal #30 makes astatement. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  133. 133. Goal #31 The interruptswith a question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  134. 134. Goal #32 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  135. 135. Goal #33 continues hisstatement. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  136. 136. Goal #34 makes anothersimilar statement. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  137. 137. Goal #35 The asks aquestion on this ruling. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  138. 138. Goal #36 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  139. 139. Goal #37 makes anothersimilar statement. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  140. 140. Goal #38 The asks aquestion on this ruling. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  141. 141. Goal #39 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  142. 142. Goal #40 makes anothersimilar statement. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  143. 143. Goal #41 The asks aninformation question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Next Goal Previous Goal
  144. 144. Goal #42 The answersthe question. Back to Daf Torah Scroll Previous Goal
  145. 145. •The wants to know if the concept of returning an object to a person whenhe gives a is from the or from the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  146. 146. •What is the practical difference if the concept of is from the orfrom the ? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  147. 147. • A practical difference if is from the or from the is when a messenger whowas sent to give a , but lost it before giving it tothe woman.• If is from the then you would be allowed to return the to whoever givesa .•If is from the then you would not be allowed to return the . By monetaryissues the could tell you to return an objectonly using a , because of the concept . However, by issues ofthe would never make a that youshould return something because of a . Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  148. 148. • The asked why does the need to specifically mention as anobject you need to return; is it not included inthe statement ?• The word is needed to teach us that anything that has a and someoneclaiming it, you need to return.• This implies that the concept of is from the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  149. 149. • Really the word only teaches us that you return an object that has aclaimer. It excludes a case where the ownerof the object has given up hope on gettingthe object back. The mentionedas a side point, but not to indicate that it waslearned from the word . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  150. 150. • The explains why does the need to specifically mention asan object you need to return; is it notincluded in the statement ?• The word is needed to teach us that even something that does not have a you would return if there is somethingattached to it that does have a .• This implies that the concept of is from the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  151. 151. •When the wrote perhaps it was to teach us that if you have witnessesthat can testify that an object is yours, butthey do not know about the object attachedto it, you need to return both objects to theowner. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  152. 152. • The quotes a that quotes part of the in , . Now, would it haveentered your mind that we should return anobject to someone before someone inquiresabout it? Rather the is instructing us toinvestigate if the claimer is a liar or not.• How could one tell if the claimer of the object is lying or not? Is it not by theclaimer giving the . Therefore, theconcept of must be . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  153. 153. h• Really the way an individual proves that he is not lying about the object being hisis by bringing witnesses that the object is his. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  154. 154. • The teaches that a woman may not get remarried based on the testimonyof witnesses that her husband had died,unless the witnesses were able to identify thebody by his face, including the person’snose. Even if there were based on hisheight or the clothing he was wearing itwould not help. So we see that the conceptof is not . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll Listen to explanation
  155. 155. • Perhaps the concept of are really and the reason why aperson’s height and clothing would not besufficient to have a woman remarry, isbecause they are not considered good .A person’s height can not be considered a because there are many people who aretall or short. A person’s clothing can not workas a because maybe the husband lenthis clothes to someone else, and thewitnesses really saw the other person whoborrowed the husband’s clothing. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  156. 156. • If we are concerned about people borrowing clothing, making clothingnot a good when identifying a person,then why by the case of a saddle and adonkey is the saddle enough of a toobligate you to return the donkey as well?Should we not be concerned that perhapsthe saddle was borrowed and that it does notbelong to the same owner as the donkey. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  157. 157. • The explains that one does not need to be concerned that the saddle of adonkey was borrowed. Most saddles werecustom made and not lent out, otherwise thesaddle could chaff the donkey since it wouldnot fit properly. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  158. 158. • The explains that to use the color of the clothing as a would not beconsidered good, since so many people havethe same color clothes. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  159. 159. • The says that if one finds a , that he was supposed to deliver, tied to hiswallet or signet ring, or he finds it amongsthis utensils, he may deliver it, even if a longperiod has elapsed since he lost it. If it istrue that we are concerned in general aboutpeople borrowing clothing, why can weassume that this is the that he lost?Maybe this is from the person he leant hisclothes to? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  160. 160. • A person does not lend out his wallet or signet ring.•A person is superstitious that by lending someone his wallet his good fortunewill leave him.• A person does not lend his signet ring because he is afraid of someone usingit to forge something in his name. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  161. 161. • Witnesses say that they saw a dead man and identify him by a mole that hehad, can this permit the wife to getremarried? The holds that a mole isnot considered enough of a while holds it is. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  162. 162. • The is of the opinion that the concept of is andtherefore, they could not permit a woman toget remarried based on the usage of a toidentify her husband. Doing so would permitan through a .• is of the opinion that the concept of is andtherefore, there is no problem permitting awoman to get remarried based on the usageof a to identify the husband. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  163. 163. • Both the and are ofthe opinion that the concept of is .• Rather, they argue if a mole is something that is found on all people born at thesame time with the same . The isof the opinion that it is, and therefore can notbe considered a . is of theopinion that it is not, and therefore can beconsidered a good . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  164. 164. • Really both the and agree that the concept ofis and that a mole is not found on allpeople born at the same time and with thesame .• Rather, they argue about if a mole changes its appearance after a person dies.The is of the opinion that a moledoes change its appearance and thereforecan not be considered a good . is of the opinion that a mole does notchange its appearance after death, andtherefore can be considered a good . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  165. 165. • Really everyone agrees that a mole is not found on everyone born at the sametime and with the same , and that a moledoes not change its appearance after death,and that the concept of is .• Rather they argue if a mole is considered a – an expert . The is of the opinion that it is not andtherefore you can not rely on this type of . is of the opinion that it is andtherefore you can rely on this type of . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  166. 166. • If the concept of is only , how could the allow a person to returnan object based on a ? Maybe the objectreally is not the person’s and you thereforegave it to the wrong person. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  167. 167. • It is good for the person who found the object to return the object based onthe , since if he lost an object he wouldwant to get it back by using a . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  168. 168. • Is a person allowed to try and do something for his benefit at the cost of someoneelse’s possessions? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  169. 169. • It is good for the person who lost the object to have it returned by giving a .Since he knows that he does not have anywitnesses that the lost object was his, hefigures that not too many people besideshimself know any of the that are on theobject, so it would be to his advantage toallow to work for claiming lost objects. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  170. 170. • We learned in the on that taught if someone finds threedocuments with the name of one borrower onall three, you return them to the borrower. Ifsomeone finds three documents with thename of one lender on all three, you returnthem to the lender.• Now in the second case where all three documents had the name of onelender, would the borrower really feel it is agood thing to return it to the lender. Perhapsthe borrower really lost it and had paid it upalready and somehow, through some form oftrickery, the lender figured out the so hecan try to collect a second time on the loan. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  171. 171. • The reason why the documents are returned to each party in each of theabove cases is not because of , butrather based on logic. It is more logical thatonly a borrower would have three documentswith his name on all three loans, and it ismore logical that only the lender would havethree documents with his name on all threeloans. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  172. 172. • We learned in the on that if someone finds documents eitherrolled together or bundled together, you mayreturn them to whoever gives a .• Now, is it really to the advantage of the borrower to have the documentsreturned to the lender. Perhaps he hasalready paid the loan back, and throughsome form of trickery the lender knows the and will try to collect the loan a secondtime. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  173. 173. • Rather the concept of is really .• The quotes a that quotes part of the in , . Now, would it haveentered your mind that we should return anobject to someone before someone inquiresabout it? Rather the is instructing us toinvestigate if the claimer is a liar or not. Isnot the way to investigate by using ?! Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  174. 174. h• says that if the concept of is then …. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  175. 175. • What do you mean “if”, we not just established that the concept of is ?! Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  176. 176. • Earlier when the presented the of as a proofthat the concept of is , thesaid maybe the way we prove that theclaimer is not a liar is through witnesses.Therefore, this is not a perfect proof. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  177. 177. • If two people both give a good for an object you should keep it until Eliyahu comes.• If one person gives a and another person brings witnesses that the object is his, give it to the person who brought thewitnesses.• If one person gives a and the anther person gives a along with bringing one witness, we consider as if the witness isnot there and you should keep it until Eliyahu comes.• If one person brings witnesses that he made the object and the other person brings witnesses that the object fell fromhim, return it to the person with the witnesses that said it fell fromhim. Since perhaps the first person made it and sold it, there is nocontradiction when the other witnesses said that it fell from thesecond person.• If one person tells the finder the length of the garment found and the other person tells the finder the width, you shouldreturn it to the person who knows the length. Since it is possible foran observer to guess how wide a garment is, this is not as good aproof that it the garment is his as knowing the length.• If one person tells the finder the measurements of both the length and the width of the garment and the other person tellsthe finder the total of the length and the width, you should return it tothe person who told you the two measurements separate. Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
  178. 178. • A husband gives the of a and claims that it fell from him and that henever gave it to his wife. However, the wifealso gives the of the and claims thatit fell from her and that her husband gave herthe and she is divorced. You shouldreturn the to the woman since she knewthe it must be because she has alreadyreceived the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  179. 179. • Why do we assume that since she knew the measurements of the paper that thewas written on means that she has alreadyreceived the . Maybe she saw thehusband write it? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  180. 180. • The that they both said was not the dimensions of the paper, but ratherthat there was a hole in the document next to ’s name. This is something she couldonly have known if she had already receivedthe . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  181. 181. • A husband gives the for the string that tied a and claims that it fell fromhim and that he never gave it to his wife.However, the wife also gives the for thestring that tied the and claims that it fellfrom her and that her husband gave her the and she is divorced. You should returnthe to the woman since she knew the it must be because she has alreadyreceived the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  182. 182. • Why do we assume that since she knew the color of the string that tied the to bewhite or red indicates that she has alreadyreceived the . Maybe she saw the colorstring when the husband was writing it? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  183. 183. • The that they both said was not the color of the string, but rather thelength of the string used to tie the . This issomething she could only have known if shehad already received the . Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  184. 184. • A husband says that the was found in a leather made pouch. The wife saysthat the was found in a leather madepouch. You should return the to thehusband. Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  185. 185. • What is the reason that we return the to the husband and not the wife? Back to Daf Back to Goal Next Torah Scroll Previous Torah Scroll
  186. 186. • Since the wife knows that all of the husband’s important documents arekept in this leather pouch, she could havebeen guessing. However, if the wife’s claimwould be correct that he had given the toher already, why would the still be in thehusband’s leather pouch? Back to Daf Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
  187. 187. – That is was lost from themessenger before he gave it to her. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi
  188. 188. – Later in the we will explainwhat this is. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  189. 189. – That what makes ownerless,is considered ownerless. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  190. 190. – The teaches us that it is something the owner is going toclaim excluding something that the ownerhas given up hope on and made ownerless. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  191. 191. – It is not from the , but rather was taught in the as a sidepoint. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  192. 192. – We established earlier that the word is to teach us that a donkey isreturned with the of its saddle. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  193. 193. – If there are witnesses that recognize that the saddle is his thenyou return the donkey as well. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  194. 194. – This is what mean, until you inquire about yourbrother. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  195. 195. – That witnesses come and testify that it is his. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  196. 196. – About a person that died in order that his wife can get married, unlessthey can identify the face by the nose. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  197. 197. – This is not a since thereare many people who are tall or short. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  198. 198. – Clothing. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  199. 199. – Maybe he leant them to someone else, and that other person is whothey saw dead. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  200. 200. – This is not a since theremany like this. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  201. 201. –A messenger was given the and helost it. After a while he found it tied in hismoneybag or purse …. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  202. 202. – Vessels used in his house. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  203. 203. – Even though we learned that one who is given a , losses itand finds it after a while is no good, here it isokay. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  204. 204. – Maybe he leant his moneybag to someone, and the other persontied the in it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  205. 205. – He would be concerned and say that it is a indication that a personwho lends his moneybag, sold his luck. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  206. 206. – Every person had a unique signet ring that when he would sendsomething he would seal it with his signetring. Therefore, a person would not lend hisring because maybe this one will sign hissignet ring on something he did not write. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  207. 207. – They testify about a woman that she can get married.They say for a that the person had amole on “x” limb. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  208. 208. – By a married woman, which isan , we do not rely on it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  209. 209. – One born at that time, was bornunder one , luck. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  210. 210. – If they change or not. If when he was alive it was black andnow when he died it is white, or theopposite. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  211. 211. – And even if is there is torely on them. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  212. 212. – Meaning, how did the Rabbis see it proper to make a rule thatmoney that is in doubt with regard to who itsowner is, is returned to someone it might notbelong to. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  213. 213. – Who cares if it is good for the finder, we care if it is good for the onethat lost it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  214. 214. – says that for whoever lost it, it is good for. It is accepted in thatwhoever gives the will get the object.Why? Since most times a person does nothave witnesses, thereby preventing him fromgetting his object back. Rather he says,better that it be returned to whoever givesthe , because it is uncommon for anyoneelse to know the besides for myself. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  215. 215. – And they say return it to thelender without witnesses, but with thethat he says “there were three documentsfrom three borrowers”. But if the documentsfell from the borrower, since he already paidthem up, is it good for the borrower for thefinder to give the documents to whoevergives the ?! Is it not better for him tohave the documents stay by the finderforever and not return them to the lender,because they will be like they were burntup? It is better if the finder does not returnthem based on since maybe the lenderis a trickster and figured out the . Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  216. 216. – By . We are not concerned that it fell from the borrower, because whywould he have had the loan documents ofothers. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  217. 217. – Because of the we return it to him and if the lendergives the we return to him. Now, if it fellfrom the borrower is it good for him for theRabbis to make a rule that you returnsomething using a ?! It would be better ifthe object stayed with the finder forever. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  218. 218. – With witnesses. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  219. 219. – Even if yousay that the concept of is , none the less witnesses are better. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  220. 220. – Two people come and give. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  221. 221. – Until Eliyahu comes. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  222. 222. – This one says its width andthis one says its length. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  223. 223. – If he saw it by its owner, he could estimate hen he saw the ownerwearing it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  224. 224. – This one says this is its width and this is its length, andthe other one says this is the length andwidth together, because he does not knoweach one by itself. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  225. 225. – A Greek “gam” is like a of our ours. This is why we call the length andwidth . Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  226. 226. – And he said “It fell from me, because I changed my mind anddid not give it”. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  227. 227. – That it fell from me, because he gave it to me and I amdivorced. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  228. 228. – Since he gave it he knows the , but how would she know theif he did not give it to her. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  229. 229. – That the is tied with. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Next Rashi Previous Rashi
  230. 230. – You found it. Back to Daf Back to Torah Scroll Previous Rashi
  231. 231. Back to Daf
  232. 232. Back to Daf

×