2. Back to Daf
Listen to explanation

3. Back to Daf

4. Back to Daf

5. Goal #1
The asks a
clarifying question on the .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal

6. Goal #2
answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

7. Goal #3
asks why
something is necessary to be
taught.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

8. Goal #4
The answers and
explains that the question is wrong
and that the information is
necessary.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

9. Goal #5
The asks why
something is necessary to be
taught.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

10. Goal #6
The answers and
teaches us why the information is
necessary.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

11. Goal #7
The asks a
challenge on the answer just given.
The asks if what was said
above is true the in the
should have been written
differently.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

12. Goal #8
agrees with the
question and presents an
alternative answer to the original
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

13. Goal #9
The asks a
question on ‘s answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

14. Goal #10
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

15. Goal #11
The poses
another possible question on ‘s
answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

16. Goal #12
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Previous Goal

17. •The wants to know what is the
referring to when it says “ ”?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

18. • explains that when the said
“ ” it was referring to the part
of the that says,
“ ”, .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

19. • asks, if the says, “ ”,
why does the need to specifically
list: ? Aren’t these items
included in “all lost objects of your brother”?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

20. •The already explained why it is
necessary for the to write the
case of . The therefore explains
that if the would have only written
and not the case of , I would have come
to a wrong conclusion. I would have
thought that a you must return since
the are on the object itself. However,
by a the are on the saddle and
not the donkey itself. Therefore, I would
have thought you do not need to return the
. We now see that it is necessary to
include the case of in the to teach
us that you need to return even the .
Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll
Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

21. •Now that we understand why the
needed to write and the
asks why is it necessary for the to
write and ? Aren’t they included in the
part of the that says, “all lost objects of
your brother”?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

22. •The needs to write to teach us that
a person is even obligated to return
the sheerings of an ox’s tail. The also
needs to write to teach us that a person is
even obligated to return the sheerings of a
sheep.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

23. •The says if it is true that the wrote
to include its tail’s sheerings and
to include its sheerings, then there is a
question. The should have only written
the case of and not . Certainly if you
need to return the sheerings of the ox’s tail
then you need to return the sheerings of a
sheep. Why does the need to list ?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

24. • explains that the writing is a
difficulty. There are two cases that
explains where the writes a specific
item and there seems to be nothing to learn
from them. According to there is
nothing to be learnt from the writing the
case of a donkey getting damaged by a pit.
According to everyone there is nothing to be
learnt from the writing the case of
being returned.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

25. • Maybe the writes the case of to
teach us that a person even needs to
return lost manure. Therefore, the word
is not extra and is needed.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

26. • Since manure is not worth a lot no one is
going to claim it, making it ownerless.
Therefore, if some one found manure he
would not need to return it. The word is
not coming to include manure.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

27. • There was a question if the concept of
is from the or from the
. Perhaps the word teaches us that
the 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

28. • 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 object
with a and a claimer, a person is
obligated 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

29. – The will explain it.
Back to Daf
Back to Mishna
Next Rashi

30. – To exclude something
that we know the owner has given up
hope on.
Back to Daf
Back to Mishna
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

31. – The says, “
”, and “
”.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

32. – There is no on the donkey,
but there is a on the saddle that
is on the .
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

33. – It is an extra to teach
us something else.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

34. – Even the hair at the end of the
tail you need to return.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

35. – To return the manure. If the
only wrote , I would have thought
that you are not obligated to return manure.
Therefore, the wrote to include the
obligation to return manure.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

36. – No one is going to trouble
himself to return for the manure and
claim it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Previous Rashi

37. Back to Daf

38. Replace
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Chart

39. Object
listed in Law it teaches
-
?
clothing
-
?
donkey
– ox ?
- sheep ?
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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.
– ox ?
- sheep ?
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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 the
- sheep sheerings of a sheep.
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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.
You even need to return
- sheep manure.
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

44. 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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

45. 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 Daf
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

46. Goal #1
The quotes a
between and the
.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal

47. Goal #2
The asks what the
practical difference is between the
two practices.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

48. Goal #3
makes a
distinction between the two
opinions.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

49. Goal #4
The asks a
question on the .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

50. Goal #5
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

51. Goal #6
The asks a
question on .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

52. Goal #7
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

53. Goal #8
The asks a
question on .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

54. Goal #9
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

55. Goal #10
The asks a
question on the .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

56. Goal #11
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

57. Goal #12
The asks a
question on .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

58. Goal #13
The answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

59. Goal #14
argues with
and presents a different distinction
between the and .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

60. Goal #15
The asks a
question on ’s answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

61. Goal #16
The gives a
different distinction between the
and according to
.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

62. Goal #17
The asks a
question on ’s answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

63. Goal #18
The gives a
different distinction between the
and according to
.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Previous Goal

64. •The quotes a that brings a
between the and
, with regard to the source from the
for not needing to return an object that is
worth 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

65. •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

66. • explains that the difference between
the and is how they
understand the words of the .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

67. •The asks, according to the who
learn the of the from the
words what do they do with the
word ?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

68. •The answers that the use the
word to teach us the is
like .
• says that you might have thought that
a person is not obligated to pick up
and return the lost object of a non-Jew, but
once he picked it up, then there is an
obligation to return the object to him. The
word teaches us that even once you
pick up a lost object of a non-Jew, there still
is no obligation to return it.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

69. •The asks, according to who
learns the of the from the
word what does he do with words
?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

70. •The answers that uses the
words to teach us the
is like .
• says in the name of
that the words teaches us
that in the case of where a river would sweep
away an object and although you can save it,
the owner cannot, then you may keep it,
even if the object has a . The
implies only things that are lost to the owner,
but “findable” to everyone else are you
obligated to return. However, something that
is “lost” to everyone else also, those items
you may keep.
Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll
Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

71. •According to that uses the word
to teach us that something
worth less than a you do not need to
return, then where does he know the of
from?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

72. •The explains that according to
the letter in the beginning of the
word is really extra. The letter
implies that the object has already been
found, meaning it has already come into the
finder’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

73. •According to the who use the words
to teach us that something
worth less than a you do not need to
return, then where do they learn the of
from?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

74. •The answers that according to the
the word in the is used to
teach us the ruling of .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

75. •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

76. •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

77. • 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 it
had depreciated and was worth less than a
.
• According to the who focus on the
words , you would need to
return the object since at the time it was lost
it was worth a .
• However, according to , who
derives the law of the from the
word , you would not need to return
it since it was worth less than a at the
time it was found.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

78. •The asks that even according to the
, who focus on the words
, they would agree that since the
also writes , if the object is not worth
a at the time it was found then you do
not need to return it. Therefore, a case
where the object is worth a at the time
it was lost and then depreciates to less than
a worth by the time it was found,
everyone would agree you do not need to
return it.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

79. • explains that a situation of where at the
time the object was lost it was worth
less than a , but by the time the object
was found it had appreciated and was worth
more than a .
• According to the who focus on the
words , you would not
need to return the object since at the time it
was lost it was worth less than a .
• However, according to , who
derives the law of the from the
word , you would need to return it
since it was worth a at the time it was
found.
Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll
Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

80. •The asks that even according to the
, who focus on the words
, he would agree that since the
also writes , if the object is not
worth a at the time it was lost then you
do not need to return it. Therefore, a case
where the object is worth less than a at
the time it was lost even though it
appreciated to a worth by the time it
was found, everyone would agree you do not
need to return it.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

81. • explains that when the object was lost it was
worth a . Later, while the object was still
lost, it depreciated to less than a worth.
However, by the time the object was found it had
appreciated to value of a .
• According to the , who derives the of the
from the words , you would
be obligated to return the object since it was worth a
at the time it was lost, and it is worth a at
the time it was found.
• According to , who derives the of the
from the word , you would not
be obligated to return the object since it was not worth
a from the time it was lost until the time it was
found. According to the obligation to return a
lost object is only when the object has maintained a
value of a or more the entire time it was lost.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

82. – That it is considered a lost
object.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi

83. – That it is considered a found
object.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

84. – You might have thought
that the obligated you to return
an object of a non-Jew if you had picked it
up. This is not true. Even if you have picked
up the object, you are still not obligated to
return it to a non-Jew.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

85. – Since it wrote in the
the word , it wrote .
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

86. – The extra implies that it was
already found.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

87. – At the time it was lost it was worth a
and at the time it was found it
had depreciated.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Previous Rashi

88. Back to Daf

89. 1
1
1 – Something worth less than a you are not
obligated to return.
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll

90. 1 ????
1
1 – Something worth less than a you are not
obligated to return.
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

92. 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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

93. 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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

94. ????
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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

95. 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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

98. 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 Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

99. 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

100. 8:35 AM 6:47 PM
½
1
– Keep it – Return it
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

101. 8:35 AM 6:47 PM
1
½
– Return it – Keep it
Back to Daf Next Chart
Back to Torah Scroll Previous Chart

102. 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

103. h

105. Goal #1
The asks a
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal

106. Goal #2
The asks a
question on the above question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

107. Goal #3
The explains
what the practical difference is.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

108. Goal #4
The quotes a
to answer the original
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

109. Goal #5
The explains
why this is not a proof.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

110. Goal #6
The quotes a
to answer the original
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

111. Goal #7
The explains
why this is not a proof.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

112. Goal #8
The quotes a
to answer the original
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

113. Goal #9
The explains
why this is not a proof.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

114. Goal #10
The quotes a
to answer the original
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

115. Goal #11
The explains
why this is not a proof.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

116. Goal #12
The challenges
the above explanation.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

117. Goal #13
The answers
the challenge.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

118. Goal #14
The presents
a different reason why clothing
would not be a good .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

119. Goal #15
The asks a
question on the idea that clothing
is lent out based on a .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

120. Goal #16
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

121. Goal #17
The says that
our question is a
between the .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

122. Goal #18
The explains
the .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

123. Goal #19
explains why the
is not the same as our
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

124. Goal #20
Another possible
explanation why the is
not the same as our question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

125. Goal #21
Another possible
explanation why the is
not the same as our question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

126. Goal #22
answers the
’s original question by
posing a question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

127. Goal #23
The asks a
question on ’s answer by
answering ’s question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

128. Goal #24
asks a
question on .
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

129. Goal #25
gives a new
answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

130. Goal #26
The asks a
question on ’s new answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

131. Goal #27
answers the
question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

132. Goal #28
The asks
another question on ’s new
answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

133. Goal #29
gives a new
answer.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

134. Goal #30
makes a
statement.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

135. Goal #31
The interrupts
with a question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

136. Goal #32
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

137. Goal #33
continues his
statement.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

138. Goal #34
makes another
similar statement.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

139. Goal #35
The asks a
question on this ruling.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

140. Goal #36
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

141. Goal #37
makes another
similar statement.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

142. Goal #38
The asks a
question on this ruling.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

143. Goal #39
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

144. Goal #40
makes another
similar statement.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

145. Goal #41
The asks an
information question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Next Goal
Previous Goal

146. Goal #42
The answers
the question.
Back to Daf
Torah Scroll
Previous Goal

147. •The wants to know if the concept of
returning an object to a person when
he gives a is from the or from the
.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

148. •What is the practical difference if the
concept of is from the or
from the ?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

149. • A practical difference if is from the or
from the is when a messenger who
was sent to give a , but lost it before giving it to
the woman.
• If is from the then you would be
allowed to return the to whoever gives
a .
•If is from the then you would not
be allowed to return the . By monetary
issues the could tell you to return an object
only using a , because of the concept
. However, by issues of
the would never make a that you
should return something because of a .
Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll
Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

150. • The asked why does the need
to specifically mention as an
object you need to return; is it not included in
the statement ?
• The word is needed to teach us that
anything that has a and someone
claiming 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

151. • Really the word only teaches us that
you return an object that has a
claimer. It excludes a case where the owner
of the object has given up hope on getting
the object back. The mentioned
as a side point, but not to indicate that it was
learned from the word .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

152. • The explains why does the
need to specifically mention as
an object you need to return; is it not
included in the statement ?
• The word is needed to teach us that
even something that does not have a
you would return if there is something
attached 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

153. •When the wrote perhaps it was to
teach us that if you have witnesses
that can testify that an object is yours, but
they do not know about the object attached
to it, you need to return both objects to the
owner.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

154. • The quotes a that quotes part
of the in ,
. Now, would it have
entered your mind that we should return an
object to someone before someone inquires
about it? Rather the is instructing us to
investigate 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 the
claimer giving the . Therefore, the
concept of must be .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

155. h
• Really the way an individual proves that he
is not lying about the object being his
is by bringing witnesses that the object is his.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

156. • The teaches that a woman may not
get remarried based on the testimony
of witnesses that her husband had died,
unless the witnesses were able to identify the
body by his face, including the person’s
nose. Even if there were based on his
height or the clothing he was wearing it
would not help. So we see that the concept
of is not .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll
Listen to explanation

157. • Perhaps the concept of are really
and the reason why a
person’s height and clothing would not be
sufficient to have a woman remarry, is
because they are not considered good .
A person’s height can not be considered a
because there are many people who are
tall or short. A person’s clothing can not work
as a because maybe the husband lent
his clothes to someone else, and the
witnesses really saw the other person who
borrowed the husband’s clothing.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

158. • If we are concerned about people
borrowing clothing, making clothing
not a good when identifying a person,
then why by the case of a saddle and a
donkey is the saddle enough of a to
obligate you to return the donkey as well?
Should we not be concerned that perhaps
the saddle was borrowed and that it does not
belong to the same owner as the donkey.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

159. • The explains that one does not need
to be concerned that the saddle of a
donkey was borrowed. Most saddles were
custom made and not lent out, otherwise the
saddle could chaff the donkey since it would
not fit properly.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

160. • The explains that to use the color of
the clothing as a would not be
considered good, since so many people have
the same color clothes.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

161. • The says that if one finds a , that
he was supposed to deliver, tied to his
wallet or signet ring, or he finds it amongst
his utensils, he may deliver it, even if a long
period has elapsed since he lost it. If it is
true that we are concerned in general about
people borrowing clothing, why can we
assume that this is the that he lost?
Maybe this is from the person he leant his
clothes to?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

162. • A person does not lend out his wallet or
signet ring.
•A person is superstitious that by lending
someone his wallet his good fortune
will leave him.
• A person does not lend his signet ring
because he is afraid of someone using
it to forge something in his name.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

163. • Witnesses say that they saw a dead man
and identify him by a mole that he
had, can this permit the wife to get
remarried? The holds that a mole is
not considered enough of a while
holds it is.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

164. • The is of the opinion that the
concept of is and
therefore, they could not permit a woman to
get remarried based on the usage of a to
identify her husband. Doing so would permit
an through a .
• is of the opinion that the
concept of is and
therefore, there is no problem permitting a
woman to get remarried based on the usage
of a to identify the husband.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

165. • Both the and are of
the opinion that the concept of is
.
• Rather, they argue if a mole is something
that is found on all people born at the
same time with the same . The is
of the opinion that it is, and therefore can not
be considered a . is of the
opinion that it is not, and therefore can be
considered a good .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

166. • Really both the and
agree that the concept of
is and that a mole is not found on all
people born at the same time and with the
same .
• Rather, they argue about if a mole changes
its appearance after a person dies.
The is of the opinion that a mole
does change its appearance and therefore
can not be considered a good .
is of the opinion that a mole does not
change its appearance after death, and
therefore can be considered a good .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

167. • Really everyone agrees that a mole is not
found on everyone born at the same
time and with the same , and that a mole
does 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 and
therefore you can not rely on this type of .
is of the opinion that it is and
therefore you can rely on this type of .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

168. • If the concept of is only , how
could the allow a person to return
an object based on a ? Maybe the object
really is not the person’s and you therefore
gave it to the wrong person.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

169. • It is good for the person who found the
object to return the object based on
the , since if he lost an object he would
want to get it back by using a .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

170. • Is a person allowed to try and do something
for his benefit at the cost of someone
else’s possessions?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

171. • 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 any
witnesses that the lost object was his, he
figures that not too many people besides
himself know any of the that are on the
object, so it would be to his advantage to
allow to work for claiming lost objects.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

172. • We learned in the on that
taught if someone finds three
documents with the name of one borrower on
all three, you return them to the borrower. If
someone finds three documents with the
name of one lender on all three, you return
them to the lender.
• Now in the second case where all three
documents had the name of one
lender, would the borrower really feel it is a
good thing to return it to the lender. Perhaps
the borrower really lost it and had paid it up
already and somehow, through some form of
trickery, the lender figured out the so he
can try to collect a second time on the loan.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

173. • The reason why the documents are
returned to each party in each of the
above cases is not because of , but
rather based on logic. It is more logical that
only a borrower would have three documents
with his name on all three loans, and it is
more logical that only the lender would have
three documents with his name on all three
loans.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

174. • We learned in the on that if
someone finds documents either
rolled together or bundled together, you may
return them to whoever gives a .
• Now, is it really to the advantage of the
borrower to have the documents
returned to the lender. Perhaps he has
already paid the loan back, and through
some form of trickery the lender knows the
and will try to collect the loan a second
time.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

175. • Rather the concept of is really
.
• The quotes a that quotes part
of the in ,
. Now, would it have
entered your mind that we should return an
object to someone before someone inquires
about it? Rather the is instructing us to
investigate if the claimer is a liar or not. Is
not the way to investigate by using ?!
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

176. h
• says that if the concept of is
then ….
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

177. • 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

178. • Earlier when the presented the of
as a proof
that the concept of is , the
said maybe the way we prove that the
claimer 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

179. • 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 the
witnesses.
• If one person gives a and the anther person gives a along
with bringing one witness, we consider as if the witness is
not 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 from
him, return it to the person with the witnesses that said it fell from
him. Since perhaps the first person made it and sold it, there is no
contradiction when the other witnesses said that it fell from the
second person.
• If one person tells the finder the length of the garment found and
the other person tells the finder the width, you should
return it to the person who knows the length. Since it is possible for
an observer to guess how wide a garment is, this is not as good a
proof 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 tells
the finder the total of the length and the width, you should return it to
the person who told you the two measurements separate.
Back to Daf Next Torah Scroll
Back to Goal Previous Torah Scroll

180. • A husband gives the of a and
claims that it fell from him and that he
never gave it to his wife. However, the wife
also gives the of the and claims that
it fell from her and that her husband gave her
the and she is divorced. You should
return the to the woman since she knew
the it must be because she has already
received the .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

181. • Why do we assume that since she knew the
measurements of the paper that the
was written on means that she has already
received the . Maybe she saw the
husband write it?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

182. • The that they both said was not the
dimensions of the paper, but rather
that there was a hole in the document next to
’s name. This is something she could
only have known if she had already received
the .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

183. • A husband gives the for the string that
tied a and claims that it fell from
him and that he never gave it to his wife.
However, the wife also gives the for the
string that tied the and claims that it fell
from her and that her husband gave her the
and she is divorced. You should return
the to the woman since she knew the
it must be because she has already
received the .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

184. • Why do we assume that since she knew the
color of the string that tied the to be
white or red indicates that she has already
received the . Maybe she saw the color
string when the husband was writing it?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

185. • The that they both said was not the
color of the string, but rather the
length of the string used to tie the . This is
something she could only have known if she
had already received the .
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

186. • A husband says that the was found in a
leather made pouch. The wife says
that the was found in a leather made
pouch. You should return the to the
husband.
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Next Torah Scroll
Previous Torah Scroll

187. • 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

188. • Since the wife knows that all of the
husband’s important documents are
kept in this leather pouch, she could have
been guessing. However, if the wife’s claim
would be correct that he had given the to
her already, why would the still be in the
husband’s leather pouch?
Back to Daf
Back to Goal
Previous Torah Scroll

189. – That is was lost from the
messenger before he gave it to her.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi

190. – Later in the we will explain
what this is.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

191. – That what makes ownerless,
is considered ownerless.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

192. – The teaches us that
it is something the owner is going to
claim excluding something that the owner
has given up hope on and made ownerless.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

193. – It is not from the , but rather
was taught in the as a side
point.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

194. – We established earlier that the word
is to teach us that a donkey is
returned with the of its saddle.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

195. – If there are witnesses that
recognize that the saddle is his then
you return the donkey as well.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

196. – This is what
mean, until you inquire about your
brother.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

197. – That witnesses come and testify that
it is his.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

198. – About a person that died in order
that his wife can get married, unless
they can identify the face by the nose.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

199. – This is not a since there
are many people who are tall or short.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

200. – Clothing.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

201. – Maybe he leant them to someone
else, and that other person is who
they saw dead.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

202. – This is not a since there
many like this.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

203. –A
messenger was given the and he
lost it. After a while he found it tied in his
moneybag or purse ….
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

204. – Vessels used in his house.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

205. – Even though we learned
that one who is given a , losses it
and finds it after a while is no good, here it is
okay.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

206. – Maybe he leant his moneybag
to someone, and the other person
tied the in it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

207. – He would be concerned and say
that it is a indication that a person
who lends his moneybag, sold his luck.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

208. – Every person had a unique signet
ring that when he would send
something he would seal it with his signet
ring. Therefore, a person would not lend his
ring because maybe this one will sign his
signet ring on something he did not write.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

209. – They testify about a
woman that she can get married.
They say for a that the person had a
mole on “x” limb.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

210. – By a married woman, which is
an , we do not rely on it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

211. – One born at that time, was born
under one , luck.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

212. – If they change or not. If
when he was alive it was black and
now when he died it is white, or the
opposite.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

213. – And even if is there is to
rely on them.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

214. – Meaning, how did the Rabbis
see it proper to make a rule that
money that is in doubt with regard to who its
owner is, is returned to someone it might not
belong to.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

215. – Who cares if it is good for the
finder, we care if it is good for the one
that lost it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

216. – says that for whoever lost it, it is
good for. It is accepted in that
whoever gives the will get the object.
Why? Since most times a person does not
have witnesses, thereby preventing him from
getting his object back. Rather he says,
better that it be returned to whoever gives
the , because it is uncommon for anyone
else to know the besides for myself.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

217. – And they say return it to the
lender without witnesses, but with the
that he says “there were three documents
from three borrowers”. But if the documents
fell from the borrower, since he already paid
them up, is it good for the borrower for the
finder to give the documents to whoever
gives the ?! Is it not better for him to
have the documents stay by the finder
forever and not return them to the lender,
because they will be like they were burnt
up? It is better if the finder does not return
them based on since maybe the lender
is a trickster and figured out the .
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

218. – By . We are not concerned that it
fell from the borrower, because why
would he have had the loan documents of
others.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

219. – Because of the
we return it to him and if the lender
gives the we return to him. Now, if it fell
from the borrower is it good for him for the
Rabbis to make a rule that you return
something using a ?! It would be better if
the object stayed with the finder forever.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

220. – With witnesses.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

221. – Even if you
say that the concept of is
, none the less witnesses are better.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

222. – Two people come and give
.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

223. – Until Eliyahu comes.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

224. – This one says its width and
this one says its length.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

225. – If he saw it by its owner, he
could estimate hen he saw the owner
wearing it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

226. – This one says this
is its width and this is its length, and
the other one says this is the length and
width together, because he does not know
each one by itself.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

227. – A Greek “gam” is like a of our ours.
This is why we call the length and
width .
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

228. – And he said “It fell from
me, because I changed my mind and
did not give it”.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

229. – That it fell from me,
because he gave it to me and I am
divorced.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

230. – Since he gave it he knows the
, but how would she know the
if he did not give it to her.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

231. – That the is tied with.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Next Rashi
Previous Rashi

232. – You found it.
Back to Daf
Back to Torah Scroll
Previous Rashi

233. Back to Daf

234. Back to Daf