Deuteronomy 22:1,3 teach that we must return a lost item that belongs to our brother. The Torah mentions his ox and his sheep, then his donkey and then his garment. A new Mishna refers to these verses when it explains that the garment was mentioned in order to suggest a generalization - all found items must be returned. As well, it helps us to understand that we are to look for distinguishing marks so that the item will be claimed.
The Gemara wonders why, if the garment signifies a generalization, we are told to return the ox, the sheep and the donkey. The rabbis teach us that the wool of the ox's sheared tail is to be returned. The sheep's sheared wool, of much greater value than the wool of an ox, is to be returned as well. So why mention the donkey? Could it have to do with property that are in the category of "Pit"? The rabbis are stumped. They move on to discuss another possible reason for the return of these different animals - perhaps their dung is to be returned as well. This does not fly with our rabbis. Perhaps we are meant to understand that items of any value, even less than one peruta, should be returned to our brother.
The rabbis examine each word of these verses. What does each phrase mean? Why are some words or ideas repeated while others are not? Which adjectives describe which items and why? The two phrases most carefully examined are "which has been lost from him" and "and you have found it". How do we understand what it means to be be "lost" and then what it means to be "found"? Why would the term "from him" be included in the phrase - what significance does that term represent?
The Gemara then wonders whether "distinguishing marks which identify an object" is based on Torah or rabbinic law. This would make a significant difference when deciding whether or not to deliver a found get to a woman. If distinguishing marks are the identifier of an item based on Torah law, then the get is returned. If it was the rabbis who decided that distinguishing marks identify this get as belonging to a particular woman, then the get is not returned to the woman. This is because our Sages can only institute ordinances that have the authority to declare property as ownerless regarding monetary matters. The Sages cannot counter prohibitions regarding a woman's marital status; marital status is dictated by Torah law.
My own commentary - it seems that sometimes the rabbis choose to define things according to their whims. A get is a document that defines a marriage as dictated by Torah law. Simultaneously it is a monetary document defining a woman's right to a particular amount of money. Why is it that the get can be defined as a non-monetary document in this case?
Continuing their more general discussion of distinguishing marks on a found item, the rabbis consider the marks left on the saddle of a donkey. They consider the need to investigate a claimant in cases where that person might be a 'swindler'. But what about the need for witnesses? Is one's facial appearance including one's nose the ultimate distinguishing mark? What about whether a person is tall or short? And if an item has a distinguishing mark, might it have been lent to another person? For example, one might have lent his shirt to someone else. But saddles are not lent, for they are made for individual animals and they would wound other animals if used in that way. And it is agreed that purses, pouches and signet (family) rings were not lent to others.
The rabbis discuss whether or not moles are identifying features; distinguishing marks. It seems that moles are not defining features; women are not permitted to use the description of a mole as the defining feature of her disappeared husband, and she would remain married (without the status of 'widow') in such cases.
Our daf ends with the rabbis discussing debtors and creditors. Complicated scenarios are described so that the rabbis can determine whether or not a found document should be returned. At the end of this very long daf, I admit that I am not able to fully examine these final complexities.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment