Who is Debating the Biblical Status of Simanim?
On Bava Metzia 27; on 28, it may be a different story
I gave the daf for Tuesday, Bava Metzia 27. I’m short on time as a write this, but briefly, a major issue to explore is who explores the concept of whether simanim are Biblical or Rabbinic. Yes, eventually Rava and Rav Abaye seem to explore it, but what about earlier? That material seems extremely Stammaic. Yes Rava sticks his head in at one point, except according to one manuscript I’ve seen. Fitting into this question is, within the attempted proofs, ta shema, are we exploring Tannaitic material or even Amoraic material.
So right after the Mishnah, we have two statements by Rava:
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״בִּכְלַל כׇּל אֵלּוּ״? אָמַר רָבָא: בִּכְלַל ״כׇּל אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ״.
GEMARA: When the mishna says that the garment was included in the generalization that one must return all of these items, in what generalization is it included? Rava said: It is included in the generalization: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it; you may not disregard it” (Deuteronomy 22:3).
אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר״, ״חֲמוֹר״, ״שֶׂה״ וְ״שִׂמְלָה״?
Rava says: Why do I need all the specific items that the Merciful One writes that one must return: An ox, a donkey, a sheep, and a garment? One of them would seem to suffice.
צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא שִׂמְלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּעֵדִים דְּגוּפַהּ וְסִימָנִין דְּגוּפַהּ. אֲבָל חֲמוֹר בְּעֵדִים דְּאוּכָּף וְסִימָנִין דְּאוּכָּף, אֵימָא לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲמוֹר״ דַּאֲפִילּוּ חֲמוֹר בְּסִימָנֵי הָאוּכָּף.
Rava answers: They are all necessary, as a unique halakha is derived from each example. As, if the Merciful One had written only “garment,” I would say: This matter, i.e., the mitzva to return a lost item, applies only in a case where the owner brings witnesses capable of testifying about the item itself or he describes distinguishing marks concerning the item itself; but with regard to returning a donkey to its owner in a case where he brings witnesses with regard to the saddle or describes distinguishing marks concerning the saddle and not on the donkey, say that we do not return the donkey to the owner. To counter this, the Merciful One writes: “Donkey,” from which it is derived that a donkey is returned to its owner even in a case where he describes distinguishing marks on the saddle.
״שׁוֹר״ וָ״שֶׂה״, דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? ״שׁוֹר״ – דַּאֲפִילּוּ לְגִיזַּת זְנָבוֹ, וְ״שֶׂה״ – לְגִיזּוֹתָיו.
Rava continues: With regard to the specific mentions of “ox” and “sheep” that the Merciful One writes, why do I need them? Rava answers: From “ox” it is derived that one must return even the sheared wool of its tail; and from “sheep” it is derived that one must return even its sheared wool.
The gemara continues on to challenge this, and then emend what Rava would say. For we can learn sheep shearing from ox tail shearing1! So the gemara emends what Rava said.
Did Rava really say both of these? Manuscripts generally concur, but there is one strangeness, in that Hamburg 165 and Vatican 117 both omit Rava in the first statement, not the second statement, where for reasons soon to be explored we’d want to perhaps omit Rava.
There’s also the possibility that Rava was projected backwards. When the gemara emends, via the statement:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״חֲמוֹר״ דְּבוֹר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְ״שֶׂה״ דַאֲבֵידָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל קַשְׁיָא.
Rather, Rava said: The term “donkey” stated with regard to damage in the category of Pit, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda (see Exodus 21:33 and Bava Kamma 54a), and the term “sheep” stated with regard to a lost item, according to the opinion of everyone, are difficult. There is no explanation for why they are stated.
it could be Rava commenting on something plainly stated / a brayta, and then scribes took the אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא to mean that Rava said the preceding statement.
Regardless, this analysis was all in Aramaic — דַּאֲפִילּוּ, and דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא, and דְּאוּכָּף, and so on, something I would expect of the Stamma, or of an Amora like Rava, not from a brayta.
Moving on, so you can see why I’m harping on this!
The gemara asks the question whether simanim are Biblical or Rabbinic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: סִימָנִין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנַן?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks by Torah law or is it by rabbinic law?
After asking for the practical ramification, the gemara has a series of Ta Shemas. The first is from the Mishnah. The second is this:
תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲמוֹר בְּסִימָנֵי אוּכָּף. אֵימָא ״בְּעֵדֵי אוּכָּף״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the aforementioned statement: The obligation to return a donkey to its owner on the basis of the distinguishing marks of the saddle is derived based on the mention of the word “donkey” in the verse from Deuteronomy. Clearly, the identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law. The Gemara rejects this proof: Emend the baraita and say: There is an obligation to return the donkey only on the basis of witnesses who testify with regard to the identity of the owner based on the fact that the saddle belongs to him, and not on the basis of distinguishing marks.
Note that Rav Steinsaltz explains this reference to simanei ukaf as “the aforementioned statement”. This is channeling Rashi: ת"ש - דאוקמינן לעיל חמור לסימני אוכף אתא. Meanwhile, there seems to be a dispute within Artscroll. An earlier printing had this English translated text in ALL CAPS, which Artscroll does when quoting Mishnayot or braytot. But, in my more recent digital edition, it was in lowercase. The ALL CAPS version is aligned with Tosafot, who write: ת"ש חמור בסימני אוכף - ברייתא היא, that it is a brayta.
A search for חמור בסימני אוכף yields no hits in Mishnah, Tosefta, or Sifra. I think that this is because it is indeed a quote from earlier in the gemara, as Rashi writes.
If so, it is the Stamma de-Gemara who is going in order of the earlier sugya, first the Mishnah, then the material immediately after the Mishnah. And the Stamma would point to an Amoraic statement as a ta shema. Even though it is irregular, it happens on occasion.
As to whether Rava himself holds that simanim are Biblical, that is explored in more tomorrow’s daf, 28. Two points about this. (1) even on today’s daf, 27b, we have strangeness in Rava’s statements regarding simanim deorayta vs. derabannan, with אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא. That phrase is more characteristic of the Stamma than a named Amora like Rava, saying three alternatives. (2) The parallel sugya is Yevamot 120a, אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, we have וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי for the alternatives, so indeed, Rava is saying it, but there are different (oral, written) variants of just what Rava said. We should take care and time to compare the two sources, but I am not doing it here due to time limitations
(Tangentially, I’d defend Rava. What kind of question is this?! The only reason we derive ox tail shearing in particular is because shearing is in context! What brings it into context is sheep, who are raised for their wool. Take out sheep, and you wouldn’t even learn ox tail. I feel like sometimes the Stamma isn’t as sensitive as named Amoraim are to the fine points of midrash halacha, and misses the Amoraim’s focus.)