Parshas Devarim (Chazon) 5786
- Torah Tavlin
- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
חולין דף עט. "סימנין דאורייתא"
The Gemara [ב"מ כז] asks: is the דין that we may return a lost item if given a סימן, a דין דאורייתא, or a תקנת חכמים? One נפק"מ would be if we may return a גט to a שליח before he gave it to an אשה if he only gives us a סימן on the גט? Since this has אשת איש implications which is דאורייתא, if סימנים לאו דאורייתא he would have to bring עדים that it’s his and a סימן alone would not suffice. The Gemara does not come to a conclusion. Our Gemara relates: ר' אבא told his assistant, when you hitch my wagon with 2 mules, examine their tails and ears to make sure they’re the same species. רש"י explains, he was concerned not to be עובר כלאים. The Gemara says: "אלמא קסבר סימנין דאורייתא".
Rashi explains from the fact that ר' אבא relied on סימנים to permit a possible איסור דאורייתא of כלאים, we see relying on סימנים is a דין דאורייתא. Rashi says: שמע מינה, that which we return a אבידה based on a סימן is a דין דאורייתא, for if it were only a דין דרבנן then true regarding דיני ממנות the רבנן would be מתקן this היתר, but not by איסורא (our case of כלאים), so we see it must be reliable even on a דאורייתא level.
The פרי מגדים [משבצ"ז או"ח ס' תקכד ס"ק א'] is מדייק that רש"י says: they were hitched up to the עגלה that ר' אבא was "רוכב" on, but he doesn’t say that which he was "יושב" on. יושב just means sitting, and there is a שיטה that יושב alone is only a איסור דרבנן. However, "רוכב" means being מנהיג - making it go. So, if ר' אבא was only יושב what ראיה would רש"י have that ר' אבא is using סימנים for a איסור דאורייתא; he is only being יושב which is a דרבנן? That’s why רש"י says they were hooked up to his wagon that he was "רוכב בה" ומנהיג, which would be a איסור כלאים דאורייתא.
The רמב"ן [ד"ה ומה] argues on רש"י that even if סימנים are דאורייתא, this is no ראיה that the fact we rely on a סימן to return a אבידה is also a דין דאורייתא. Maybe on a דאורייתא level even if סימנים דאורייתא, still we would not accept סימנים by אבידה, because there is reason to believe maybe the person is a liar and happened to see the item before, or maybe he just guessed right on the סימן, and the reason a סימן is accepted by אבידה is only מדרבנן. But in our case, these סימנים are given by ר' פפא on how to identify a mule. This is tradition (גמירי לה), and not comparable to the סימנים accepted by an אבידה. [עיין חידושי הר"ן]. The [ס' רנט',ב'] קצות החושן wonders, what is the shaila of the Gemara (in בבא מציעא) if סימנים דאורייתא or דרבנן? It seems clear from the story of ר' אבא, from the fact that he used סימנים to determine if there is an איסור of כלאים, that סימנים are דאורייתא? The קצות explains (like the רמב"ן), the shaila of the Gemara there in ב"מ: even if we hold סימנים דאורייתא, when it comes to השבת אבידה maybe we should be חושש for a רמאי and simanim will not be enough מדאורייתא. However, regarding other ספיקות where there is no חשש of a שקרן - like the story of ר' אבא - simanim may be used to clarify the doubt even מדאורייתא.