Description
For Bava Matzia 27b we address the question: why did the Torah specify a garment, do we derive the conclusion that סימנים דאורייתא? Or perhaps שמלה is singled out to teach that Hashavas Aveidah depends upon יאוש or the lack thereof. Does the owner despair of retrieving his lost object? If he lost a garment with its unique identifying feature he will locate witnesses who can testify on his behalf that this object belongs to him. The Torah teaches that we can return the animal to its claimant based on the latter's ability to identify the saddle with its סימן. Does this prove that סימנים דאורייתא? Can we assume that the object was not borrowed from its owner? Or shall we assume that the case of the saddle is the exception rather than the rule?
0 comments Leave a Comment