Elu Metziot shiur #26, 28a

  • Rav Joshua Amaru


Introduction to the Study of Talmud
By Rav Josh Amaru

Elu Metziot shiur #26,  28a.

Today's shiur includes the vocabulary list for the shiur itself. If you wish to consult the full cumulative vocabulary list, it is found at
http://www.vbm-torah.org/talmud2/vocab.htm.  The grammar lessons appear at the end of the vocabulary lists. 

As usual, the citations to the text of the gemara are linked to the online scan of the daf, for those who do not have an open gemara before them.  The gemara can be found on-line at 
http://www.e-daf.com/daf.asp?ID=3080 and 

Key words and phrases are marked in blue, and their translation/explanation can be seen by placing the cursor over them.  Other vocabulary words are marked in red and can be found on the vocabulary list at the end of the shiur.  Particularly important vocabulary words will be underlined and either have a link to the vocabulary list or a pop-up window that will appear if you place the cursor on them. 

Summary of last shiur:  In the last shiur we completed our investigation as to the status of simanim - whether they are de-oraita or de-rabanan.  We then saw a list of rulings that are the consequence of determining that simanim are de-oraita.

    This week we will learn something more about the process of announcing or proclaiming the lost object that is incumbent upon the finder.  Learn the mishna on 28a and the subsequent gemara until "she-nimtzeit bo aveida שנמצאת בו אבידה".  Lines 1-3 in the schematic analysis. 

    The mishna teaches us that the obligation to proclaim a lost object has limits.  According to R. Meir, the obligation is defined in terms of the result - one must ensure that the neighbors are aware that one has found something.  R. Yehuda defines the obligation with reference to time -  one must proclaim for three festivals following the find, with an additional seven days at the end to give an opportunity to the owner to go home and check his belongings and come back.   The requirement to proclaim during the festivals is based presumably on the notion that the maximum number of people will be gathered together at that time, and there is consequently a greater chance of the owner hearing that someone has found his lost object.  

What happens if, after the required proclamation, no prospective owner turns up?  Rambam rules that since the lost object has a siman, yeush can never be assumed and the lost object remains someone else's property.  It can never be appropriated by the finder but must be left "until Eliahu comes", in other words, indefinitely.  The discussion here comes merely to limit how much the finder must exert himself in announcing the lost object.   

    The gemara opens by quoting a baraita about R. Meir's position.  The baraita deals with an obvious problem:  when R. Meir requires that the neighbors be made aware of the lost object, whose neighbors is he referring to?  If it is the finder's neighbors, why are they relevant to this lost object?  If it is the loser's neighbor's, well, the only way to know who they are is to know who the loser is, and then there is of course no need to proclaim the loss.  The baraita resolves this by explaining that "the neighbors" are the neighbors of the lost object; i.e. the people who live in the vicinity of where it was found.

    The rest of the gemara discusses R. Yehuda's position.  Learn, on 28a from "Rabi Yehuda omer רבי יהודה אומר" until "yoter mi-dai יותר מדי".  Lines 4-8 in the schematic analysis. 

    Recall that according to R. Yehuda, we allow a seven day grace period after the third festival to

Look in Rashi on the mishna, s.v. ve-yakhriz yom echad ויכריז יום אחד, who points out that the last day of the seven additional days is to give the owner an opportunity to proclaim that he is the owner and to present his simanim.  It appears that the finder must proclaim on that day not so much in order to inform the owner but to make himself easily accessible to the owner.    
give the owner time to go home, check and see what is missing, and come back.  The gemara points out, however, that three days travel will not necessarily be enough to  bring one home.  To illustrate this, the gemara quotes a mishna (in Masekhet Ta'anit) that discusses when one begins praying for rain.  According to R. Gamliel, it is inappropriate to start praying for rain until fifteen days after Sukkot.  People who came to Jerusalem to fulfill the mitzva of aliya la-regel, of visiting the Temple during the three festivals, Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot, will still be in transit and rain will inconvenience their journey.  According to this mishna, then, it takes fifteen days to get to the outskirts of the Land of Israel, and not merely three! 

    Rav Yosef offers an explanation of the discrepancy between the two mishnayot.  The mishna about praying for rain refers to the time of the first Temple,

    It interesting to note two points.  First, both mishnayot (pl. of mishna) ignore the fact that there may also be Jews traveling to places outside of the land of Israel.  It would appear that the halakha is determined with more regard to the Jews in the Land than those outside of it!

    Secondly, remember that both R. Yosef and Abaye lived hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple.  Even so, they take the trouble to discuss the halakha in terms of the time when the Temple stood.  This can be explained as an example of Rabbinic formalism; R. Yehuda (who also lived after the destruction of the Temple) in the mishna reports a tradition dating from the time of the Temple in which the Rabbis defined the time required for announcing in terms of when the most people would be gathered together, allowing for the greatest publicity.  During the time of the Temple, this would obviously be during the festivals when all would fulfill the mitzva of going to the Temple.  Perhaps once this limit was fixed, it stands independently and  is no longer a function of the original circumstances.  Thus even after the destruction of the Temple, even though the festivals do not necessarily provide a particular opportunity for publicity, the duration of the requirement for announcing remains the same.  Abaye and R. Yosef (respectively) are thus merely explaining the historical circumstances that gave rise to the original enactment.

    There is another way of thinking about this discussion.  It is possible to view the definition of the time required for proclamation as something other than the formalistic result of historical accident.  Rather, one can understand the fact that the gemara makes an effort to define the time in terms of the Temple and the land of Israel as a deliberate attempt to evoke the ideal, rather than the real world.  The Rabbis desired to fix a limit on the obligation of announcing.  This limit is fairly arbitrary, so they chose to use it as a subtle way of reminding us of the ideal towards which we  should aspire - of a world in which all Jews live in the land of Israel and come three times a year to the Temple in Jerusalem.

when the Jewish population was very large (and as such, presumably also very dispersed). At that time, fifteen days were required to reach the furthest Jewish settlements.  Our mishna about announcing lost objects refers to the time of the second Temple, when the Jewish population is small (and presumably not very dispersed) so that only three days are required to reach the furthest settlement. 

    Abaye objects to R. Yosef's analysis of the difference between the circumstances of the first Temple and the second Temple.  In fact he claims, the analysis should be reversed:  The difference between the two periods does not lie in the degree of dispersal but in the ease of travel.  During the first Temple period, since the population was so high, there was constant traffic to and from the Temple around the festivals.  Under such circumstances, it was easy to find a group with which to travel and the trip from the point of furthest settlement could be accomplished in just three days.  During the second Temple period, given the sparse population, caravans to and from Jerusalem were infrequent and it was necessary to allot fifteen days. Thus we should understand our mishna as referring to the first Temple period and the mishna about prayer for rain as referring to the time of the second Temple.

    Rava dismisses the whole attempt to explain the difference between the mishnayot as a function of different historical circumstances.  The reason why our mishna allows only three days for travel in each direction is functional.  The Rabbis, in determining the seven day grace period after the last festival, were not overly concerned with the actual realities of travel, they were merely setting a limit.  They did not want to impose too much upon the finder so they limited the grace period to seven days. 

    Learn now on 28a from "Amar Ravina אמר רבינא" until "yoter midai יותר מדי".  Lines 9-12 in the schematic analysis.

    Ravina returns to the mishna.  He points out that we can learn from R. Yehuda's additional 7 days that the finder must specify, when he announces, that he has found a garment rather than announcing that he or she has found something.  Ravina draws this conclusion from the fact that the mishna, in describing the additional seven days after the last festival, does not allot any time for the person to go through his belongings and to see if he or she has lost anything.  Look in Rashi, s.v. gelima makhriz גלימא מכרי.  Rashi explains that so long as the type of the lost object is announced, the loser will not need any extra time to ascertain that something of that type is missing.  If, however, the finder only announced that he has found something, then we would expect the mishna to allot time after the festival (when the announcement is heard) for each person to go through his belongings and see if he or she has

This whole discussion sounds very strange to modern ears.  Ravina's argument is based on the assumption that people, upon hearing a vague announcement that someone has found something, would go home and catalogue all of their belongings to see if any of them are missing.  To us, this seems extraordinarily unlikely.  Most likely the lost object is not something of great value and the loser will not care.  The only situation in which I can envision a person going home to check if something is missing is if the finder announces that he has found something of great value, e.g. a diamond ring.  Why does Ravina not assume that someone who has lost something and cares about it will respond to any announcement while someone who is not aware of having lost anything will not respond at all to the announcement?

    I do not have a good answer to this question, although I think a partial answer can be found if we are sensitive to the different value given to consumer items, in particular clothing, in the ancient world.  It is clear that in the pre-modern era, only the richest people owned many changes of clothes as we do.  The gemara in many places discusses situations in which a poor person has only one set of clothes!  In a situation where people have many fewer belongings, and hence each one is more valuable, it makes more sense to assume that the announcement of a lost object was an event of some significance.  It could inspire a person to check his belongings (which were relatively few in the first place) to see if he was missing something.

lost anything. 

    Ravina thus concludes that the finder must announce the type of thing that he or she has found.  Though doing things in this way seems more efficient, the gemara points out that the mishna is not a conclusive source for such a policy.  As Rava says, it is possible that the seven day grace period was not extended simply because the Rabbis wished to limit the amount of effort required of the finder.  If so, the fact that the extension is seven days long, and not eight, is not significant, and one could reasonably say that the finder does not need to identify the type of lost object he or she is announcing. 

    The gemara next continues its discussion of what exactly the finder should say.  Learn on 28a from "Tanu rabanan תנו רבנן" until "ati regel shelishi אתי רגל שלישי" (top of 28b).  Lines 13-17 in the schematic analysis.

    The gemara quotes a baraita that teaches us that on each festival, the finder would inform the public which announcement this was.  Thus on the first festival he or she would announce that this is the first announcement, on the second that it was the second announcement. On the third, the finder would not say anything, and from his silence the listeners would infer that this is the last time that he will be proclaiming this lost object. 

    The gemara asks the obvious question:  Why not say on the third festival that this is the third announcement?  Why leave it to the listeners to infer that when he could say it outright, as he did the first two times?  The gemara explains that by not having the finder mention at all which announcement is is on the third time, we prevent confusion.  If he says that this is the third festival that he is announcing, someone could possibly be confused or mis-hear and think he said that this is the second festival.  In order to avoid such confusion, at the third festival this point is left implicit. 

    The gemara then asks:  If we are so worried about people mis-hearing, why are we not concerned when he announces that it is the second time, that people will mis-hear and think it is the first time?  The difference is, the gemara explains, that if there is a mistake at the second announcement, there remains the third announcement to give the owner an opportunity to recover his lost object.  A mistake made with the third announcement is more serious since there will not be another opportunity. 

    The gemara now returns to basic obligation to announce and quotes a baraita that outlines how announcing is done once the Temple was destroyed.  Learn on 28b from "Tanu rabanan תנו רבנן" until the mishna.  Lines 18-22 in the schematic analysis.

    The baraita follows the opinion of R. Yehuda recorded in the mishna that the requirement of announcing is attached to the festivals.  However, it adds that the rule changed under new historical circumstances.  Once the Temple was destroyed, it no longer made sense to announce specifically on festivals, since the whole people no longer went to Jerusalem on these occasions.  Instead it was decreed that announcement should take place in the synagogues and study halls.  Later, during a time of oppression, it became impossible to announce lost objects in public and the requirement was reduced to informing one's friends and acquaintances.

It is odd that the new enactment seems to lack one of the clear advantages of R. Yehuda's position in the mishna - its clear limitation on how long the finder needs to continue announcing.  The requirement to announce in synagogues and study halls appears to be local, similar to R. Meir's position that one needs to announce in the area in which the object was found, with the implicit limit being when all the local people have been informed.  I am not aware of a later source that clarifies this point.  As suggested above, perhaps the time limit of three festivals remains, only without the requirement to announce in the Temple but merely in synagogues and study halls.

    The gemara explains that the increase in oppression recorded in the baraita reflected a policy of the Persian rulers (Babylonia, where there was a large Jewish community, was part of the Persian Empire throughout the Rabbinic period) to seize any lost object.  Under such circumstances announcing a lost object in public would be counter-productive and the Rabbis therefore changed the rule that one only needs to discreetly inform one's acquaintances. 

    The gemara then recounts a story about R. Ami that illustrates this Persian custom.  R. Ami found a purse of money.  When he hesitated to take it, he was encouraged to do so by a Roman official (the Roman and Persian empires were rivals for much of the Talmudic era), who pointed out that the Romans were not like the Persians and do not seize lost objects. 

    Finally, once more referring back to the time when the Temple stood, the gemara recounts that there was a monument in Jerusalem called "the Claimants' Stone" where people used to go to announce and claim lost object.  This stone played a role in the famous story of Choni Ha-meagel that is alluded to here.  This is a marvelous story, recorded in the mishna Ta'anit 19b.  The story, with a translation, follows the shiur.

Summary:  In this shiur we have explored the requirement to announce a lost object.  We saw the machloket between the tanaim and how this requirement was influenced by changing circumstances. 

The Story of Choni Ha-meagel.  (Note the reference to the Claimants' Stone, even ha-toen אבן הטוען, underlined in the text.) 

Mishna Ta'anit 3:8 (daf 19b)

It once happened that Choni Ha-meagel (Choni the Circle-Drawer) was asked by the people to pray for them, that rain might descend. Said he to them: "Go and bring in the Passover ovens, that they may not be spoiled by the rain." He prayed, but the rain did not descend. What did he then? He drew a circle, and stood within it, and said to God: "Creator of the Universe! Thy children have always looked on me as being like a member of Your household. I swear, therefore, by Your Great Name, that I will not move from this place until You will have compassion on Your children." Whereupon the rain commenced to drop down gently. Said he: "It was not for this I prayed, but for rain sufficient to fill the wells, cisterns, and caves." The rain then fell in torrents, and he said: "Not for such rain have I prayed, but for beneficial, felicitous rain." The rain then descended in a proper manner, until the Jews of Jerusalem were obliged to seek refuge from the city to the Temple Mount, on account of the rain. They came and said to Choni: "Even as you did pray that the rain might descend, so pray now that it may cease." And he replied: "Go and see whether the Even Ha-To'yim (the claimants' stone) is covered by the waters." Simeon b. Sheta'h sent him word, saying: "If you were not Choni, I would place you under a ban, but what can I do with you, since you sin before God, and yet He fulfills your desires like a child who sins before his father and he fulfills his desires ? To you may be applied the passage [Prov. xxiii. 25]: 'Let thy father and thy mother rejoice, and let her that hath born thee be glad.'"

משנה מסכת תענית פרק ג (דף יט עמ' ב)

מעשה שאמרו לו לחוני המעגל התפלל שירדו גשמים אמר להם צאו והכניסו תנורי פסחים בשביל שלא ימוקו התפלל ולא ירדו גשמים מה עשה עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה ואמר לפניו רבונו של עולם בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מכאן עד שתרחם על בניך התחילו גשמים מנטפין אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות התחילו לירד בזעף אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שיצאו ישראל מירושלם להר הבית מפני הגשמים באו ואמרו לו כשם שהתפללת עליהם שירדו כך התפלל שילכו להן אמר להן צאו וראו אם נמחת אבן הטועים (הטוען) שלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נידוי אבל מה אעשה לך שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שהוא מתחטא על אביו ועושה לו רצונו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כ"ג) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך:


Schematic Analysis #26

Schematic analysis from the mishna on 28a until the mishna on 28b.

Translation of gemara Schematic Analysis Text of gemara 28a. 

1.  MISHNA. Until when is he [the finder] obliged to proclaim [it]?  Until his neighbors are [made] aware of it, accordingt to R. Meir.  R. Yehuda says:  three festivals, and after the last festival seven [more] days; three days for [the owner] to[be able to] go back to his home, three that he should return and one day for proclaiming. 


1.   משנה. ועד מתי חייב להכריז? עד כדי שידעו בו שכניו, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: שלש רגלים, ואחר הרגל האחרון שבעה ימים, כדי שילך לביתו שלשה ויחזור שלשה ויכריז יום אחד.

2. GEMARA. A tana taught: [The mishan refers to] the neighbours of the loss baraita explaining the mishna.

2.  גמרא. תנא: שכני אבידה.

3. What is the meaning of 'the neighbours of the loss?' If we say, [it is] the neighbours of the loser, then if they know him [who lost it], let them go and return it to him! Rather, [it means] the neighbours of the vicinity in which the lost article was found.

Explanation of the baraita.

3.  מאי שכני אבידה? אילימא שכינים דבעל אבידה - אי ידע ליה ליזול ולהדריה נהליה! אלא: שכני מקום שנמצאת בו אבידה.

4.  R. Yehuda says, etc. But [the following] contradicts this: On the third day of Marcheshvan  we [begin] praying for rain. R. Gamliel says: On the seventh, which is fifteen days after the Festival (of Sukkot), so that the last [of the pilgrims] in Eretz Yisrael can reach the river Euphrates!

Contradictory quote from a different mishna

4.  רבי יהודה אומר כו'. ורמינהו: בשלשה במרחשון שואלין את הגשמים, רבן גמליאל אומר: בשבעה בו, (שהוא) חמישה עשר יום אחר החג, כדי שיגיע אחרון שבארץ ישראל לנהר פרת!

5. Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty. the latter refers to the days of the First Temple, the former (i.e. the our mishna)  to the Second Temple. Resolution of the contradiction.

5.  אמר רב יוסף: לא קשיא: כאן - במקדש ראשון, כאן - במקדש שני.

6.   During the First Temple, when the Israelites were extremely numerous, as it is written of them, Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude,  such a long period was required.  But during the Second Temple, when the Israelites were not very numerous, as it is written of them, The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, such a long time was unnecessary.

Explanation of the resolution.

6.  במקדש ראשון, דנפישי ישראל טובא, דכתיב בהו +מלכים א' ד'+ יהודה וישראל רבים כחול אשר על הים לרב - בעינן כולי האי, במקדש שני דלא נפישי ישראל טובא, דכתיב בהו +עזרא ב'+ כל הקהל כאחד ארבע רבוא אלפים שלש מאות ששים - לא בעינן כולי האי. 

7.  Abaye said to him: But is it not written, "So the priests and the Levites...and the singers and the gatekeepers and all Israel dwelt in their cities?" (Neh. 7, Ezra 2) and that being so, the oppsite makes more sense: . During the first Temple, when Israel was very numerous, the people united [for travelling purposes], and caravans were to be found travelling day and night, so long a period was unnecessary, and three days were sufficient. During the second Temple, when the Israel was not very numerous, the people did not join together [for travelling], and caravans were not available for proceeding day and night, this long period was necessary!  Difficulty with above resolution and alternative resolution.

7.  אמר ליה אביי: והא כתיב +נחמיה ז'+ וישבו הכהנים והלוים וגו' +עזרא ב'+ והמשררים והשוערים... וכל ישראל בעריהם וכיון דהכי הוא - אפכא מסתברא: מקדש ראשון דנפישי ישראל טובא, דמצוות עלמא, ומשתכחי שיירתא דאזלי בין ביממא ובין בליליא - לא בעינן כולי האי, וסגי בתלתא יומא. מקדש שני, דלא נפישי ישראל טובא ולא מצוות עלמא, ולא משתכחי שיירתא דאזלי בין ביממא ובין בליליא - בעינן כולי האי.

8. Rava said: There is no difference between the first Temple and the Second: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble for a lost article.  Alternative resolution

8.  רבא אמר: לא שנא במקדש ראשון ולא שנא במקדש שני, לא הטריחו רבנן באבדה יותר מדאי. 

9.  Ravina said: This [our mishna] proves that when he announces, he announces that he found a garment.   Conclusion drawn from the mishna

9.  אמר רבינא: שמע מינה כי מכריז - גלימא מכריז.

10. For should you think that he merely announced that he found a lost article,   another day should have been added to enable one to examine one's belongings! Explanation of above conclusion

10.  דאי סלקא דעתך אבידתא מכריז, בעינן למטפי ליה חדא יומא לעיוני במאניה.

11. Hence it follows that [the loss of] a garment was announced. Conclude thus.

Affirmation of conclusion.

11.  אלא שמע מינה: גלימא מכריז, שמע מינה.

12.  Rava said: You may even say that a mere loss was proclaimed: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble for a lost article. Alternative explanation of the mishna.

12.  רבא אמר: אפילו תימא אבידתא מכריז, לא הטריחו רבנן באבידה יותר מדאי.

13. Our Rabbis taught: At the first Festival it was announced: 'This is the first Festival;' at the second Festival it was announced: 'This is the second Festival;' but at the third a simple announcement was made. 


13.  תנו רבנן: רגל ראשון אומר: רגל ראשון, רגל שני אומר: רגל שני, רגל שלישי אומר סתם.

14.  Why; let him announce: 'It is the third Festival'? Question about the baraita.

14. ואמאי? לימא רגל שלישי?

15. So that it should not be mistaken for the second. Explanation of the baraita's ruling.

15.  דלא אתי לאחלופי בשני. 

16. But the second, too, [28b] one might mistake for the first!  Further question.

16.  שני נמי, [דף כח עמ' ב']אתיא לאחלופי בראשון!  

17.   In any case, the third is still to come.


17.  הא קא אתי רגל שלישי. 

18.  Our Rabbis taught: In former times, whoever found a lost article used to proclaim it during the three Festivals and an additional seven days after the last Festival, three days for going home, another three for returning, and one for announcing. After the destruction of the Temple, may it be speedily rebuilt in our own days, it was enacted that the proclamation should be made in the synagogues and schoolhouses. But when the oppressors increased, it was enacted that one's neighbours and acquaintances should be informed, and that sufficed. baraita

18.  תנו רבנן: בראשונה, כל מי שמצא אבידה - היה מכריז עליה שלשה רגלים, ואחר רגל אחרון שבעת ימים, כדי שילך שלשה ויחזור שלשה ויכריז יום אחד. משחרב בית המקדש, שיבנה במהרה בימנו, התקינו שיהו מכריזים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות. ומשרבו האנסים - התקינו שיהו מודיעין לשכיניו ולמיודעיו, ודיו.

19. What is meant by 'when the oppressors increased'?  Question as to the meaning of one of the cases in the baraita.

19.  מאי משרבו האנסין? 

20.  They insisted that lost property belonged to the king. Explanation

20.  דאמרי: אבידתא למלכא.

21. R. Ami found a purse of coins. A Roman [official] saw that he was afraid [to take it].  He [the Roman] said to him: 'Go, take it for yourself, for we are not Persians who say that lost property belongs to the king.' Story about R. Ami

21.  רבי אמי אשכח אודייא דדינרי, חזייה ההוא רומאה דקא מירתת. אמר ליה: זיל שקול לנפשך, דלאו פרסאי אנן דאמרי אבידתא למלכא.

22. Our Rabbis taught: There was a Stone of Claims  in Jerusalem: whoever lost an article went there, and whoever found an article did likewise. The latter would stand and proclaim and the former would present simanim and take it.  As we we learned: Go forth and see whether the Stone of Claims is covered. baraita

22.  תנו רבנן: אבן טוען היתה בירושלים, כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה נפנה לשם, וכל מי שמוצא אבידה נפנה לשם. זה עומד ומכריז, וזה עומד ונותן סימנין ונוטלה. וזו היא ששנינו: צאו וראו אם נמחת אבן הטוען. 



Selections from Rashi, daf 27b.

Rashi Text


ויכריז יום אחד - אני אבדתי ואלו סימניה, ובגמרא פריך: דבשלשה ימים אין שהות לחזור לסוף ארץ ישראל.

ve-yakhriz yom echad, and announce for one day - that I lost [the object] and these are its simanim.  The gemara raises the difficulty that three days are not enough to get to the farthest border of the Land of Israel.

גלימא מכריז - זה שמצאה מכריז שם חפץ: טלית מצאתי, ולכך לא הוצרכו ליתן שהות יום אחד לעיין בכליו מה אבד, שהאדם יודע כמה טליתות יש לו, וכשהוא בביתו - בודק אם ימצאנה, ואין צריך שהות.

gelima makhriz, he announces [that he found] a garment - the finder announces the kind of object, e.g. I found a garment, and for this reason they did not require an additional day to examine his belongings to see what he lost.  A person knows how many garments he has, and when he get home, he checks if they are there and does not need additional time. 


General vocabulary

yemama:  day



leilia:  night



manei: his clothes