Bava Metzia 27 - March 26, 16 Adar 2

The Mishna rules that if one finds money among fruits that one has purchased, one can keep the money. Rabbi Yannai limits this to what circumstances? A braita is brought which also corresponds to Rabbi Yannai's limitation. The verses in the Torah relating to lost items list several items that are lost that should be returned. What is derived from each of these terms? Rabbi Yehuda and Tana Kamma disagree about whether to derive the halakha that one does not need to return an item that is less than the value of a pruta from the words "that get lost" or from the word "and it was found." Is there a practical ramification between the two opinions or is it just a matter of which words to derive it from? What does each derive from the other word?  Is the ability to retrieve a lost item by providing simanim a Torah law or rabbinic? The ramifications for this question: would a lost get be able to be returned to the woman if she brought simanim? Four sources are brought in an attempt to prove that lost items can be retrieved by simanim by Torah law or rabbinic law, but all are rejected. Is this issue a tannaitic debate, as can be found in a debate regarding the identification of a dead man based on a mole, to permit his wife to remarry? However, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities for the reasoning for the debate that are not based on whether or not simanim are a Torah law. Rava explains that if simanim are not a Torah law, on what basis can the rabbis institute that items can be returned by simanim if perhaps it may allow for the "wrong person" to collect a lost item if he/she happens to be able to provide simanim? After Rav Safra raises a difficulty with Rava's reasoning, Rava offers an alternative explanation. The Gemara raises a difficulty with that as well but then resolves the difficulty.