Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 18, 2016 | 讟状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 22

Rava and Abaye have a disagreement about when one picks up a lost item without any identifiable features, if the owner has not yet despaired of the item (because he doesn’t even know he lost it), can we assume that since he will despair when he realizes it’s lost, the finder can acquire the item now (Rava). 聽Or do we hold that since at this point he has not despaired, the item does not belong to the one who found it (Abaye). 聽This is one of 6 cases where we hold like Abaye in his disagreements with Rava. 聽The gemara tries to bring proofs for each side from tannaitic sources.

讜讻谉 讬专讚谉 砖谞讟诇 诪讝讛 讜谞转谉 诇讝讛 诪讛 砖谞讟诇 谞讟诇 讜诪讛 砖谞转谉 谞转谉

and likewise, in the case of the Jordan River or another river that took an item from this person and gave it to that person, in all those cases, that which the person took, he took, and that which the person gave, he gave. Likewise, that which the river took, it took, and that which the river gave, it gave. The person who received the item need not return it.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讝诇谉 讜讬专讚谉 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讛讜 讜诪讬讗砖 讗诇讗 讙谞讘 诪讬 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讗砖 转专讙诪讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara asks: Granted in the cases of the robber and the Jordan River, one could say that the owner sees them take the item and despairs of its recovery; but in the case of the thief, who takes the item surreptitiously, does the owner see him take the item and would that lead him to despair? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa interpreted the term thief in the baraita to be referring to armed bandits [listim]; therefore, the owner is aware that the item was taken and he despairs of its recovery. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as a robber, why mention two identical cases? The Gemara answers: The baraita mentioned two types of robbers; in both cases the owner was aware that his item was taken.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讟祝 谞讛专 拽讜专讬讜 注爪讬讜 讜讗讘谞讬讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a river swept away one鈥檚 beams, one鈥檚 wood, or one鈥檚 stones and placed them into the field of another, these items belong to the owner of the field due to the fact that the respective owners despaired of their recovery. The Gemara infers from the baraita: The reason they belong to the finder is that the owners despaired; but in an unspecified case, where it is not definitively known that the owners despaired, they do not belong to the finder. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. The Gemara rejects the proof: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the beams, wood, or stones; therefore, their decision not to rescue them is a clear indication of despair.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬 讘讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪专讚驻讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诪专讚驻讬谉 诇讗 讗讬讬讗讜砖 讗讬谉 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讬讬讗讜砖讬 诪讬讗砖

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the same baraita: If the owners were pursuing the items, the finder is obligated to return them. If it is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items, why did the baraita specifically cite a case where the owners were pursuing the items? Even if they were not pursuing the lost items, the items also remain in their ownership, as they did not despair of their recovery. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items with difficulty. In that case, if the owners pursue the items, it indicates that they did not despair of their recovery, but if the owners do not pursue the items, it indicates that they despaired of their recovery.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛转讜专诐 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讛专讬 砖讬专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讬拽讟 讜转专诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did the Sages say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner鈥檚 consent, his teruma is considered teruma? It is in a case where there was someone who entered another鈥檚 field and gathered produce from it and separated teruma without the owner鈥檚 permission. If the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.

讜诪谞讬谉 讛讜讗 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪爪讗讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 诇讬拽讟讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The baraita continues: And from where would does he know whether the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found him separating teruma and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, his teruma is considered teruma.

讜讻讬 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚转专诐 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 转专讙诪讛 专讘讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞

The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita: But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma? At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know that the owner would ultimately agree. The baraita states that the teruma is teruma from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讗 砖讜讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讗 讗转诐 讙诐 讗转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇讜讞讻诐 诪讛 讗转诐 诇讚注转讻诐 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 诇讚注转讻诐

So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma? But doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states 鈥測ou,鈥 the addition of the word 鈥渁lso鈥 in the term 鈥測ou also鈥 serves to include an agent. Therefore, an agent separating teruma has the same halakhot as an owner separating teruma. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge. Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating teruma for another.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 转专讜诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讜诐 诪讛谞讬 讜住转诪讬讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讬 转专讜诐 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讛讜讗 转专讜诐 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜转专诐 诪讬驻讜转 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪爪讗讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops. And when the owner鈥檚 intent is unspecified, and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma,

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗拽诇注讜 诇讘讜住转谞讗 讚诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗讬讬转讬 讗专讬住讬讛 转诪专讬 讜专讬诪讜谞讬 讜砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻诇讬 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讬转讬转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诪讛谞讱 砖驻讬专转讗

The Gemara digresses with a related incident: Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn鈥檛 you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits?

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛砖转讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讘诇讘讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讻住讬驻讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬

Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that; if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, indicates consent of the owner only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable to having the mitzva fulfilled. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this: Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.

转讗 砖诪注 注讜讚讛讜 讛讟诇 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖诪讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬转谉 谞讙讘讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖诪讞

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita with regard to despair that is not conscious. It is written: 鈥淎nd if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is ritually pure. But when water is placed upon the seed, and any part of their carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). Produce becomes susceptible to contracting ritual impurity only after coming into contact with one of seven liquids: Wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. It is taught in the baraita: If the dew is still upon the produce and has not yet dried, and if the owner was glad that the dew moistened the produce and kept it fresh, that produce falls into the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the produce is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the produce had dried when the owner found it, then even though he was glad that the dew had moistened the produce,

讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

the produce is not in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed [khi yuttan] upon the seed,鈥 and the produce is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛砖转讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 注讚 砖讬转谉

What is the reason that if the produce dried, the fact that the owner is glad does not render it susceptible to ritual impurity? Is it not due to the fact that we do not say: Since the matter was revealed that he is amenable to the moisture now, he was also amenable from the outset? The same should be true with regard to despair that is not conscious. The fact that when he becomes aware of his loss he despairs of its recovery does not indicate that he despaired from the outset, contrary to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects the proof: It is different there, as although the phrase is vocalized to mean: 鈥淲hen it is placed,鈥 it is written: When one places [ki yitten], from which it is derived that the produce is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity only if the owner places the liquid on the produce.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讜拽专讬谞谉 讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: If so, in the first clause of the baraita, too, the produce should not be rendered susceptible to contracting impurity, because the dew fell on the produce and was not placed there by the owner. The Gemara answers: There, the explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa raised a contradiction: The verse states: 鈥淏ut when water is placed [vekhi yuttan] upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The word 鈥yuttanis written in the defective form, as if it says ki yitten.鈥 Accordingly, this would mean that one must actively place the water on the produce. Yet, we read it, based on the tradition as to its correct pronunciation, as if it is written ki yuttan,鈥 which includes any situation where the produce becomes wet. How so? How can the way the verse is written and the way it is read be reconciled?

讘注讬谞谉 讻讬 讬讜转谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讬 讬转谉 诪讛 讬转谉 诇讚注转 讗祝 讻讬 讬讜转谉 谞诪讬 诇讚注转

Rav Pappa explains that we require that the situation described by the words 鈥渨hen water is placed [ki yuttan]鈥 be similar to the situation described by the words: When one places [dekhi yitten]: Just as the term places [yitten] indicates that it is with the knowledge of the owner that the produce becomes wet, as he himself is placing the water, so too, the term 鈥渋s placed [yuttan]鈥 means that it is with his knowledge that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself. Therefore, no proof may be cited with regard to the matter of despair, where there is no Torah derivation requiring awareness from the outset.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讚讛 砖砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 砖讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讞诪讜专讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖诪诇转讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讻诇 讗讘讬讚转 讗讞讬讱 讗砖专 转讗讘讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诪爪讗转讛 诪讬 砖讗讘讜讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诪爪讜讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讘讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where is it derived with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return that which is lost from him, the owner, but is available to be found by any person. Excluded from that obligation is that which is lost from him and is not available to be found by any person; it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it.

讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诪讛 讛讬转讬专讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讜讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 砖专讗 讗祝 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讜讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗住讜专讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

And the prohibition written in the verse against keeping an item that is lost only to its owner is similar to the allowance to keep an item lost to all people that is inferred from the verse; just as in the case of the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is permitted for the finder to keep it, so too in the case of the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is prohibited for the finder to keep it, until there is proof that the owner despaired of its recovery. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讘讬注诇 拽讙诐

And although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye in the disputes represented by the mnemonic: Yod, ayin, lamed; kuf, gimmel, mem.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讛讬讻讬 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讬 诇讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讬讗讜砖讬 诪讬讗砖 诪谞讬讬讛讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that the opinion of Rava was conclusively refuted, and the halakha is that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, if those dates are blown off the tree by the wind, how do we eat them? Perhaps their owner did not despair of their recovery. Rav Ashi said to him: Since there are repugnant creatures and creeping animals that eat the dates after they fall, the owner despairs of their recovery from the outset. Therefore, one who finds the dates may keep them.

讬转诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讞讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讙讗 讘讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉

Rav A岣 asked: Perhaps the tree belonged to minor orphans who, because they are not capable of relinquishing property, cannot despair of recovering the dates from the outset. Accordingly, what is the justification for eating found dates? Rav Ashi said to him: We do not presume a valley to be land belonging to orphans, and therefore that is not a concern.

诪讜讞讝拽 讜注讜诪讚 诪讗讬 讻专讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讬专谉

Rav A岣 asked: If the presumptive status of the trees was previously established as belonging to orphans, what is the halakha? If the trees are surrounded by fences that prevent repugnant creatures and creeping animals from gaining access, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to him: The dates are forbidden in those cases.

讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讛 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one found bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him. Rabba says with regard to this ruling: And this is the halakha even with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabba holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark. Since the owner of the lost item knows that the mark is prone to be trampled, he does not rely on it and he despairs of recovering the item. Rava said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an item on which there is no distinguishing mark, but with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, the one who finds it is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rava holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗谞驻讬 谞驻砖讛 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And there are those who teach the dispute with regard to this halakha independent of the mishna. With regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

转谞谉 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讜拽转谞讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. What are the circumstances? If it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles, when one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? Rather, is it not a case where there is a distinguishing mark on the bundles, and there is then a reason for him to proclaim his find. And yet, it is taught in the baraita that if he finds the bundles in a public area those bundles belong to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪讻专讬讝 诪拽讜诐 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪拽讜诐 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rava could have said to you: Actually, it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles. And with regard to that which you said: When one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims that the owner should provide the location where he lost the bundles and thereby recover his bundles. And Rabba said: The location, provided by the owner, is not a distinguishing mark that would enable the return of an item to its owner. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this matter: With regard to location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

转讗 砖诪注 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 专讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 讜专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And with regard to the sheaves, i.e., large bundles, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. How does Rabba explain the baraita, and how does Rava explain the baraita? Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark. And Rava explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles whose location is their distinguishing mark.

专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪砖讜诐

The Gemara elaborates. Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him due to the fact

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 22

讜讻谉 讬专讚谉 砖谞讟诇 诪讝讛 讜谞转谉 诇讝讛 诪讛 砖谞讟诇 谞讟诇 讜诪讛 砖谞转谉 谞转谉

and likewise, in the case of the Jordan River or another river that took an item from this person and gave it to that person, in all those cases, that which the person took, he took, and that which the person gave, he gave. Likewise, that which the river took, it took, and that which the river gave, it gave. The person who received the item need not return it.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙讝诇谉 讜讬专讚谉 讚拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讛讜 讜诪讬讗砖 讗诇讗 讙谞讘 诪讬 拽讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讗砖 转专讙诪讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘诇住讟讬诐 诪讝讜讬谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讙讝诇谉 转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 讙讝诇谉

The Gemara asks: Granted in the cases of the robber and the Jordan River, one could say that the owner sees them take the item and despairs of its recovery; but in the case of the thief, who takes the item surreptitiously, does the owner see him take the item and would that lead him to despair? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa interpreted the term thief in the baraita to be referring to armed bandits [listim]; therefore, the owner is aware that the item was taken and he despairs of its recovery. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as a robber, why mention two identical cases? The Gemara answers: The baraita mentioned two types of robbers; in both cases the owner was aware that his item was taken.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讟祝 谞讛专 拽讜专讬讜 注爪讬讜 讜讗讘谞讬讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讟注诪讗 讚谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a river swept away one鈥檚 beams, one鈥檚 wood, or one鈥檚 stones and placed them into the field of another, these items belong to the owner of the field due to the fact that the respective owners despaired of their recovery. The Gemara infers from the baraita: The reason they belong to the finder is that the owners despaired; but in an unspecified case, where it is not definitively known that the owners despaired, they do not belong to the finder. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. The Gemara rejects the proof: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the beams, wood, or stones; therefore, their decision not to rescue them is a clear indication of despair.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 讛讬讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讞专讬讛诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬 讘讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 诪专讚驻讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛爪讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 诪专讚驻讬谉 诇讗 讗讬讬讗讜砖 讗讬谉 诪专讚驻讬谉 讗讬讬讗讜砖讬 诪讬讗砖

The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the same baraita: If the owners were pursuing the items, the finder is obligated to return them. If it is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items, why did the baraita specifically cite a case where the owners were pursuing the items? Even if they were not pursuing the lost items, the items also remain in their ownership, as they did not despair of their recovery. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items with difficulty. In that case, if the owners pursue the items, it indicates that they did not despair of their recovery, but if the owners do not pursue the items, it indicates that they despaired of their recovery.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讜 讛转讜专诐 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讛专讬 砖讬专讚 诇转讜讱 砖讚讛 讞讘讬专讜 讜诇讬拽讟 讜转专诐 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 1:5): When did the Sages say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner鈥檚 consent, his teruma is considered teruma? It is in a case where there was someone who entered another鈥檚 field and gathered produce from it and separated teruma without the owner鈥檚 permission. If the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery, his teruma is not teruma, but if he is not concerned, his teruma is teruma.

讜诪谞讬谉 讛讜讗 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讞讜砖砖 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪爪讗讜 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 诇讬拽讟讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜讛讜住讬驻讜 注诇讬讛谉 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

The baraita continues: And from where would does he know whether the owner is concerned about his actions and view it as robbery or not? If the owner came and found him separating teruma and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that, then if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma, since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated teruma from his produce. But if not, his teruma is not teruma, as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The baraita adds: If the owners were gathering and adding to the teruma he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, either way, whether or not better-quality produce was found, his teruma is considered teruma.

讜讻讬 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诪讗讬 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚转专诐 讛讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 转专讙诪讛 专讘讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讗讘讬讬 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞

The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita: But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma? At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know that the owner would ultimately agree. The baraita states that the teruma is teruma from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诇讗 砖讜讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讛讗 讗转诐 讙诐 讗转诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖诇讜讞讻诐 诪讛 讗转诐 诇讚注转讻诐 讗祝 砖诇讜讞讻诐 诇讚注转讻诐

So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma? But doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淪o you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states 鈥測ou,鈥 the addition of the word 鈥渁lso鈥 in the term 鈥測ou also鈥 serves to include an agent. Therefore, an agent separating teruma has the same halakhot as an owner separating teruma. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge. Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating teruma for another.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讜讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 转专讜诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转专讜诐 诪讛谞讬 讜住转诪讬讛 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讻讬 转专讜诐 诪讘讬谞讜谞讬转 讛讜讗 转专讜诐 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜转专诐 诪讬驻讜转 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪爪讗讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛

Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops. And when the owner鈥檚 intent is unspecified, and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma,

讗诪讬诪专 讜诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗拽诇注讜 诇讘讜住转谞讗 讚诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗讬讬转讬 讗专讬住讬讛 转诪专讬 讜专讬诪讜谞讬 讜砖讚讗 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻诇讬 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 诪专讬 讘专 讗讬住拽 讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讬讬转讬转 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 诪讛谞讱 砖驻讬专转讗

The Gemara digresses with a related incident: Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn鈥檛 you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits?

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗诪讬诪专 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讛砖转讗 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诐 谞诪爪讗讜 讬驻讜转 诪讛谉 转专讜诪转讜 转专讜诪讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 讬驻讜转 讗诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讘诇讘讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讻住讬驻讜转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讛讻讬

Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that; if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, indicates consent of the owner only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable to having the mitzva fulfilled. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this: Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.

转讗 砖诪注 注讜讚讛讜 讛讟诇 注诇讬讛谉 讜砖诪讞 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讻讬 讬转谉 谞讙讘讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖诪讞

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita with regard to despair that is not conscious. It is written: 鈥淎nd if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is ritually pure. But when water is placed upon the seed, and any part of their carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). Produce becomes susceptible to contracting ritual impurity only after coming into contact with one of seven liquids: Wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. It is taught in the baraita: If the dew is still upon the produce and has not yet dried, and if the owner was glad that the dew moistened the produce and kept it fresh, that produce falls into the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed upon the seed,鈥 and the produce is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the produce had dried when the owner found it, then even though he was glad that the dew had moistened the produce,

讗讬谞谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

the produce is not in the category of: 鈥淏ut when water is placed [khi yuttan] upon the seed,鈥 and the produce is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.

讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讛砖转讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 注讚 砖讬转谉

What is the reason that if the produce dried, the fact that the owner is glad does not render it susceptible to ritual impurity? Is it not due to the fact that we do not say: Since the matter was revealed that he is amenable to the moisture now, he was also amenable from the outset? The same should be true with regard to despair that is not conscious. The fact that when he becomes aware of his loss he despairs of its recovery does not indicate that he despaired from the outset, contrary to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects the proof: It is different there, as although the phrase is vocalized to mean: 鈥淲hen it is placed,鈥 it is written: When one places [ki yitten], from which it is derived that the produce is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity only if the owner places the liquid on the produce.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讻讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬转谉 讜拽专讬谞谉 讻讬 讬讜转谉 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: If so, in the first clause of the baraita, too, the produce should not be rendered susceptible to contracting impurity, because the dew fell on the produce and was not placed there by the owner. The Gemara answers: There, the explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa raised a contradiction: The verse states: 鈥淏ut when water is placed [vekhi yuttan] upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you鈥 (Leviticus 11:38). The word 鈥yuttanis written in the defective form, as if it says ki yitten.鈥 Accordingly, this would mean that one must actively place the water on the produce. Yet, we read it, based on the tradition as to its correct pronunciation, as if it is written ki yuttan,鈥 which includes any situation where the produce becomes wet. How so? How can the way the verse is written and the way it is read be reconciled?

讘注讬谞谉 讻讬 讬讜转谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讬 讬转谉 诪讛 讬转谉 诇讚注转 讗祝 讻讬 讬讜转谉 谞诪讬 诇讚注转

Rav Pappa explains that we require that the situation described by the words 鈥渨hen water is placed [ki yuttan]鈥 be similar to the situation described by the words: When one places [dekhi yitten]: Just as the term places [yitten] indicates that it is with the knowledge of the owner that the produce becomes wet, as he himself is placing the water, so too, the term 鈥渋s placed [yuttan]鈥 means that it is with his knowledge that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself. Therefore, no proof may be cited with regard to the matter of despair, where there is no Torah derivation requiring awareness from the outset.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讘讬讚讛 砖砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 砖讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讞诪讜专讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖诪诇转讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讻诇 讗讘讬讚转 讗讞讬讱 讗砖专 转讗讘讚 诪诪谞讜 讜诪爪讗转讛 诪讬 砖讗讘讜讚讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讜诪爪讜讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讬爪讗转讛 讝讜 砖讗讘讜讚讛 诪诪谞讜 讜讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where is it derived with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return that which is lost from him, the owner, but is available to be found by any person. Excluded from that obligation is that which is lost from him and is not available to be found by any person; it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it.

讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛讬转讬专讗 诪讛 讛讬转讬专讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讜讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 砖专讗 讗祝 讗讬住讜专讗 讘讬谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讜讘讬谉 讚诇讬转 讘讛 住讬诪谉 讗住讜专讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

And the prohibition written in the verse against keeping an item that is lost only to its owner is similar to the allowance to keep an item lost to all people that is inferred from the verse; just as in the case of the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is permitted for the finder to keep it, so too in the case of the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is prohibited for the finder to keep it, until there is proof that the owner despaired of its recovery. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讘讬注诇 拽讙诐

And although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye in the disputes represented by the mnemonic: Yod, ayin, lamed; kuf, gimmel, mem.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转诪专讬 讚讝讬拽讗 讛讬讻讬 讗讻诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讚拽讗 讗讻诇讬 诇讛讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讬讗讜砖讬 诪讬讗砖 诪谞讬讬讛讜

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that the opinion of Rava was conclusively refuted, and the halakha is that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, if those dates are blown off the tree by the wind, how do we eat them? Perhaps their owner did not despair of their recovery. Rav Ashi said to him: Since there are repugnant creatures and creeping animals that eat the dates after they fall, the owner despairs of their recovery from the outset. Therefore, one who finds the dates may keep them.

讬转诪讬 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讞讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讗讙讗 讘讗专注讗 讚讬转诪讬 诇讗 诪讞讝拽讬谞谉

Rav A岣 asked: Perhaps the tree belonged to minor orphans who, because they are not capable of relinquishing property, cannot despair of recovering the dates from the outset. Accordingly, what is the justification for eating found dates? Rav Ashi said to him: We do not presume a valley to be land belonging to orphans, and therefore that is not a concern.

诪讜讞讝拽 讜注讜诪讚 诪讗讬 讻专讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗住讬专谉

Rav A岣 asked: If the presumptive status of the trees was previously established as belonging to orphans, what is the halakha? If the trees are surrounded by fences that prevent repugnant creatures and creeping animals from gaining access, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi said to him: The dates are forbidden in those cases.

讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讛 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if one found bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him. Rabba says with regard to this ruling: And this is the halakha even with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rabba holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark. Since the owner of the lost item knows that the mark is prone to be trampled, he does not rely on it and he despairs of recovering the item. Rava said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an item on which there is no distinguishing mark, but with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, the one who finds it is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Rava holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗谞驻讬 谞驻砖讛 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And there are those who teach the dispute with regard to this halakha independent of the mishna. With regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

转谞谉 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讜拽转谞讬 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. What are the circumstances? If it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles, when one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? Rather, is it not a case where there is a distinguishing mark on the bundles, and there is then a reason for him to proclaim his find. And yet, it is taught in the baraita that if he finds the bundles in a public area those bundles belong to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪讻专讬讝 诪拽讜诐 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗讬转诪专 诪拽讜诐 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rava could have said to you: Actually, it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles. And with regard to that which you said: When one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims that the owner should provide the location where he lost the bundles and thereby recover his bundles. And Rabba said: The location, provided by the owner, is not a distinguishing mark that would enable the return of an item to its owner. As it was stated that the amora鈥檌m disputed this matter: With regard to location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

转讗 砖诪注 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 专讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 讜专讘讗 讛讬讻讬 诪转专抓 诇讛 专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And with regard to the sheaves, i.e., large bundles, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. How does Rabba explain the baraita, and how does Rava explain the baraita? Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark. And Rava explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles whose location is their distinguishing mark.

专讘讛 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘住讬诪谉 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪砖讜诐

The Gemara elaborates. Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him due to the fact

Scroll To Top