Commentary for Bava Metzia 235:22

איכא דאמרי רבא אמר דכ"ע הבטה בהפקר לא קני והכא בחיישינן לבעלי זרועות קמיפלגי דת"ק סבר דתקינו רבנן למיתב ליה ארבע זוזי כי היכי דלישמעי בעלי זרועות וליפרשו מינייהו ור' יוסי סבר לא תקינו

hence, if he is paid, it is well,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then possession is effected on behalf of the public. ');">¹⁸</span> but not otherwise. Whilst R. Jose maintains that 'watching' does not effect possession of <i>hefker</i>; hence, only when the community go and fetch it is possession effected. And what is meant by. 'You say [etc.]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that according to R. Jose the sheaves are not the property of the watcher. ');">¹⁹</span> They said thus to him: From your statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he may forego payment. ');">²⁰</span> [and] on the basis of our ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That watching gives a title to hefker. ');">²¹</span> [it transpires that] the omer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sheaf of barley. Lev. XXIII. 9ff. ');">²²</span> and the two loaves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Made of the new wheat, ibid. 16ff. ');">²³</span> are not provided by the public!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thus see that the question whether 'watching' effects possession in hefker is a point of issue between Tannaim. ');">²⁴</span> — Said Raba: That is not so. <i>All</i> agree that 'watching' effects possession of <i>hefker</i>; but they differ here as to whether we fear that he will not deliver it whole-heartedly. Thus, the Rabbis hold that he must be paid, for otherwise there is the fear lest he does not deliver it wholeheartedly,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if it is not surrendered whole-heartedly, it belongs to the watchman, and is thus not provided by the public. ');">²⁵</span> whilst R. Jose holds that this fear is not entertained. And what is meant by 'You say'? — They say thus to him: From your statement, [and] on the basis of our ruling that we fear that it will not be surrendered whole-heartedly, the <i>'omer</i> and the two loaves are not provided by the public. Others say, Raba said: <i>All</i> agree that 'watching' does not effect possession in the case of <i>hefker</i>; but they dispute here whether we entertain a fear of violent men. The first Tanna holds that the Rabbis enacted that he shall be paid four <i>zuz</i>, so that violent men may hear thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is being watched on behalf of hekdesh. ');">²⁶</span> and hold aloof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Otherwise, they may think that he is watching it on his own behalf and seize it themselves; for though they respect the rights of hekdesh, they will not respect those of a private individual. ');">²⁷</span> whilst R. Jose holds that they did not enact [thus].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fear being groundless. ');">²⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 235:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.