Responsa for Bava Metzia 41:19

איתמר

R. JUDAH SAYS: WHATSOEVER HAS IN IT SOMETHING UNUSUAL MUST BE ANNOUNCED,17 AS, FOR INSTANCE, IF ONE FINDS A ROUND [OF FIGS] CONTAINING A POTSHERD, OR A LOAF CONTAINING MONEY. R. SIMEON B. ELEAZAR SAYS: NEW MERCHANDISE18 NEED NOT BE ANNOUNCED. GEMARA. IF ONE FINDS SCATTERED FRUIT, etc. What quantity [of fruit in a given space] is meant? R. Isaac said: A kab19 within four cubits. But what kind of a case is meant? If [the fruit appears to have been] dropped accidentally, then even if there is more than a kab [it should] also [belong to the finder].20 And if it appears to have been [deliberately] put down, then even if there is a smaller quantity it should not [belong to the finder]?21 — R. 'Ukba b. Hama answered: We deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor:22 [To collect] a kab [scattered over a space] of four cubits is troublesome, and, as people do not trouble to come back and collect it, [the owner also] abandons it, but if it is [spread over] a smaller space [the owner] does come back and collect it, and he does not abandon it. R. Jeremiah enquired: How is it [if one finds] half a kab [scattered over the space] of two cubits? Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is not troublesome to collect, is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting [when spread over such a space], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is still less worth the trouble of collecting, is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] two kabs [scattered over the space] of eight cubits? Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are still more troublesome to collect, are even more readily abandoned [and should certainly belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are worth the trouble [of collecting] are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] a kab of poppy-seed [scattered over a space] of four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore poppy-seed, which is worth the trouble [of collecting] is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore poppy-seed, which is even more troublesome [to collect], is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again], how is it [if one finds] a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of ordinary fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which also is not worth the trouble [of collecting] is abandoned [and should belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which are not troublesome [to collect], are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? — The questions remain unanswered. It has been stated:

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A claims that when the overlord seized his valuables he also seized L(eah)'s valuables which were in the same room; and that when he finally settled with the overlord to pay him a fixed sum of money, and the latter returned all of the valuables to him, he pledged them with the persons who went surety for him to the overlord. L demands her valuables, and A demands that L pay part of the tax he promised to pay to the overlord.
A. If A's claim regarding the seizure of L's valuables is true, it is presumed that L abandoned all hope of recovering them. Although in the case of an ordinary robber no such presumption exists (B. K. 114a), at present every overlord is king in his domain; no one exercises any restraint upon him, and we presume that owners of movables seized by an overlord have abandoned all hope of recovery. Therefore, L's seized valuables belong to A since he acquired them through abandonment (yeush) and change of possession (shinui reshut), although the principle "the law of the land prevails" does not apply in this case of robbery and extortion. However, A is not entitled to collect any additional tax-money from L, since she was not personally included by the overlord in his extortionist act on A. Although all persons earning money in a town or locality must share the burden of taxation of such a town or locality, this ruling applies only to regular taxes of a fixed amount annually collected by the king (or overlord) from the entire community in one lump sum. The robbery and extortion of an overlord, however, on pretext or false accusation, is to be borne only by the person unfortunately caught in his toils, but not by those who, probably by the grace of God, have escaped them.
R. Meir adds the obscure statement: L must pay the rent for the house but would be permitted to deduct therefrom whatever she will assert under oath that he failed to spend on wood and illumination.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Isaac, R. Samuel, and R. Yehiel.
SOURCES: L. 381; Rashba I, 1105.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse