Bava Metzia 44

אינן בכי יותן

the term If water] be put [upon the seed] does not apply to it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the produce is not deemed capable of being rendered ritually unclean (Tosef. Mak. III). ');">¹</span> Is not the reason [for this ruling] that we do not say, 'because it appears that he is pleased now it is as if he had been pleased originally'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The feeling of pleasure is not deemed to have a retrospective effect. In the same way we ought to say that 'anticipated abandonment' has no retrospective effect, which would contradict the view of Raba. ');">²</span>

טעמא מאי לאו משום דלא אמרינן כיון דאיגלאי מילתא דהשתא ניחא ליה מעיקרא נמי ניחא ליה שאני התם דכתיב כי יתן עד שיתן

— There it is different: It is written, 'If one puts',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. ibid. ');">³</span> [which means] only when he puts [the water on].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The spelling is [H] without a [H] after the [H], which may be read [H] 'he puts'. It is only the vowels that turn it into the passive [H] 'it is put'. ');">⁴</span>

אי הכי רישא נמי התם כדרב פפא דרב פפא רמי כתיב כי יתן וקרינן כי יותן הא כיצד

But if so, this should apply also to the first case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the owner becomes aware of the dew having come upon the produce while moisture is still there. ');">⁵</span> That [can be explained] according to R. Papa. For R. papa pointed out a contradiction: It is written, 'If one puts'. and we read, 'If it be put'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 138. n. 12. ');">⁶</span>

בעינן כי יותן דומיא דכי יתן מה יתן לדעת אף כי יותן נמי לדעת

— how is it to be explained? 'Being put must be like 'putting': As 'putting' can only be done with the knowledge [of him who puts] so 'being put' must happen with the' knowledge [of the person concerned].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the knowledge that dew descended upon the produce comes after the event, the produce is rendered capable of becoming ritually unclean if the owner is pleased with the event, provided the produce is still moist. ');">⁷</span> Come and hear: R. Johanan said in the name of R. Ishmael<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other versions have Simeon instead of Ishmael. Cf. infra 27a, where the version is 'Simeon b. Yohai'. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק מנין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת דכתיב (דברים כב, ג) וכן תעשה לחמורו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם יצאתה זו שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם

b. Jehozadak: Whence [do we learn] that an article lost through the flooding of a river may be retained [by the finder]? It is written, <i>And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 3. ');">⁹</span> [which means to say that only] if the object has been lost to him and may be found by any person [has it to be returned to him, and it follows that] a case like this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the flooded river has carried off a person's goods. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואיסורא דומיא דהיתירא מה היתירא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן שרא אף איסורא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן אסורה תיובתא דרבא תיובתא

is exempt [from the Biblical law],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the restoration of lost property. ');">¹¹</span> since it is lost to him and cannot be found by any person. Moreover, the object which is forbidden [to be kept by the finder] is like the object which is permitted [to be kept by the finder]: Just as the permitted object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as an article which has been carried off by a stream and cannot be retrieved by everybody. ');">¹²</span>

והלכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם

may be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification mark or not, so the forbidden object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the object which has been lost in the ordinary way and may be found by anybody. ');">¹³</span> may not be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification mark or not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is reason to believe that the owner was not aware of his loss at the time when it was lost, though on becoming aware he would abandon hope of its return. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי וכי מאחר דאיתותב רבא הני תמרי דזיקא היכי אכלינן להו אמר ליה כיון דאיכא שקצים ורמשים דקא אכלי להו מעיקרא יאושי מיאש מנייהו

[This is] a complete refutation of Raba. And the law is in accordance with Abaye in [the cases indicated by the initials] Y'AL KGM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 159, n. 3. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: Seeing that Raba has been refuted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And 'anticipated abandonment' is not deemed effective. ');">¹⁶</span>

יתמי דלאו בני מחילה נינהו מאי אמר ליה באגא בארעא דיתמי לא מחזקינן

how is it that we eat dates that have been shaken down [from the tree] by the wind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that at the time when the dates are shaken down the owner is unaware of his loss and does not consciously give it up. ');">¹⁷</span> — [R. Ashi] answered him: [The owner] gives them up straight away because there are vermin and creeping creatures that eat them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner knows that some of the dates fall off the tree, and he gives them up in advance because vermin usually get at them and eat them. ');">¹⁸</span>

מוחזק ועומד מאי כרכתא מאי אמר ליה אסירן:

[But what if they belong to] orphans who [are minors and] cannot legally renounce [their possessions]? — [R. Ashi] answered him: We do not assume that every piece of ground is the property of orphans.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the majority of the fields or gardens do not belong to orphans we do not reckon with the possibility of orphan ownership. ');">¹⁹</span> But what if it is known [to be the property of orphans]? Or if the tree is surrounded by a fence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Guarding it against ravage by vermin and creeping creatures. ');">²⁰</span>

כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו: אמר רבה ואפילו בדבר שיש בו סימן אלמא קסבר רבה סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן רבא אמר לא שנו אלא בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן חייב להכריז אלמא קסבר רבא סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן

— [R. Ashi] answered him: Then they are forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In such cases the finder is not allowed to keep the fruit. ');">²¹</span> SMALL SHEAVES IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE BELONG TO THE FINDER. Rabbah said: Even when they have an identification mark. Consequently [it must be assumed that] Rabbah is of the opinion that an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the lost article is small and lies in a place where there is traffic, it is likely to be trodden on, so that the identification mark may disappear. ');">²²</span>

ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באנפי נפשה סימן העשוי לידרס רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן

is not [deemed to be] an identification mark.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner does not depend on the mark in such a case, and he gives up the article as soon as it is lost. ');">²³</span> Raba said [on the other hand]: [The Mishnah] refers only to things which have no identification mark, but things which have an identification mark have to be announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if the owner identifies them by the mark, he receives them back. ');">²⁴</span>

תנן כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז ה"ד אי דלית בהו סימן ברה"י מאי מכריז אלא לאו דאית בהו סימן וקתני ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן תיובתא דרבא

Consequently [it must be assumed that] Raba is of the opinion that an identification mark that is liable to be trodden on is [deemed to be] an identification mark. Some teach this as an independent controversy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not in connection with our Mishnah. ');">²⁵</span> In regard to an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on, Rabbah says that it is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, but Raba says that it is [deemed to be] an identification mark.

אמר לך רבא לעולם דלית בהו סימן ודקא אמרת ברה"י מאי מכריז מכריז מקום ורבה אמר מקום לא הוי סימן דאיתמר מקום רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן

We have learnt: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, [but if found] on private grounds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in a sown field which few people frequent. ');">²⁶</span> they have to be taken up and announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with MS.M.: 'they have to be announced', this passage being, as the term [H] indicates, a composite of our Mishnah and the next Mishnah, 25a.] ');">²⁷</span>

ת"ש כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז והאלומות בין ברה"ר ובין ברה"י נוטל ומכריז רבה היכי מתרץ לה ורבא היכי מתרץ לה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום

How is this to be understood? If [the sheaves] have no identification mark — what is there to be announced [if they are found] on private grounds? It must therefore be that they have an identification mark, and still it is stated that [if found] in a public thoroughfare they belong to the finder. Consequently [it must be assumed that] an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, which is a refutation of Raba! — Raba may answer you: In reality they have no identification mark; and as to your question, 'What is there to be announced [if they were found] on private grounds?', [the answer is:] The place [where they were found] is announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner then identifies the lost goods by indicating the place where he lost them. ');">²⁸</span> But Rabbah says that the place is no identification mark. For it has been stated: [In regard to] the place — Rabbah says, it is not considered an identification mark, but Raba says, it is an identification mark.

רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו משום

Come and hear: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, but [if found] on private grounds they have to be taken up and announced. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or [are found] on private grounds, have to be taken up and announced. How does Rabbah explain it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In what respect do big sheaves differ from small sheaves as regards being trodden on? ');">²⁹</span> and how does Raba explain it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In what respect do small sheaves differ from big sheaves as regards the absence of an identification mark? ');">³⁰</span> — Rabbah explains it according to his view: By the identification mark.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is retained in big sheaves but is lost in small sheaves. ');">³¹</span> Raba explains it according to his view: By the place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Big sheaves remain in the same place, but not small sheaves. ');">³²</span> Rabbah explains it according to his view — by the identification mark — [and the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder [is] that