Bava Batra 46
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ניפול הנמצא בתוך חמשים אמה הרי הוא של בעל השובך חוץ מחמשים אמה הרי הוא של מוצאו נמצא בין שני שובכות קרוב לזה שלו קרוב לזה שלו מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו:
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. A YOUNG PIGEON WHICH IS FOUND ON THE GROUND WITHIN FIFTY CUBITS FROM A COTE BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE COTE; IF FOUND BEYOND FIFTY CUBITS FROM THE COTE, IT BELONGS TO THE FINDER. IF IT IS FOUND BETWEEN TWO COTES IT BELONGS TO THE ONE TO WHOSE COTE IT IS NEARER. IF IT IS EXACTLY MIDWAY, THEY MUST SHARE IT.
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי חנינא רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב ואע"ג דרובא דאורייתא וקורבא דאורייתא אפילו הכי רובא עדיף
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hanina says: If a case can be decided one way on the ground of 'majority' and another way on the ground of 'nearness',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a thing may conceivably belong to either of two categories, one of which is the more numerous, but the other in closer proximity; v. next note. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
מתיב רבי זירא (דברים כא, ג) והיה העיר הקרובה אל החלל ואע"ג דאיכא אחריתי דנפישא מינה
we decide on the ground of 'majority'. And although the plea of 'nearness' equally with the plea of 'majority' derives its warrant from the Scripture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The plea of 'majority' is derived from the words [H] (Ex. XXIII, 2). which the Rabbis render (for purposes of halachah), 'Incline judgment after a majority.' i.e., according to the answer to the question. To what class do most things like this belong? The plea of 'nearness' is derived from the verse, And it shall come to pass that the city which is nearest etc. (Deut. XXI. 3)' i.e., we decide according to the answer to the question. Where are the nearest examples of things of this kind? (in this case, potential murderers). ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
תנן ניפול הנמצא בתוך חמשים אמה הרי הוא של בעל השובך ואף על גב דאיכא אחרינא דנפיש מיניה בדליכא
R. Zera questioned this. Scripture tells us, <i>And it shall come to pass that the city nearest unto the slain man</i> … [<i>shall bring a heifer</i>]. that is to say, even though there are other towns [in the vicinity] with a larger population? — We assume that there are none. But [if 'majority' is the decisive factor] why not take the biggest town anywhere? — Scripture speaks of a town surrounded by mountains.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the murderer would not naturally come to the spot from another town. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אי הכי אימא סיפא חוץ מחמשים אמה הרי הוא של מוצאו ואי דליכא ודאי מההוא נפל הכא במאי עסקינן במדדה דאמר רב עוקבא בר חמא כל המדדה אין מדדה יותר מחמשים
We learnt: A YOUNG PIGEON WHICH IS FOUND ON THE GROUND WITHIN FIFTY CUBITS OF A COTE BELONGS TO THE OWNER OF THE COTE; and this even though there may be a bigger cote in the neighbourhood? We assume that there is not. If that is so, then what of the next clause: IF FOUND BEYOND FIFTY CUBITS FROM THE COTE, IT BELONGS TO THE FINDER? Now if there are no other cotes in the neighbourhood, there can be no question that the bird comes from this one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we cannot assume that there is no larger cote in the neighbourhood. and therefore the answer to the previous objection will not stand. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
בעי ר' ירמיה רגלו אחת בתוך חמשים אמה ורגלו אחת חוץ מחמשים אמה מהו ועל דא אפקוהו לרבי ירמיה מבי מדרשא
— Our Mishnah speaks [in the first clause] of a bird which can only hop. since Mar 'Ukba has laid down that a bird which can only hop does not go further than fifty cubits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence if it is found beyond 50 cubits it must have flown and may have come from 'the biggest anywhere', and therefore belongs to the finder. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
תא שמע נמצא בין שני שובכות קרוב לזה שלו וקרוב לזה שלו ואף על גב דחד מינייהו נפיש מחבריה הכא במאי עסקינן ששניהן שוין וליזיל בתר רובא דעלמא הכא במאי עסקינן
R. Jeremiah raised the question: If one foot is within fifty cubits and the other beyond. how do we decide? It was for this that they turned R. Jeremiah out of the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, because his question was regarded as foolish, but according to Tosaf., because he ventured to call in question the statement of the Rabbis that a young bird can hop only fifty cubits. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> Come and hear: IF IT IS FOUND BETWEEN TWO COTES. IT BELONGS TO THE OWNER TO WHOSE COTE IT IS NEARER: and this though one may have more birds than the other? — We are dealing here with the case where both are equal. But [if it is more than fifty cubits from each] let us say that it comes from the biggest anywhere?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore belongs to the finder. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> — We are dealing here