Bava Metzia 43

וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה מה שנטל נטל ומה שנתן נתן

or if the Jordan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or any other river which carries away goods and lands them somewhere else. ');">¹</span> takes from one and gives to another, then what has been taken is taken, and what has been given is given.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The recipient has a right to keep the goods. Cf. B.K., 114a. ');">²</span>

בשלמא גזלן וירדן דקא חזי להו ומיאש אלא גנב מי קא חזי ליה דמיאש תרגמה רב פפא בלסטים מזוין אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן

Now, this is obviously right as regards [things taken] by a robber or by the Jordan, because [the owner] sees them [when they are taken]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He sees them being carried off and he at once abandons them. ');">³</span> and he gives up hope, but as regards a thief — does the owner see him [steal] so that [we could say that] he has given up hope?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the owner does not become aware of his loss when it occurs he cannot be said to have consciously abandoned hope. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש שטף נהר קוריו עציו ואבניו ונתנו בתוך שדה חבירו הרי אלו שלו מפני שנתיאשו הבעלים טעמא דנתיאשו הבעלים הא סתמא לא הכא במאי עסקינן כשיכול להציל

— Rab papa explained it as referring to armed bandits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who commit open larceny, so that the owner becomes aware of his loss at once and abandons it. ');">⁵</span> But then it is the same as 'robbers'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.K. 57a. ');">⁶</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם חייב להחזיר אי ביכולין להציל מאי אריא מרדפין אפילו אין מרדפין נמי הכא במאי עסקינן ביכולין להציל על ידי הדחק מרדפין לא אייאוש אין מרדפין אייאושי מיאש

— There are two kinds of robbers. Come and hear: If a river has carried off someone's beams, timber, or stones, and has deposited them in a neighbour's field, they belong to the neighbour because the owner has given up hope.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An event like the flooding of one's property soon becomes known, and the owner becomes aware of his loss and gives up hope. In the Tosef. Keth. VIII, the version is: 'They belong to the neighbour if the owner has given up hope,' so also R. Han. and Tosaf. a.l. (q.v.). ');">⁷</span>

ת"ש כיצד אמרו התורם שלא מדעת תרומתו תרומה הרי שירד לתוך שדה חבירו וליקט ותרם שלא ברשות אם חושש משום גזל אין תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו תרומתו תרומה

So the reason [why they belong to the neighbour] is that the owner has given up hope, but ordinarily they would not [belong to the neighbour]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In regard to an ordinary loss, of which the owner is not likely to have become aware at once, it would not be said that it belongs to the finder. This would contradict the view of Raba. ');">⁸</span> Here we deal with a case where [the owner] is able to retrieve them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that ordinarily the owner never gives up hope and there is not even 'anticipated abandonment'. Thus there is no contradiction to Raba. ');">⁹</span>

ומנין הוא יודע אם חושש משום גזל ואם לאו הרי שבא בעל הבית ומצאו ואמר לו כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה ליקטו הבעלים והוסיפו עליהן בין כך ובין כך תרומתו תרומה

But if so, I must refer you to the last part [of the quoted teaching]: 'If the owner was running after them, [the neighbour] must return them': Now if it is a case where [the owner] is able to retrieve them, why state that he is running after them? [They should belong to him] even if he does not run after them! — We deal here with a case where the owner is able to retrieve [the property] with difficulty: If he runs after it [we conclude] that he has not given up the hope [of recovery]; if he does not run after it [we conclude] that he has given up the hope [of recovery]. Come and hear: In what circumstances has it been said that if one sets apart the heave-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 8. ');">¹⁰</span>

וכי נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה אמאי בעידנא דתרם הא לא הוה ידע תרגמה רבא אליבא דאביי דשויה שליח

without the knowledge [of the owner] the offering is valid? If one goes down into a neighbour's field, collects [the produce] and sets apart the heave-offering, without permission, if [the owner objects to the action and] considers it robbery, the offering is not valid, but if not, it is valid. And how can one tell whether [the owner] considers it as robbery or not? If the owner, on arriving and finding the person [in the field], says to him: You should have gone and taken the better kind [of the produce for the heave-offering], the offering is valid if there is a better kind to be found [in the field], but if not, it is not valid. If the owner collected [more of the produce] and added it [to the offering] it is valid in any case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 52b. ');">¹¹</span> Thus [we see that] if there is a better kind [in the field] the offering is valid. But [is this so?] surely at the time when the offering was set apart [the owner] did not know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must therefore be concluded that 'anticipated knowledge' is as good as real knowledge. In the same way 'anticipated abandonment' should be deemed as valid as real abandonment, in contradiction to Abaye. ');">¹²</span>

ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד דלא שוויה שליח מי הויא תרומתו תרומה והא אתם (במדבר יח, ג) גם אתם אמר רחמנא לרבות שלוחכם מה אתם לדעתכם אף שלוחכם לדעתכם

— Raba explained it according to Abaye: [The owner] made him [who set apart the offering] his agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he can act for his owner at any time, and his action is always valid. ');">¹³</span> This is conclusive indeed. For if you were to assume that he did not make him his agent, how could the offering be valid? Did not the Divine Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דשויה שליח וא"ל זיל תרום ולא א"ל תרום מהני וסתמיה דבעל הבית כי תרום מבינונית הוא תרום ואזל איהו ותרם מיפות ובא בעל הבית ומצאו וא"ל כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה

[instead of] 'Ye', say, 'ye also',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. ');">¹⁴</span> to include 'your agent', [as much as to say:] As you [set apart your offerings] with your own knowledge so must your agent [set apart your offerings] with your knowledge?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The agent must have the owner's mandate to act for him. Cf. infra 71b; Kid. 41b. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי אקלעו לבוסתנא דמרי בר איסק אייתי אריסיה תמרי ורימוני ושדא קמייהו אמימר ורב אשי אכלי מר זוטרא לא אכיל אדהכי אתא מרי בר איסק אשכחינהו וא"ל לאריסיה אמאי לא אייתית להו לרבנן מהנך שפירתא

Therefore we must deal here with a case where [the owner] made him his agent and said to him, 'Go and set apart the heave-offering,' but did not say to him, 'Set it apart from this kind,' and usually an owner sets apart the heave-offering from the medium kind, but that other person went and set it apart from a better kind, whereupon the owner arrived and, finding him [in the field], said to him, 'You should have gone and taken it from a [still] better kind.'[In such a case the law is that] if a better kind can be found [in the field] the offering is valid, but if not, it is not valid. Amemar, Mar zutra. and R. Ashi once entered the orchard of Mari b. Isak [whereupon] his factor brought dates and pomegranates and offered them [to the visitors]: Amemar and R. Ashi ate them, but Mar Zutra did not eat them. Meanwhile Mari b. Isak arrived and he found them. He then said to his factor: Why did you not bring for the Rabbis some of those better kinds [of fruit]? Whereupon Amemar and R. Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Why does the Master not eat now? Has it not been taught: 'If better ones can be found, the offering is valid'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the owner's suggestion to offer up better ones is taken as an expression of his consent to the agent's action in the case of the heave-offering, so here also Mari b. Isak's suggestion to his factor should be taken as an expression of his approval of the factor's action in offering the fruit to the Rabbis. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמרו ליה אמימר ורב אשי למר זוטרא השתא אמאי לא אכיל מר והתניא אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה אמר להו הכי אמר רבא לא אמרו כלך אצל יפות אלא לענין תרומה בלבד משום דמצוה הוא וניחא ליה אבל הכא משום כסיפותא הוא דאמר הכי

[Mar Zutra] answered them: Thus said Raba: 'You should have gone and taken better ones' has been declared to be a valid observation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implying an expression of consent on the part of the owner. ');">¹⁷</span> only in regard to a heave-offering, because it is [the fulfilment of] a divine command, and he really wishes [to offer better ones], but here he may have said it out of courtesy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bashfulness'; and may not really be an expression of consent. ');">¹⁸</span>

תא שמע עודהו הטל עליהן ושמח הרי זה (ויקרא יא, לח) בכי יותן נגבו אף על פי ששמח

Come and hear: 'If the dew is still upon them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., upon produce exposed to be dried, which by receiving moisture from water or other specified liquids (v. Mak. VI, 4) is rendered capable of becoming ritually unclean. ');">¹⁹</span> and the owner is pleased,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only when the owner of the produce is pleased with the process of wetting which the produce undergoes that the produce is by this process rendered capable of becoming ritually unclean. ');">²⁰</span> then [the Scriptural term, <i>If water</i>] <i>be put [upon the seed]</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 38. ');">²¹</span> applies to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it becomes capable of being rendered ritually unclean. ');">²²</span> If it turned dry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if at the time when the owner heard that the dew had come upon the produce it was dry again. ');">²³</span> then, even if [the owner] is pleased [that the dew came upon it at first,