פירוש על בבא מציעא 41:1

Which found items are [the finder's], and which is he obligated to proclaim? These found items are his: If he found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles [of grain] in a public area, round cakes of figs, bread of a baker, strings of fish, cuts of meat, unprocessed wool fleeces that are taken from their state, flax stalks or strips of combed purple wool, these belong to him. In the Gemara, we establish [the case of] scattered produce to be a kav in four cubits in the gathering [of grain] on a threshing floor. For that is a loss of which one is aware; as the owners do not want to exert themselves for a kav that is scattered over four cubits, so he abandons them. Scattered coins do not have an identifying mark, and are knowingly abandoned, like that [statement of Rabbi Yitzchak - since a person is accustomed to feeling in his purse all the time, he will know that they fell before they come to the hand of the finder. Bundles in a public area, according to Rabbah, are when they have an identifying mark, but it is prone to be trampled; so the owners do not rely on that identifying mark and abandon [them]. But in a private area, such as a plowed field, they are not prone to be trampled, so he is obligated to announce [his finding it]. And in these [other cases], it makes no distinction between a public area and a private area. With piles of fruit, [however,] we do not trample them; and piles of coins do not move from their place by being trampled. And according to Rava, [the case of bundles] is speaking about when they do not have an identifying mark - so in a private area, [the owner] can give the place as an identifying mark; but in a public area, it rolls around from the feet of people and the feet of animals, so they did not have the place as an identifying mark. But in all of these [other cases], it does not distinguish [between a private area and a public area], since it is not the custom to place them on the ground, but they rather fell in the way of being dropped - and they do not have an identifying mark, so [the owners] abandoned them. But the standard case of bundles is [that it is found] in the manner of being placed - when a man stops to rest and puts down his load and they stayed there through some incident. So the owners abandon [them], since they do not have an identifying mark; and not everyone knows that one may not take [an object when there is] a doubt that it was placed down, and all the more so [when it is] certain - so they will take them........ Rabbi Yirmayah inquired, what about a half kav in two cubits by two cubits, since their value is less but their effort is [also] less; two kav in eight cubits by eight cubits, since their value is more but their effort is [also] more; a kav of sesame seeds in four cubits, since they are significant (in value), but their effort is greater; a kav of dates or a kav of pomegranates in four cubits, since they are not significant (in value), but their effort is less? It was not resolved. And since it was not resolved, we are strict concerning a doubt in a Torah law, so one is obligated to announce [his finding it].

Which found items are [the finder's], and which is he obligated to proclaim? These found items are his: If he found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles [of grain] in a public area, round cakes of figs, bread of a baker, strings of fish, cuts of meat, unprocessed wool fleeces that are taken from their state, flax stalks or strips of combed purple wool, these belong to him. In the Gemara, we establish [the case of] scattered produce to be a kav in four cubits in the gathering [of grain] on a threshing floor. For that is a loss of which one is aware; as the owners do not want to exert themselves for a kav that is scattered over four cubits, so he abandons them. Scattered coins do not have an identifying mark, and are knowingly abandoned, like that [statement of Rabbi Yitzchak - since a person is accustomed to feeling in his purse all the time, he will know that they fell before they come to the hand of the finder. Bundles in a public area, according to Rabbah, are when they have an identifying mark, but it is prone to be trampled; so the owners do not rely on that identifying mark and abandon [them]. But in a private area, such as a plowed field, they are not prone to be trampled, so he is obligated to announce [his finding it]. And in these [other cases], it makes no distinction between a public area and a private area. With piles of fruit, [however,] we do not trample them; and piles of coins do not move from their place by being trampled. And according to Rava, [the case of bundles] is speaking about when they do not have an identifying mark - so in a private area, [the owner] can give the place as an identifying mark; but in a public area, it rolls around from the feet of people and the feet of animals, so they did not have the place as an identifying mark. But in all of these [other cases], it does not distinguish [between a private area and a public area], since it is not the custom to place them on the ground, but they rather fell in the way of being dropped - and they do not have an identifying mark, so [the owners] abandoned them. But the standard case of bundles is [that it is found] in the manner of being placed - when a man stops to rest and puts down his load and they stayed there through some incident. So the owners abandon [them], since they do not have an identifying mark; and not everyone knows that one may not take [an object when there is] a doubt that it was placed down, and all the more so [when it is] certain - so they will take them........ Rabbi Yirmayah inquired, what about a half kav in two cubits by two cubits, since their value is less but their effort is [also] less; two kav in eight cubits by eight cubits, since their value is more but their effort is [also] more; a kav of sesame seeds in four cubits, since they are significant (in value), but their effort is greater; a kav of dates or a kav of pomegranates in four cubits, since they are not significant (in value), but their effort is less? It was not resolved. And since it was not resolved, we are strict concerning a doubt in a Torah law, so one is obligated to announce [his finding it].

Which found items are [the finder's], and which is he obligated to proclaim? These found items are his: If he found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles [of grain] in a public area, round cakes of figs, bread of a baker, strings of fish, cuts of meat, unprocessed wool fleeces that are taken from their state, flax stalks or strips of combed purple wool, these belong to him. In the Gemara, we establish [the case of] scattered produce to be a kav in four cubits in the gathering [of grain] on a threshing floor. For that is a loss of which one is aware; as the owners do not want to exert themselves for a kav that is scattered over four cubits, so he abandons them. Scattered coins do not have an identifying mark, and are knowingly abandoned, like that [statement of Rabbi Yitzchak - since a person is accustomed to feeling in his purse all the time, he will know that they fell before they come to the hand of the finder. Bundles in a public area, according to Rabbah, are when they have an identifying mark, but it is prone to be trampled; so the owners do not rely on that identifying mark and abandon [them]. But in a private area, such as a plowed field, they are not prone to be trampled, so he is obligated to announce [his finding it]. And in these [other cases], it makes no distinction between a public area and a private area. With piles of fruit, [however,] we do not trample them; and piles of coins do not move from their place by being trampled. And according to Rava, [the case of bundles] is speaking about when they do not have an identifying mark - so in a private area, [the owner] can give the place as an identifying mark; but in a public area, it rolls around from the feet of people and the feet of animals, so they did not have the place as an identifying mark. But in all of these [other cases], it does not distinguish [between a private area and a public area], since it is not the custom to place them on the ground, but they rather fell in the way of being dropped - and they do not have an identifying mark, so [the owners] abandoned them. But the standard case of bundles is [that it is found] in the manner of being placed - when a man stops to rest and puts down his load and they stayed there through some incident. So the owners abandon [them], since they do not have an identifying mark; and not everyone knows that one may not take [an object when there is] a doubt that it was placed down, and all the more so [when it is] certain - so they will take them........ Rabbi Yirmayah inquired, what about a half kav in two cubits by two cubits, since their value is less but their effort is [also] less; two kav in eight cubits by eight cubits, since their value is more but their effort is [also] more; a kav of sesame seeds in four cubits, since they are significant (in value), but their effort is greater; a kav of dates or a kav of pomegranates in four cubits, since they are not significant (in value), but their effort is less? It was not resolved. And since it was not resolved, we are strict concerning a doubt in a Torah law, so one is obligated to announce [his finding it].

Mishna - Elu Metziot: If he found scattered produce - their owners have abandoned them; so they are ownerless, as it says in the gemara.

Mishnah - Elu Metziot Shelo: Bundles in a public area - It is specifically with bundles that it distinguishes between a public area and a private area: As according to the one that holds (later, on Bava Metzia 22b) that an identifying mark that is prone to be trampled is [considered] an identifying mark, and that a place is an identifying mark - it is speaking here when there is no identifying mark; and the place is also not an identifying mark in a public area, because they roll around. But the place is an identifying mark in a private area - such that one would be obligated to announce [them when they are found there]. And that is speaking about when it is found in the manner of being placed down (intentionally). But bread of a baker and round cakes of figs do not have an identifying mark, so they are [the finder's] even in a private area. And that is speaking about when he found it in the manner of [something] being dropped - hence the place is not an identifying mark. And if you will say, "Why does it mention bundles, in the manner of being placed down, more than the other [cases] - about which it is speaking in the manner of being dropped" - one can say that because the bundles are expensive, they would not have been dropped without his awareness (he would be more mindful about them). Rather, [the case would be] that when he stopped to rest, he placed them on the ground and forgot them there. However, the bread [from the kitchen] of a homeowner has an identifying mark, for homeowners are accustomed to make an identifying mark on their bread. Hence even [if they were found] in a public area, one is obligated to announce [them] - for an identifying mark that is prone to be trampled is [considered] an identifying mark. And [the reason] that the place is an identifying mark with piles of fruit or piles of money even in a public place - as it says later on - is because rolling around is not applicable to them. And if you will say, "How can [finders] take bundles in a public place when it is speaking about [them being found in] the manner of being placed down - behold, we say later that one may not take [an object when there is] a doubt that it was placed down, and all the more so [when it is] certain" - one can say that those words (that case) is when he finds [it] in a hidden and guarded place, such that he should not take it if there is no identifying mark; and if there is an identifying mark, he takes [it] and announces [it]. And according to the one that holds (later, on Bava Metzia 22b) that an identifying mark that is prone to be trampled is not [considered] an identifying mark, and that a place is also not an identifying mark - it is speaking about bundles that have an identifying mark. And hence one announces it [when it was found] in a private area. But the bread of the baker and the rest of [the cases in] our mishnah do not have an identifying mark. And hence they are his, even [if they were found] in a private area. However, he is obligated to announce the bread [from the kitchen] of a homeowner that has an identifying mark, even [when found] in a public place - as it is not something that is prone to be trampled, since we do not pass by food [without picking it up]. And our entire mishnah is speaking about whether [the object] was [found] in the manner of being dropped or whether it was in the manner of being placed down. And if you will say, "If the bundles were in the manner of being dropped, hence [the one who dropped them] does not know where they are; so why does he need to announce [them] - behold [the owner has abandoned them, since he believes that they fell in the public area" - one can say that even though he is not able to determine the place [where he dropped it], he knows whether it fell in a public area or a private area.

Scattered coins - Since they do not have a clear identifying mark, he abandons [them], and they become ownerless. And this is the reason for all of [these items].

Bundles (Kerichot) - Small sheaves. [It is] like we translate "gathering bundles" (Genesis 37:7), [as] mekarkhan kerichan in the Jerusalem Talmud.

In a public area - as everyone tramples them. And if they had an identifying mark, it is surely destroyed.

Of a baker - All baker's bread is the same, but bread [from the kitchen] of a homeowner has an identifying mark.

From their state - As they are, when they are shorn like all of the the shearings in the state. [This is] to exclude those that come from the craftsman's home, as it is learned in the lower part (the next mishnah).

Flax stalks - Ristes in the language of Ashkenaz (Germany); and in our place (France), it is popedes.

Strips (literally, tongues) of purple wool - Combed and pulled wool, then dyed purple; and they are common.

Found a round cake - of figs.

Anpurya - it will be explained in the gemara.

Gemara: And how much - is [still] considered scattered?

And how much? Rabbi Yitzchak says, "One kav in four [by four] cubits" - and it must be said that Rabbi Yitzchak himself inquired, "And how much?" For if the gemara inquired, "And how much," let it establish [the case as being in] the manner of being dropped, and even more [than a kav] - as the gemara challenges after this. Rather [the question] is from the words of Rabbi Yitzchak. And Rabbi Yitzchak may not establish [the case to be] in the manner of being dropped and even more, because he holds - like Abbaye - that abandonment without intention is not [considered] abandonment. Rather, he establishes it to be in the gathering [of grain] on the threshing floor, such that he left them there intentionally. And likewise in this way is it found in our chapter (Bava Metzia 30b) that when it inquires, "And forever? Rav Yehuda [answers], etc." - it must be said that Rav Yehudah said, "And forever?" And likewise in the chapter [entitled] Lo Yachpor (Bava Batra 22b, and Tosafot there, s.v. and how much) concerning distancing from windows, such that it says, "And how much? Rav Yeiva said, 'The full width of the window.'"

A kav - scattered in four [by four] cubits; but in three [by three] cubits, it is not [considered] scattered. And the reason will be explained as we go.

If in a manner of falling - If he found them in the manner of being dropped; [such] that it can be ascertained that they were not placed there internationally, but rather fell.

Even greater - than a kav as well; for there is no sign that [the owner] abandoned [them].

And if in a manner of placement, etc. - he will return and take them in the future.

The gathering on the threshing floor - At the time of the gathering of the threshing floors; and their owners thresh [the grain] and carry off the main part and leave these over.

Great exertion - to collect them.

Smaller than that - If their scattering was in [an area] less than this.

Because they are not of significant [value] - to him, the kav of produce, to exert himself for them with the exertion of gathering [them] over four [by four] cubits.

A half-kav in an area of two cubits, what is [the law] - It is a wonder: Is a kav in four cubits not also a half-kav in two cubits (is the ratio not the same); so what is he inquiring? And one can say that since there is only a half-kav, he will take [them] since there is no exertion [beyond this] to finish. But [with] a kav in four cubits, since there is exertion to take all of it, he does not take [them] at all. Or also (another answer), a kav in four by four cubits is [the same as] half a kav in two cubits width by four cubits length, whereas here he is inquiring about two cubits by two cubits.

Sesame [seeds] - are very small, so there is more exertion than [with] wheat; but their value is high.

Dates and pomegranates - are large, and there is no exertion in gathering them.

These found objects are his: The explanation [of this is] - not specifically these, but rather anything that does not have an identifying mark is surely his. But it needed these to make us understand that they do not have an identifying mark. And for Abbaye, it was needed to make us understand that they were not [cases of] abandonment without awareness. And for Rava, it is possible that it came to make us understand that [this is the law] even though [the owner] did not know that it fell from him, for abandonment without awareness is [still considered] abandonment. And, according to Rava, from that which it teaches - bundles in a public area are his, but in a private area, he announces - it is implied that a knot is an identifying mark...

Scattered produce. And how much, etc... What are the circumstances?: There are those that raise the difficulty for us, that since the Talmud holds that if [the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a kav would require announcement]; if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder] - why does it originally inquire, "and how much." And they answer that Rabbi Yitzchak himself said this: "And how much? One kav in four cubits." And so too do they explain that which it says later (Bava Metzia 30b) concerning one who found a donkey or a cow grazing on a path not being a lost object, and the gemara inquires, "And forever;" and Rav Yehuda [answers], three days," and it comes back and asks, "What are the circumstances," etc. And since it asks, "What are the circumstances," why did it originally inquire, "And how much (forever)?" Rather, it is Rav Yehudah that inquired this. And likewise in the chapter [entitled] Lo Yachpor (Bava Batra 22b) [when it says], "With what are we dealing here? [With a wall that is positioned] to the side. And how much? The full width of the window, etc. But can’t he still peer in, etc.?" And so have I heard and it is a correct thing. And likewise in this way is that which they said in the first chapter of Chagigah 4a, "Slaves, from where do we derive it? Rav Huna said, 'The verse stated, etc.'" And it goes back and asks, "Why do I need a verse, etc.?" And it is likewise in many places. And likewise that which we said in the first chapter (Bava Metzia 18b) - "Rabba does not say like Rabbi Zeira, as he holds that a mishna is stronger for raising a difficulty" - is in this way. For at the beginning, it is the Talmud saying it. However the one in the chapter [entitled] Lo Yachpor is not similar to these. And its main explanation is like this: The one that asked the question was not at ease with four cubits nor was he at ease with the full width of the window, but rather with an in-between measurement, such as [two] (four) cubits and that which is similar to it.

These found objects are his - These which it goes on to list, are not [meant to be] exclusively these alone, but rather anything that has an identifying mark. But it took these: For Abbaye - who says abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment - to make us understand that even so, they are surely immediately the finder's, [as] since they are significant or weighty, [the owners] will certainly know [about their loss], as it is found in the gemara; and according to Rava, to make us understand - from the extraneous [inclusion] of all these that it goes on to list, or from the implication of one of them - that abandonment without awareness is [still considered] abandonment.

Gemara: What are the circumstances? If [the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a kav would require announcement]; if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder] - One can be precise [and ask]; if so, why does it originally inquire, "how much?" And one can say that this, "how much," is from the words of Rabbi Yitzchak. And it is as if it said, Rabbi Yitzchak said, "How much? One kav in four cubits." And for that reason, they raised the difficulty, "What are the circumstances." And there is [a case] like this later (Bava Metzia 30b) concerning one who found a donkey or a cow grazing on a path not being a lost object, and the gemara inquires, "And forever;" and Rav Yehuda [answers], three days," and we come back and raise the difficulty, "What are the circumstances," etc. And since it asks, "What are the circumstances," why did it originally inquire, "And forever?" Rather, it is Rav Yehudah that said this. And another [example is] in the chapter [entitled] Lo Yachpor (Bava Batra 22b) [when it says], "With what are we dealing here? [With a wall that is positioned] to the side. [And how much? Rav Yeiva said, 'etc.] The full width of the window, etc.' But did it not teach, four cubits etc.?" And And another [example] like these is in the first chapter of Chagigah 4a, "Slaves, from where do we derive it? Rav Huna said, 'The verse stated, etc.'" And it goes back and asks, "Why do I need a verse, etc.?"

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said, "We are dealing with the gathering [of grain] on the threshing floor - One can be precise [and ask], why did Rabbi Yitzchak establish [the mishnah] to be specifically [a case of] a kav in four cubits and in the gathering [of grain] on the threshing floor? Let him establish it about a found object in general and [it being found] in the way of being dropped, and even more [than a kav]. And there is someone that answers that it is necessary for him, because he holds like Abbaye - since the law is like him - who says that abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment. And hence our mishnah is not about a found object in general, but rather specifically [a case of] the gathering on the threshing floor - for it is a loss with awareness. And you should know it from that which we raise a difficulty from [the mishnah] to Abbaye (Bava Metzia 21b), and we do not find a resolution besides [the mishnah being a case of] the gathering on the threshing floor. And if you will say, "If so, how did it ask, 'if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]" - one can say that the one that asks this held [like Rava. And Mar Ukava told him that it was specifically in the gathering on the threshing floor, and that is inevitable - since abandonment without] awareness is not [considered] abandonment. But this is not compelling in my eyes. For since we follow Abbaye, how could the gemara overtly raise a difficulty from the opinion of Rava - as the difficulty is [raised by] the gemara, so it [must be] stated according to the law (which is like Abbaye). And I can [answer] that it is saying it to [Rabbi Yitzchak], according to his explanation. As it thought that since he established [the mishnah] to be [in a case of] a kav in four cubits, it is implied that it is because they were scattered, and that he held like Rava. And because of this, they brought up a difficulty for him - [if it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]; as [if the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a kav would require announcement]. And one can also say that Rabbi Yitzchak came to make us understand the law of gathering on the threshing floor, and to say that our mishnah is speaking about any lost object, and even a loss about which one is aware - which is the [case of] gathering on the threshing floor when there is no more than a kav in four cubits. However, in general, if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder] - as since they were weighty, [the owner] would surely know [about their loss]. And that which we establish [the mishnah] later on according to Abbaye, to be about gathering [in the threshing floor] - that was before we knew the explanation of weightiness. But after we needed to answer about round cakes of figs (Bava Metzia 21b), that on account of their weightiness, [the owner] would know; we would not need to establish scattered grain only in gathering [in a threshing floor, but rather also in general. And that appears to be the opinion of the Rif, may his memory be blessed, who wrote this difficulty in his Halakhot (Rif Bava Metzia 12a) - "If [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]." And if it is not like this explanation, why did he write this? Is it not [otherwise] like the opinion of Rava, and we hold like Abbaye. And with this, the words of the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, are understood.

A half-kav in an area of two cubits, what is [the law] - It appears that it means two cubits by a length of four cubits, which is half of four by four cubits. For if it was two cubits by two cubits, it would only be a quarter. And likewise also, "two kav in an area of eight cubits" does not mean eight by eight, but rather eight by four.

One kav of sesame in four cubits, what is [the law], etc. One kav of dates, what is [the law], etc. - This is a wonder to me, why do I need all of these [questions]? Behold the main question of all of them is only whether the reason is because the exertion is great or because the [lost items] are not significant. And if you answered one of them, you have answered all of them. And does he need to go on like a peddler [to list all of the questions]? And one can say that not all of them were said in one study hall, but rather each and every one was inquired in its [own] study hall; and Rav Ashi (the editor of the Talmud) came and arranged them all like this. And there are many [cases] similar to this in the gemara. Or also (another answer), it is possible that there is a little bit of a reason that is in one that is not in the other. So even if you say that the reason is because they are not significant, whereas sesame is significant - nevertheless since there is excessive exertion, he would surely render it ownerless; or maybe the whole thing depends on significance, and since they are significant, he would not render them ownerless even if their exertion is excessive. And [with] a kav of dates or pomegranates - even though they are not significant, since there is only a little exertion, he would not render them ownerless; or perhaps the whole thing depends on significance, and since they are not significant, he would render them ownerless even if there is only a little exertion.

MISHNAH: Which found objects are his, the finders; and which is he not obligated to annonce that he found them, such that the owner of the lost object may come and identify his lost object?

Which found items are his, and which items is he obligated to announce - The explanation of that which it teaches, "Which found items are his"; and it does not teach, "Which found items is he not obligated to announce" is [that it is] to make us understand that even if the other brought witnesses that it fell from him, we do not give it to him. For since it is something that does not have an identifying mark, he presumably surely abandoned it and it became ownerless.