פירוש על בבא מציעא 42:21

Despair (abandonment) that is not conscious - Something that in a standard case is abandoned when he knows that it fell from him; but when [the finder] found it, the owners did not yet know that it fell from them.

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].

Is not [considered] despair (abandonment) - Their argument will be explained in its continuation.

That he ultimately despairs (abandons it) - after this one finds it. And the principle of abandonment is such as when he says, "Woe is me for the monetary loss" - as he reveals his thinking that he has despaired about [reclaiming] them.

Because when it fell, he does not despair (abandon it) - And even though, he abandons it now, it is a general coincidence; and he was not prepared to abandon them as first.

In a prohibited [manner] that it came into his possession - For it is something that is not prone to be abandoned.

By the tide (zuto) of the sea - Places on the seashore, where it is the way of the sea to return [to the shore] ten or fifteen parsa twice a day, so it sweeps away that which it finds there and goes. Zuto is an expression of largeness and expansion in the Greek language; like the sages wrote [in their Greek translation] to King Ptolemy, "and upon the exalted ones" (Exodus 24:11), [as] "and upon the zatuti" (Megillah 9a).

Or by the flooding (sheluliyato) of a river - when it expanded and overflows its banks and takes booty (sholel shelal) and sweeps away that which is found.

The Merciful One permits it - and even when it comes to the finder before abandonment [by its original owner].

Below - in our discussion, "From where do we know that a lost object swept away by a river, etc."

From now, that he despairs (it is abandoned) - For behold, it fell; and when he knows, his mind will no longer be upon it.

That is a deliberate loss - As it did not fall from him, and he knowingly placed them down [to be] ownerless.

Prone to feel - So before this one finds it, it is known to the owners that they fell and they abandon it.

Are heavy (literally, weighty) - A load that is heavy.

Come and hear, one who finds coins, etc. - It is a wonder: Since it already brought a difficulty from our mishnah about scattered coins, why does it also challenge from this baraita? And also why did Rabbi Yitzhak not say his piece about our mishnah? And it can be said that it was stronger for it to raise a difficulty on the baraita, since it implies that it is the [finder's] in all cases - even in the case where there is an identifying mark, since it establishes the reason to be because the multitudes are found there. And it is also implied [that this is the case] even though the owner of the lost object was still in the study hall when [the finder] picked it up, and he didn't know that it had fallen from him.

"Elderly people who walk [with] a cane - Poor elderly men walk slowly with their canes, so they see each and every sheaf. And the expression, nemushot, is like [its usage], "shall not depart (yamushu)" (Isaiah 59:21) - since they feel and [then] they go.

The gleaners after the gleaners - The expression, nemushot, is like [its usage], "not feel (yamish)" (Exodus 13:22) - as they take and feel everything from in front of them.

And why - if abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment.

Given that - concerning the poor people from here, it is abandonment with awareness; since they saw the nemushot walked through it. But the poor of another city do not yet know - so how is it that we are permitted it. Rather it is because their abandonment, when they do know, is [considered] abandonment from the time [the nemushot] left it. So it was permissible when it came to the hand of this one.

Dried figs - Figs that are cut off with a scalpel, such that their sap flows out; and we spread them out on the field to dry.

And exempt from tithes - In Tractate Peah 4:1, it is shown that it is only when he renders it ownerless before the end of the work [on the produce] that it is exempt from tithes. But if he renders it ownerless after the end of the work, when he was already obligated in tithes, there is nothing in this. And here too is it is speaking about after the end of the work, such that they have not yet dried - as it is shown in Beitzah 34b, the chapter [entitled] Hamevie - that the end of the work of figs that are ready to be spread out in the field and to be made into dried figs, is not until they are dried. And even if the finder claimed them before they dried, they are [still] exempt from tithes, as we say in Bava Kamma 28a, "One who renders his vineyard ownerless and arose early in the morning and harvested it [...] is exempt from tithes." But it is not like this concerning consecrated property (hekdesh). As if he consecrated [it] before the end of the work and it was redeemed before the end of the work, it is [still] obligated in tithes, as it is somewhat shown in the chapter [entitled] HaOmer (Kiddushin 62b).

And even in the side of a field of dried figs - A field in which we spread out figs to dry, as he knows that they came from them.

Permitted [regarding] robbery - Even though he did not know when they fell; since once he will know, he will abandon [them], the abandonment is from now - like Rava.

Exempt from tithes - like the law of ownerless property. As ownerless property is exempt form tithes.

In [the case of] olives or of carobs, it is prohibited - like Abbaye.

Granted, the first clause [to] Abbaye - he can find to answer, that he knew from the beginning - as it continues to explain.

The fig tree, too, one knows that [the figs] fell - The explantion: Granted, [in the case of] the fig trees, [taking the figs is] permissible - since it is common that they fall, [the owner] abandons them from the beginning. For he thinks that the finder will take them, for [the latter] did not know that it fell from a tree, but rather thinks that it fell from passers-by. But with olives and carobs, it is forbidden, for they are not prone to falling. Even though if [the owner knew that it fell], he would abandon [it] - as passers-by would take [it], since they would assume that it fell from [other] passers-by. [But] now that they did not know, they would think [the olives or carobs] did not fall - [so] it would be forbidden, as it would be abandonment without awareness. But according to Rava, why would it be forbidden? And if you will say, "If it is the law to assume [the fruit came from] passers-by, and not from the tree adjacent to it, why is it forbidden with olives and carobs" - one can say that according to the law, we certainly do not assume [it was] from passers-by, but from the tree; however, the owners will abandon [the fruit nevertheless], as they think that passers-by who are not upstanding will decide upon a dispensation for the fruit that they find, and assume they were from passers-by. And if you will say, "If so, what is the challenge it presents to Rava; let us say that olives and carobs are forbidden because even after the owners know that they fell, they do not abandon [them], since they know that the finder will not take them; as he will assume that they fell from the tree, as is the truth, since one should not assume [they were] from passers-by - one can say, if they do not abandon [them in the case of] the fig tree, why would [the figs] be permitted? However there are books [of the Talmud] that have the variant, "an olive is different, since its olive tree (zaito) proves about it." For with this, that which we raised as a difficulty is answered. That is to say that since they are below the olive tree, the owners will think that the finder will not take them, to assume [them] from passers-by. But "a fig becomes disgusting with its fall" - the explanation is, it gets dirty and is disgusting to him, so he renders it ownerless. But in most books, we have the variant, "since its appearance (chazuto) proves about it; and even though the olives fall, [the finder] knows that the place of a person is that person's" - the explanation is, olives that fell are similar to olives [still] standing on the tree; and therefore even when the owners know they fell, they will not abandon [them], as they know that the ones that find them will not take them. But "a fig dissolves (nimiset) with its fall" - this is the variant in Arukh - nimiset without an aleph - so they are not similar to those on the tree. And also we can follow the variant [that has] nimaeset (becomes disgusting) - and because it becomes dirty, it is not similar to a fig on the tree.

As it teaches, olives or carobs are prohibited - And you would think it is because they are not prone to fall and it cannot be said that [the finder] knew that [the owner] abandoned [them]. So even though once he will know, he will abandon [them], it is not [considered] abandonment from now.

Its appearance proves about it - It is known whose it is from its appearance. Hence once its owner knows that it fell, he will not abandon [it]. For he will surely say, "Everyone knows that they are mine and they are not ownerless, so they will not take them."

Becomes disgusting with its fall - Hence since he know that they fall, he abandons [them] from the beginning because of [their] disgust. As from when it falls, it is not significant to him and he renders it ownerless.