Bava Metzia 22a — the Talmud in English

And likewise

the river

Jordan [the same applies to the other rivers, but the tanna who taught this beraita was sitting beside the Jordan],

and the same law applies to all other rivers; rather, the tanna who taught this beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna—was sitting near the Jordan],

which

overflowed its banks, and thereby

took from this one

something —

and gave

the thing

to this one,

which the river brought to another person —

In all three of these cases, the law is that

what he took —

he took, and what he gave —

he gave.

That is, that object belongs to the person who ultimately received it, for it is presumed that the owners despaired.

And now,

granted

when a

robber and the Jordan took it from him,

it is understandable that the object belongs to the recipient, because

he sees

them [that the owner of the object sees them]

when they are taking it from him —

and despairs,

and this is conscious despair.

But

when a

thief took it from him, does he see him [does the owner of the object see the thief] —

Does the owner of the item see the thief?]—

that he despairs because of this?

Because of this? But the theft is carried out secretly, with no one seeing!

Rather, it is proven from here that since, when he ultimately learns of it, he will despair, this is considered despair already now, in accordance with the words of Rava!

Rav Pappa explained it:

What we taught in the beraita, “a thief,” refers to

an armed bandit,

that is, a thief who took it from him by force. If so, from the outset he despaired of the object.

And we wondered:

if so,

the thief taught in the beraita —

that is a robber!

For a robber also takes by force! And why was “robber” taught twice in the beraita?! The Gemara explains: The tanna taught

two types of robber [two forms of robber]:

two forms of robbery]:

a. An ordinary robber, who neither fears people nor hides from them, but robs openly and publicly.

b. An armed bandit, who initially hides from people, and only when he needs to do so takes by force through the weapons in his possession.

Come and hear:

If

a river swept away

the

beams [wooden beams], or

the

wood and stones [or its stones] of a person,

or his stones],

and placed them within another’s field, they belong to him [to the other].

to the other person].

And the reason is

because

there is publicity concerning this matter, that the river swept away a person’s beams, and the owners know of it, and

the owners despaired

before the found object came into the finder’s possession.

It implies,

the reason —

because

that

we know that

the owners despaired. But ordinarily,

another lost object, of which the owners do not know —

it

is not despair, and it does not belong to its finder—and this is difficult for Rava’s method, who holds that unconscious despair is despair! The Gemara rejects this:

with what are we dealing here —

when the owner can

the owners

save

his beams, wood, and stones.

And if so, let us infer from the beraita as follows: Specifically in such a case, where the owners know of their loss and did not try to save it—it belongs to him. But ordinarily, in a similar case, where the owners can save it, such as a lost object that has an identifying mark, but they do not know of their loss—he is obligated to return it! And as we said above, in such a case Rava concedes to Abaye that there is no despair here, since the owners can recover their lost object for themselves.

And we ask:

if so, say

what we taught in the

latter clause

of the beraita:

If the owners were pursuing them [the beams, wood, and stones] —

the beams, wood, and stones]—

the finder is obligated

the finder

to return

their lost object to them, because their pursuit proves that they did not despair.

And

if

the case is

one in which

the owners

can save it,

that is, although the case concerns a lost object without an identifying mark, nevertheless people will not hasten to acquire the beams, but will leave them so that their owners can come and take them, if so,

why specifically

that he is obligated to return them specifically when the owners

are pursuing

their lost object?

Even if

if they

they are not pursuing it —

also

the owners have not despaired, and he is obligated to return it, since the owners rely on the fact that they will be able to save it another day!

And the Gemara explains:

with what are we dealing here —

in

a situation in which

the owners can

the owners

save

only

with difficulty.

And if they do not hurry to save it now, they will no longer be able to save it.

And therefore, if the owners

are pursuing it,

this proves that

there is no despair [that they have not yet despaired].

they have not yet despaired].

But if

they are not pursuing it —

certainly

they have despaired.

For they knew that the lost object was lost from them and did not trouble themselves to save it. If so, they certainly renounced ownership of it, and it is permitted to anyone who finds it.

Come and hear: How did they say

that

one who separates teruma without the owners’ knowledge

of the owners —

his teruma is teruma?

If a person descended

a person

into another’s field and gathered

produce,

and separated teruma

from them as teruma for the produce of the homeowner

without the owners’ authorization

of the owners,

if

the owners

are concerned on account of robbery,

meaning that he objects to his having separated teruma without his authorization, and considers this as robbery —

the teruma of the one who descended

of the one who descended

is not teruma.

But if not,

that he does not object to this —

his teruma is teruma.

And from where does he [the one who separates teruma]

the one who separates teruma

know whether he is concerned

the owner

on account of robbery, or not?

If the homeowner came and found him

in his field at the time he separated teruma,

and said to him: “Go to the better ones!”

That is, you should have gone to more beautiful produce and given some of it to the kohen!

Then this is the law:

If

indeed

there were found

in the field produce

more beautiful than these —

his teruma is teruma.

For it is proven from the homeowner’s words that he is pleased with his fellow’s action; on the contrary, his desire was that even more beautiful produce be given.

But if not,

that no produce more beautiful than these was found, then certainly what he said to him, “Go to the better ones,”

— he said angrily. That is: It is good that you did not rob more beautiful produce from me! Therefore

his teruma is not teruma.

And if

the owners gathered

additional produce

and added to them, in either case —

and in either case,

whether more beautiful ones were found or not —

his teruma is teruma,

for through this action they demonstrated that they were pleased with the separation of the teruma.

And

now, according to Abaye’s method,

when more beautiful ones were found —

his teruma is teruma—why?

For

at the time that he separated it [at the time that the one separating teruma separated it] —

when the one who separated the offering did so],

he did not know

the owner of the produce about this, and if so, there was no intention of the owner at the time of the separation! Rather, necessarily we say that since when he learned of it he was pleased with it, it is as though he was pleased with it also at the time of the separation. The same applies concerning despair: since when he learned of the lost object he despaired of it, it is as though he had despaired from the outset, in accordance with the words of Rava!

Rava explained it according to Abaye’s position [Rava explained the beraita in a manner that does not present a difficulty for Abaye]:

Rava explained the beraita in a manner that does not present a difficulty for Abaye: the case is not one who truly separates teruma without knowledge, but rather

that he made [the owner made] the one separating teruma

the owner made the one who separated the offering]

an agent

to separate teruma for him; therefore, an expression of the owner’s intention concerning the separation itself is not required, but only concerning its form, as will be explained below.

And we say:

it is indeed reasonable

that the case concerns one whom the owner of the produce made an agent.

For if it enters your mind

that the case concerns

one whom he did not make an agent, would

in such a case

his teruma be teruma?

But

it is written concerning the separation of teruma: “So shall you also raise the teruma of the Lord, etc.” And from the fact that the Torah did not say, “So shall you raise

you,”

but rather

the Merciful One said, “also you,”

from the superfluous word “also” we learn

to include

the

your agent,

that even an agent can separate teruma.

And since the agent was equated with the one who separates teruma, they add and expound:

“You yourselves”

separate teruma

“according to your knowledge”

[with your knowledge and consent],

“so too your agent”—

must separate teruma specifically

“according to your knowledge!”

“Rather, with what are we dealing here?”—

“For example, he appointed”

the owner of the produce

“an agent, and said to him: Go”

[go]

“separate teruma! But he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these”

[produce]; rather, he said to him plainly that he should separate teruma.

“And the ordinary practice of the householder, when you separate teruma,”

“is that you separate teruma from the intermediate-quality produce”

[and generally, a householder separates teruma from intermediate-quality produce].

“And he went,”

and the agent went—

“and separated teruma”

on his own initiative

from

the

finest produce. Since this was so—that the ordinary practice of this householder was to separate teruma from intermediate-quality produce, while the agent separated teruma from the finest produce—we must clarify whether, in such a case, he fulfilled the householder’s agency, or whether he departed from the manner of his agency by separating teruma from the finest produce.

И поскольку дело обстояло так: обычно хозяин дома отделяет десятину от плодов среднего качества, а посланник отделил ее от лучших плодов, необходимо выяснить, исполнил ли он в этом случае поручение хозяина дома или отклонился от поручения, отделив десятину от лучших плодов.

“And”

afterward

“the householder came and found him”

having separated teruma from the finest produce,

“and said to him: Go to the finest!”

The law is then as follows:

“If there were found”

produce

“finer than these”—

“his separation of teruma is a valid separation.” For it became clear to us that the practice of this householder was always to separate teruma from the finest produce, and this agent indeed fulfilled his agency properly.

For it has become clear to us that this homeowner’s practice is always to separate from the finest produce, and this agent properly fulfilled his agency.

“But if not”—

“his separation of teruma is not a valid separation.” As was explained above: Since no produce finer than these was found, he certainly said it in anger, and in fact his practice was always to separate teruma from intermediate-quality produce, like all householders. If so, he is not his agent for this separation of teruma.

As explained above, since no produce finer than it was found, he certainly spoke in anger when he said this to him, and in fact his practice is to separate from medium-quality produce, like all homeowners. If so, this separation was not performed by his agency.

“Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard of Mari bar Isak”

[they happened on their way to the orchard of Mari bar Isak].

“His sharecropper brought”

[Mari bar Isak’s sharecropper brought]

“dates and pomegranates, and threw them before them”

[and placed them before them]. Mari bar Isak was not there at that time.

“Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate”

from the produce, whereas

“Mar Zutra”—

“did not eat,”

because he was concerned about theft .

“Meanwhile”

[in the meantime]

“Mari bar Isak came,”

the owner of the orchard, and

“found them”

[and found the Sages sitting in his orchard].

“And he said to his sharecropper: Why did you not bring the Sages some of those finer ones”

[why did you not give the Sages some of these fruits, which are finer]? Yet Mar Zutra still did not wish to eat from the produce.

“Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now,”

at this point, after Mari bar Isak’s words,

“why does the master not eat? For it was taught:”

with regard to teruma:

“If there were found finer ones than these”—

“his separation of teruma is a valid separation!”

Since this was so, the householder revealed his opinion that he wants [the agent] to separate teruma on his behalf.

If so, the same law applies here: Since there indeed were finer fruits there, Mari bar Isak certainly wants his sharecropper to give fruits before them.

“He said to them”

Mar Zutra said to Ameimar and Rav Ashi:

“This is what Rava said: They said”

that

“‘Go to the finest’”

is a revelation of opinion

“only with regard to teruma, because it is a mitzva, and”

therefore we say that

“he is pleased”

with what was separated as teruma by the owner of the produce.

“But here,”

in the case of Mari bar Isak—

“because of embarrassment”

[because of shame]

“he said this,”

that his desire was for his sharecropper to give them fruits. But it is possible that, in truth, in the recesses of his heart he does not desire this .

It is written in the Torah: “And if he puts water upon seed and some of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you.” And we learn from this verse that produce becomes impure through contact with a creeping creature only after liquids have come upon it, for this is its preparation to receive ritual impurity. And the coming of the water must be with the consent of the owners, as will be explained below.

“Come and hear:”

If a person spread produce on his roof, and dew descended upon it at night, if, when the owner of the produce saw it in the morning,

“it still had”

dew

“upon it,” and

and he

“he rejoiced”

that there was dew upon it—

“it is”

considered

“as”

part of what is stated concerning the preparation of produce for ritual impurity: “And

“if he puts”

water upon seed, and some of their carcass falls upon it, and so forth”; and through this the produce was prepared to receive ritual impurity, because his rejoicing proves that this is his desire.

But if

“the produce dried”

[became dry] before its owner saw it,

“even though”

when he learned that dew had descended upon it

“he rejoiced”

in this—