Bava Metzia 22b — the Talmud in English

are not in the category of “when it is placed,”

and they were not rendered fit to receive impurity.

What is the reason

[for this]?

Is it

not because we do not say

that

once the matter has become revealed, that now he is pleased with it

[that it has now become revealed that he is pleased with this], we also say that

initially as well he was pleased with it,

and if so, this is a difficulty for the position of Rava, who holds that an abandonment not made knowingly is an abandonment?

And the Gemara rejects this:

There it is different,

with regard to being rendered fit to receive impurity,

for it is written

in that context:

“When he places,” until he himself places

water upon the produce.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

in the

first clause,

where the dew is still upon them,

also not

should the produce become fit, since he did not himself place water upon it!?

And the Gemara explains:

There—

as

the words of

Rav Pappa.

For Rav Pappa juxtaposed: It is written, “when he places,”

which implies that the person himself places water upon them.

And we read

[and the vocalization of the reading of the words is]

“when it is placed,”

which implies that water is placed upon the produce by itself.

How so?

How is this contradiction reconciled?

And Rav Pappa explains:

We require

that there be

“when it is placed”—

similar to “when he places.”

Just as “he places,”

when the person himself places the water upon the produce—

knowingly

he places it [with his knowledge]—

so too “when it is placed,”

when the water is placed by itself upon the produce, it must be placed

knowingly

by the owner of the produce. Therefore, in the final clause, where the owner of the produce did not see that water had been placed upon it, although he rejoiced, it was not rendered fit to receive impurity.

Come and hear, for Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where [do we know] that an article lost because a river swept it away is permitted,

even if it has an identifying mark?

For it is written

with regard to returning a lost article:

“And so shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost article of your brother that is lost from him and you find it.”

And the word “from him” is superfluous. And they derive from it that specifically

one whose

lost article

is lost from him—

and

still

is found with

the rest of

all people,

so that other people can find it—is obligated to return it.

Excluded

from this category is

this

lost article that a river swept away,

which is lost from him, and

also

is not found with all people,

since when it is swept away by a river, no person can save it; therefore it is permitted.

And since from the same verse we learn both the law of a lost article found with all people and the law of a lost article not found with all people, and these have been compared to one another, it follows that

the prohibited case,

an ordinary lost article, which is not permitted to him, is

similar to the permitted case,

a lost article swept away by a river, which is permitted to its finder:

Just as

the lost article of the

permitted case,

which is not found with every person, the verse did not distinguish

between one in which there is an identifying mark and one in which there is no identifying mark,

and in both cases—

it is permitted

[it is permitted to him]—

so too

the lost article of the

prohibited case,

which is found with every person and must be returned to its owners, it did not distinguish

between one in which there is an identifying mark,

which its owner does not abandon,

and one in which there is no identifying mark—

it is prohibited.

And now, how are we dealing with a lost article found with every person that has no identifying mark?

If it is a case where the owners learned of the loss of the article before it came into the finder’s possession, then certainly it is permitted, since he took it after abandonment!

Rather, necessarily, it is a case where they learned of it only after it came into his possession.

And if it is as Rava said, that an abandonment not made knowingly is an abandonment, then even in such a case it should be permitted to him! Rather, certainly, an abandonment not made knowingly is not an abandonment, in accordance with the words of Abaye!

A tiyuvta against Rava!

And we conclude: indeed, this beraita is

a tiyuvta

against Rava.

And the halakha is in accordance with him, Abaye, in yaal kagem. ["

“Yaal kagem” is an acronym for six halakhic signs:

a.

Y

abandonment not made knowingly, of our discussion,

b. a plotting witness is disqualified retroactively, in tractate Sanhedrin,

c.

L

ehi standing by itself, in tractate Eruvin,

d.

K

iddushin not delivered for intercourse, in tractate Kiddushin,

e.

G

ilui daata in a bill of divorce, in tractate Gittin, and f.

M

eat-eating one who eats carcasses defiantly is disqualified with regard to testimony, in tractate Sanhedrin].

But in the other disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha is according to Rava.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And since Rava has been refuted

and we rule that an abandonment not made knowingly is not an abandonment, if so,

these wind-fallen dates,

dates that the wind causes to fall from the tree,

how do we eat them?

It is possible that their owners do not yet know that they have fallen, and this is an abandonment not made knowingly!

He said to him:

Since there are vermin and creeping creatures that eat them —those dates immediately when they fall from the tree—therefore

initially,

even before they fall,

he abandons them

the owner abandons those fruits that will fall from the tree.

Rav Aha said to him: And if the dates belong to

orphans

[minor orphans],

who are not capable of waiver,

and their abandonment is not an abandonment—

what

[is the law]? In such a case the dates should be prohibited! If so, why do we not fear that the dates fell from the tree of orphans?

He said to him: A valley

[a plain]

in the land of orphans—

we do not establish as such.

That is, we are not required to regard the entire valley as land belonging to orphans and prohibit all of it because of the doubt that it is orphans’ land; rather, we follow the majority, who are not orphans.

Rav Aha said to him: And if the land

is established and presumed

to belong to orphans—

what

[is the law]?

Rav Aha asked him further:

A walled enclosure, date palms surrounded by a fence of stones, so that vermin and creeping creatures do not enter there; if so, their owners do not abandon them from the outset—

what

[is the law]? He said to him:

Indeed, in these cases the dates are

prohibited

[prohibited].

We learned in our Mishna:

bundles in the public domain—

these belong to him.

Rabba said: Even with regard to a matter

that has an identifying mark—

these belong to him.

And from Rabba’s words, that even when the bundles have an identifying mark, these belong to him, and we do not say that the owners do not abandon them because they rely on the identifying mark, the Gemara proves:

It follows that Rabba holds

that

an identifying mark likely to be trampled

by people—for example, many people pass through that place, and the object itself is low and easily trampled—

is not an identifying mark.

And the reason is that its owner does not rely on the identifying mark, saying to himself: surely it has been destroyed by the treading of feet.

But Rava said: They taught

with regard to bundles that these belong to him—

only with regard to a matter that has no identifying mark.

But with regard to a matter that has an identifying mark—

he is obligated to proclaim it.

It follows that Rava holds: an identifying mark likely to be trampled—

is an identifying mark.

Because the owner of the lost article still relies on the identifying mark and thinks that it will not be trampled.

And some teach this statement as an independent matter

[there are those who recite the dispute between Rabba and Rava independently], and they did not apply the dispute between Rabba and Rava to our Mishna. And this is how they recited the statement:

An identifying mark likely to be trampled—

Rabba said: It is not an identifying mark.

And Rava said: It is an identifying mark.

We learned: Bundles in the public domain—

these belong to him.

But bundles

in the private domain

[such as in a sown field, which most people do not traverse, but a minority do traverse]—

he takes them and proclaims them.

And now,

what are the circumstances?

If they do not have

in the bundles

an identifying mark,

if so, if they were found

in the private domain—

what does he proclaim?

What will the finder proclaim? After all, they have no identifying mark that the owner of the lost article can provide in order to take his lost article!

Rather, is it not—

necessarily, it is a case

where they have an identifying mark.

And it teaches: In the public domain these belong to him,

even though they have an identifying mark

! It follows: An identifying mark likely to be trampled—

is not an identifying mark,

and therefore these belong to him, and

a tiyuvta against Rava,

who said that even though the identifying mark is likely to be trampled, it is an identifying mark!

Rava could say to you: Actually,

it is a case

where they do not have

in the bundles

an identifying mark.

And as for what you said

[and what you raised as a difficulty]: if they have no identifying mark,

in the private domain what does he proclaim?

This is not a difficulty, because it can be said that the finder does not proclaim the name of the lost article, but

proclaims

the

place

where the lost article was found.

And this is how he proclaims: Whoever lost an article in such-and-such a place, let him come and say what he lost!

And the owner of the lost article will come and say: I lost such-and-such an object there.

And

if

Rabbah said: The place—

is not a sign.

For it was stated:

a lost object that has no sign in its body, and the sign that it is possible to give concerning it is only the

place

where the lost object was found,

Rabbah said: It is not a sign.

And Rava said: It is a sign.

Ta shma

from what we learned in a beraita:

Bundles in the public domain—

these are his. In a private domain—

he takes them and announces them.

And the sheaves,

large bundles,

whether in the public domain or in the private domain—

he takes them and announces them.

And now

Rabbah,

who explained in our Mishna that the reason that in the public domain these are his is that the sign was trampled,

how does he explain it

for this beraita? In what way are sheaves different, such that he must announce them even if they were found in the public domain?

And Rava,

who said that our Mishna refers to a case in which there is no sign in the bundles, but the sign is the place of the find,

how does he explain it

for the beraita? What is the distinction between sheaves and bundles?

And we say:

Rabbah explains it in accordance with his reasoning

[according to his position]—that it refers to a case in which there are

in

bundles

a sign.

And Rava explains it in accordance with his reasoning—

in

a manner in which he announces

the place.

And now the Gemara explains its words:

Rabbah explains it in accordance with his reasoning, with a sign:

Bundles in the public domain are his—