💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava%20Metzia%2023a captured on 2024-03-21 at 15:44:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [1] **that they are trampled.** Even if there had been a distinguishing mark on the bundles it would have been destroyed when it was trampled. If he finds them **in a secluded area,** the finder **takes** the sheaves **and proclaims** his find, **as** due to the absence of pedestrian traffic **they are not trampled** and the distinguishing mark remains intact. **And** with regard to **the sheaves, whether** he finds them **in a public area** or **whether** he finds them **in a secluded area,** the finder **takes** them **and proclaims** his find. **Since they** protrude **high** above the ground, they are **not trampled.**
[2] **And Rava explains, according to his** line of **reasoning,** that the *baraita* is referring to bundles **whose location** is their distinguishing mark: If one finds **bundles** of grain **in a public area, these** belong **to him** due to the fact **that they are** kicked **and** they consequently **roll** to a different location than where they were placed. If he finds them **in a secluded area,** he is **obligated to proclaim** his find. Due to the absence of pedestrian traffic **they are** not kicked **and do not roll,** and they therefore remain in the location where they were placed. **And** with regard to **the sheaves, whether** he finds them **in a public area** or **whether** he finds them **in a secluded area,** the finder **takes** them **and proclaims** his find. **Since they are heavy, they do not roll** when kicked.
[3] The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: If one found **baker’s loaves, these** belong **to him.** The Gemara infers: **But** if one finds **loaves of a homeowner,** he is **obligated to proclaim** his find. **What is the reason?** When one finds loaves **of a homeowner** he is obligated to proclaim his find **because there is a distinguishing mark on** the loaves. **As** each person shapes his loaves in a unique manner, **it is known that the loaves of a person** belong to that **person. And** there **is no difference** if the loaves were found **in a public area, and** there **is no difference** if the loaves were found **in a secluded area;** the finder **takes** the item **and proclaims** his find. **Apparently,** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is** that of **a distinguishing mark.** This is **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion of **Rabba.**
[4] **Rabba** could have **said to you: There, this is the reason** that one must return the loaves of a homeowner found in a public area. It is **due to** the fact **that one does not pass by food** with-out picking it up. Therefore, it can be assumed that it will not be trampled. The Gemara asks: **But aren’t there gentiles** who do not treat food with deference and who will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: **Gentiles are concerned** that the loaves were placed in a public area for reasons **of sorcery.** The Gemara asks: **But aren’t there beasts and dogs** that will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to **a place where beasts and dogs are not commonly** found.
[5] The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute between Rabba and Rava is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** in the mishna. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If one finds **any** lost item **in which there is an alteration,** he is **obligated to proclaim** his find. **How so?** If he **found a round** cake of pressed figs with an **earthenware** shard **inside it,** or **a loaf** of bread **with coins inside it,** he must proclaim his find. One may conclude **by inference that the first *tanna*** of the mishna **holds** that even in that case **those** items belong **to him.**
[6] In explaining the tannaitic dispute, the Sages **assumed that everyone agrees that** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** without having been placed there intentionally **is** that of **a distinguishing mark, and** everyone agrees that **one passes by food** without picking it up. Accordingly, **what** is the basis of their dispute? **Is it not with regard to** the matter of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled** that **they disagree?** As one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that its legal status **is not** that of **a distinguishing mark, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that its legal status **is** that of **a distinguishing mark.**
[7] **Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one passes by food** without picking it up, then in the case of **loaves of a homeowner** that were found **in a public area,** where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, **why does he proclaim** his find?
[8] **Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one passes by food** without picking it up. **And here,** it is **with regard to** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** that **they disagree. The first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own **is not** that of **a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own **is** that of **a distinguishing mark.**
[9] **And Rabba** could have **said to you that everyone agrees** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one does not pass by food** without picking it up. **And here,** it is **with regard to** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** that **they disagree. The first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of **a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own **is** that of **a distinguishing mark.**
[10] **There are** those **who say,** in explaining the tannaitic dispute, that the Sages **assumed that everyone agrees that** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** without having been placed there intentionally **is** that of **a distinguishing mark, and** everyone agrees that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not** that of **a distinguishing mark. What,** then, is the basis of their dispute? **Is it not with regard to** the matter of whether **one passes by food** without picking it up that **they disagree. As** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **one passes** by food without picking it up, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that **one does not pass** by food without picking it up.
[11] **Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one passes by food** without picking it up, then in the case of **loaves of a homeowner** that were found **in a public area,** where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, **why does he proclaim** his find?
[12] **Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one passes by food** without picking it up. **And here,** it is **with regard to** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** that **they disagree. The first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own is not** that of **a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own **is** that of **a distinguishing mark.**
[13] **And Rabba** could have **said to you that everyone agrees** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not** that of **a distinguishing mark and** that **one does not pass by food** without picking it up. **And here,** it is **with regard to** the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own** that **they disagree. The first *tanna* holds** that the legal status of **a distinguishing mark that** could **come** to mark an item **on its own is not** that of **a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own **is** that of **a distinguishing mark.**
[14] § **Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava** that this is **the principle of a lost item: Once** the owner of a lost item **says: Woe** is me **for the monetary loss,** this indicates that **he has despaired of its** recovery.
[15] **And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:** The ***halakha*** is that if one finds **bundles** of grain **in a public area, those** bundles belong **to him. If** he finds the bundles **in a secluded area** in **a manner** indicating that they had **fallen, those** bundles belong **to him. If** he finds the bundles in **a manner** indicating that they had been **placed** there, the finder **takes** them **and proclaims** his find. **And** both **this** ruling **and that** ruling are **in** the case of **an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. But in** the case of **an item on which there is a distinguishing mark,** it **is no different** if the bundles were found **in a public area and** it **is no different** if the bundles were found **in a secluded area; whether** the bundles were found in **a manner** indicating that they had **fallen or whether** they were found in **a manner** indicating that they had been **placed** there, he is **obligated to proclaim** his find.
Mishneh Torah, Robbery and Lost Property
Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC