איתמר יאוש שלא מדעת אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש ורבא אמר הוי יאוש
With regard to one’s despair of recovering his lost item that is not a conscious feeling, i.e., were he aware of the loss of his property, he would have despaired of its recovery, but he was unaware of his loss when the finder discovered the item, Abaye said: It is not considered despair; the owner maintains ownership of the item, and the finder may not keep it. And Rava said: It is considered despair and the finder may keep it.
יאוש שלא מדעת - דבר שסתמו יאוש לכשידע שנפל ממנו וכשמצאו עדיין לא ידעו הבעלים שנפל מהן:
בדבר שיש בו סימן כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא הוי יאוש.
ואף על גב דשמעיניה דמיאש לסוף לא הוי יאוש דכי אתא לידיה באיסורא הוא דאתא לידיה דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה לא מיאש מימר אמר סימנא אית לי בגויה יהבנא סימנא ושקילנא ליה.
The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute. In the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, everyone agrees that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. And even though we hear that he ultimately despairs of recovering the item, it is not considered despair, as when the item came into the possession of the finder, it was in a prohibited manner that it came into his possession. It is prohibited because when the owner learns that it fell from his possession, he does not despair of its recovery immediately. Instead, he says: I have a distinguishing mark on the item; I will provide the distinguishing mark to the finder, and I will take it.
בזוטו של ים ובשלוליתו של נהר אע"ג דאית ביה סימן רחמנא שרייה כדבעינן למימר לקמן
With regard to an item swept away by the tide of the sea or by the flooding of a river, even though the item has a distinguishing mark, the Merciful One permits the finder to keep it as we seek to state below, later in the discussion.
כי פליגי בדבר שאין בו סימן.
אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש דהא לא ידע דנפל מיניה
רבא אמר הוי יאוש דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה מיאש מימר אמר ״סימנא לית לי״ בגויה מהשתא הוא דמיאש.
When they disagree, it is with regard to an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. Abaye said: Despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, as he did not know that the item fell from him; therefore, he cannot despair of recovering it. Rava said: Despair that is not conscious is considered despair, as when he discovers that it fell from him, he will despair of its recovery; as he says upon this discovery: I have no distinguishing mark on the item. Therefore, it is considered from now, when the item fell, that he despairs.
תא שמע ״פירות מפוזרין.״
הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה!
הא אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא הכא במכנשתא דביזרי עסקינן. דאבידה מדעת היא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found scattered produce, it belongs to him. The Gemara asks: Why does it belong to him; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: Didn’t Rav Ukva bar Ḥama say: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor? The owner knowingly left the kernels on the threshing floor because it was not worth his while to gather them. That is a deliberate loss, and therefore the despair is conscious. Therefore, this clause in the mishna is not relevant to the dispute in question.
תא שמע ״מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו״
אמאי הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה!
התם נמי כדרבי יצחק דאמר: ״אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה.״
הכא נמי אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: Why do they belong to the one who finds them; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: A person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly. Here too, a person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that shortly after the coins fell, the owner became aware of his loss.
תא שמע ״עיגולי דבילה וככרות של נחתום הרי אלו שלו״
אמאי והא לא ידע דנפל מיניה
התם נמי אגב דיקירי מידע ידע בהו
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found round cakes of pressed figs or baker’s loaves, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: Why do they belong to the one who finds them; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair. Since these items are heavy he knows that they fell, and it is reasonable to assume that shortly after they fell the owner became aware of his loss.
תא שמע הגנב שנטל מזה ונתן לזה וכן גזלן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A thief who took an item from this person and gave it to that person, and likewise, a robber who took an item from this person and gave it to that person,
וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה
מה שנטל נטל ומה שנתן נתן
and likewise, in the case of the Jordan River or another river that took an item from this person and gave it to that person, in all those cases, that which the person took, he took, and that which the person gave, he gave. Likewise, that which the river took, it took, and that which the river gave, it gave. The person who received the item need not return it.
בשלמא גזלן וירדן דקא חזי להו ומיאש, אלא גנב מי קא חזי ליה דמיאש?
תרגמה רב פפא בלסטים מזוין.
אי הכי היינו גזלן!
תרי גווני גזלן.
The Gemara asks: Granted in the cases of the robber and the Jordan River, one could say that the owner sees them take the item and despairs of its recovery; but in the case of the thief, who takes the item surreptitiously, does the owner see him take the item and would that lead him to despair? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa interpreted the term thief in the baraita to be referring to armed bandits [listim]; therefore, the owner is aware that the item was taken and he despairs of its recovery. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as a robber, why mention two identical cases? The Gemara answers: The baraita mentioned two types of robbers; in both cases the owner was aware that his item was taken.
תא שמע דא"ר יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק מנין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת?
דכתיב (דברים כב, ג) וכן תעשה לחמורו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה.
מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם.
יצאתה זו שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where is it derived with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, as it is written: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it” (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return that which is lost from him, the owner, but is available to be found by any person. Excluded from that obligation is that which is lost from him and is not available to be found by any person; it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it.
ואיסורא דומיא דהיתירא.
מה היתירא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן שרא,
אף איסורא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן אסורה.
תיובתא דרבא תיובתא.
And the prohibition written in the verse against keeping an item that is lost only to its owner is similar to the allowance to keep an item lost to all people that is inferred from the verse; just as in the case of the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is permitted for the finder to keep it, so too in the case of the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is prohibited for the finder to keep it, until there is proof that the owner despaired of its recovery. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.
והלכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם.
And although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the halakha is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye in the disputes represented by the mnemonic: Yod, ayin, lamed; kuf, gimmel, mem.