005 EM Siman He'Asui LiDares

סימן העשוי לידרס:

רבה אמר לא הוי סימן

ורבא אמר הוי סימן

With regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

תנן: ״כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו.

ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז

היכי דמי? אי דלית בהו סימן, ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז?

אלא לאו דאית בהו סימן, וקתני ״ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו

אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן. תיובתא דרבא.

The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. What are the circumstances? If it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles, when one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? Rather, is it not a case where there is a distinguishing mark on the bundles, and there is then a reason for him to proclaim his find. And yet, it is taught in the baraita that if he finds the bundles in a public area those bundles belong to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava.

אמר לך רבא:

לעולם דלית בהו סימן

ודקא אמרת ״ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז״, מכריז מקום.

ורבה אמר מקום לא הוי סימן

דאיתמר: ״מקום״:

רבה אמר לא הוי סימן

ורבא אמר הוי סימן

Rava could have said to you: Actually, it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles. And with regard to that which you said: When one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims that the owner should provide the location where he lost the bundles and thereby recover his bundles. And Rabba said: The location, provided by the owner, is not a distinguishing mark that would enable the return of an item to its owner. As it was stated that the amora’im disputed this matter: With regard to location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

מכריז מקום - ואינו מכריז שם האבידה אלא שם המקום מי שאבדה ממנו אבידה במקום פלוני יבא ויאמר מה איבד וזה בא ואומר אבדתי שם חפץ פלוני:

תא שמע:

כריכות:

ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו.

ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז

והאלומות:

בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז.

רבה היכי מתרץ לה?

ורבא היכי מתרץ לה?

רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן.

ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; if he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And with regard to the sheaves, i.e., large bundles, 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. How does Rabba explain the baraita, and how does Rava explain the baraita? Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark. And Rava explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles whose location is their distinguishing mark.

והאלומות - עומרים גדולים:

רבה היכי מתרץ לה - רבה דאמר טעמא דרשות הרבים משום דנדרס מאי שנא אלומות:

ורבא - דמוקים לכריכות כשאין בו סימן מאי שנא כריכות ומאי שנא אלומות:

רבה מתרץ לטעמיה - דטעמא דרשות הרבים דכריכות משום סימן ובדבר שיש בה סימן:

במקום - טעמא דכריכות ברשות הרבים משום מקום ובדבר שאין בו סימן:

רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן:

כריכות:

ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו משום דמדרסא.

ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז דלא מדרסא.

והאלומות:

בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז כיון דגביהן לא מדרסא.

The Gemara elaborates. Rabba explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles with a distinguishing mark: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him due to the fact 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.

ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום:

כריכות:

ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו דמינשתפא.

ברשות היחיד חייב להכריז דלא מינשתפא.

והאלומות:

בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז כיון דיקירי לא מינשתפא.

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.
דמינשתפא - מתגלגל ברגלי אדם ובהמה ואינה נמצאת במקום שנפלה תחילה:

תא שמע: ״ככרות של נחתום הרי אלו שלו״

הא של בעל הבית, חייב להכריז.

של בעל הבית מאי טעמא?

כיון דאית בהו סימן, דמידע ידיע רפתא דאיניש איניש הוא.

ולא שנא רשות הרבים ולא שנא רשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז.

אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן.

תיובתא דרבה

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.

אמר לך רבה

התם היינו טעמא משום דאין מעבירין על האוכלין.

והא איכא נכרים!

נכרים חיישי לכשפים.

והאיכא בהמה וכלבים!

באתרא דלא שכיחי בהמה וכלבים.

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.