Talmud Shiur 5784 #5

GEMARA:

One found scattered produce.

1. And how much?
   1. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One kav in four cubits.
   2. What are the circumstances?
      1. If in a manner indicating falling,
         1. Even greater also.
      2. And if in a manner indicating placement,
         1. Even less should also not.
   3. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor.
      1. One kav in an area of four by four cubits,
         1. whose gathering requires great exertion,
      2. a person does not exert himself and does not return and take them.
         1. Therefore, he renounces his ownership of them.
      3. Smaller than that,
         1. the owner exerts himself and returns and takes them.
         2. And therefore, he does not renounce his ownership of them.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:

1. If a half-kav of kernels were scattered in an area of two by four cubits,
   1. What is the halakha?
   2. In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces his ownership of the kernels?
      1. It is due to the fact that gathering the kernels requires great exertion. In the case of a half-kav in two cubits, since gathering them does not require great exertion, he does not renounce his ownership of them.
   3. Or perhaps,
      1. It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value.
         1. In the case of a half-kav in two cubits,
            1. since they are certainly not of significant value, he renounces his ownership of the kernels.
2. If two kav of kernels were scattered in an area of eight by four cubits, what is the halakha?
   1. If one kav of kernels is scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership?
      1. It is due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion.
      2. This is true all the more so in the case of two kav in eight cubits,
         1. since gathering them requires even greater exertion, the owner renounces his ownership of them.
   2. Or perhaps,
      1. It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value.
         1. But in the case of two kav in eight cubits,
            1. since they are of significant value, he does not renounce his ownership of them.
3. If one kav of sesame seeds was scattered in an area of four by four cubits,
   1. what is the halakha?
   2. In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership?
      1. It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value.
      2. And in the case of sesame seeds, since they are of significant value he does not renounce his ownership of them.
   3. Or perhaps,
      1. It is due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion.
         1. That is true all the more so in the case of sesame seeds.
         2. Since gathering them requires even greater exertion, he renounces his ownership of them.
4. If one kav of dates in four cubits, or if one kav of pomegranates in four cubits,
   1. what is the halakha?
   2. In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership?
      1. It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value;
         1. and also in the case of one kav of dates in four cubits or one kav of pomegranates in four cubits,
         2. since they are not of significant value he renounces ownership of the fruit.
   3. Or perhaps,
      1. It is due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion.
         1. And in the case of one kav of dates in an area of four by four cubits or one kav of pomegranates in an area of four by four cubits,
         2. since gathering them does not require great exertion he does not renounce his ownership of them.
5. What is the halakha?
6. All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

Gemara:

And how much - is [still] considered scattered?

A kav - scattered in four [by four] cubits; but in three [by three] cubits, it is not [considered] scattered. And the reason will be explained as we go.

If in a manner of falling - If he found them in the manner of being dropped; [such] that it can be ascertained that they were not placed there internationally, but rather fell.

Even greater - than a kav as well; as there is no sign, [the owner] abandoned [them].

And if in a manner of placement, etc. - he will return and take them in the future.

The gathering on the threshing floor - At the time of the gathering of the threshing floors; and their owners thresh [the grain] and carry off the main part and leave these over.

Great exertion - to collect them.

Smaller than that - If their scattering was in [an area] less than this.

Because they are not of significant [value] - to him, the kav of produce, to exert himself for them with the exertion of gathering [them] over four [by four] cubits. Sesame [seeds] - are very small, so there is more exertion than [with] wheat; but their value is high.

Dates and pomegranates - are large, and there is no exertion in gathering them.

§ It was stated:

despair of recovering his lost item that is unaware:

1. Abaye said:
   1. It is not considered despair;
2. And Rava said:
   1. It is considered despair.
3. In the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, everyone agrees is not considered despair.
   1. And even though we hear that he ultimately despairs,
   2. it is not considered despair,
   3. as when the item came into the possession of the finder, it was in a prohibited manner that it came into his possession.
      1. Because when the owner learns that it fell from his possession, he does not despair of its recovery immediately.
   4. 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.
      1. With regard to an item swept away by the tide of the sea
      2. or by the flooding of a river,
      3. even though the item has a distinguishing mark,
      4. the Merciful One permits the finder to keep it as we seek to state below, later in the discussion.
4. When they disagree, it is with regard to an item in which there is no distinguishing mark.
   1. Abaye said: It is not considered despair,
      1. as he did not know that the item fell from him.
   2. Rava said: It is considered despair,
      1. as when he discovers that it fell from him, he will despair of its recovery;
      2. as he says upon this discovery: I have no distinguishing mark on the item.
         1. Therefore, it is considered from now, when the item fell, that he despairs.

Despair (abandonment) that is not conscious - Something that in a standard case is abandoned when he knows that it fell from him; but when [the finder] found it, the owners did not yet know that it fell from them.,

Is not [considered] despair (abandonment) - Their argument will be explained in its continuation.

That he ultimately despairs (abandons it) - after this one finds it. And the principle of abandonment is such as when he says, "Woe is me for the monetary loss" - as he reveals his thinking that he has despaired about [reclaiming] them.,

In a prohibited [manner] that it came into his possession - For it is something that is not prone to be abandoned.

By the tide (zuto) of the sea - Places on the seashore, where it is the way of the sea to return [to the shore] ten or fifteen parsa twice a day, so it sweeps away that which it finds there and goes. Zuto is an expression of largeness and expansion in the Greek language; like the sages wrote [in their Greek translation] to King Ptolemy, "and upon the exalted ones" (Exodus 24:11), [as] "and upon the zatuti" (Megillah 9a).,

Or by the flooding (sheluliyato) of a river - when it expanded and overflows its banks and takes booty (sholel shelal) and sweeps away that which is found. ,

The Merciful One permits it - and even when it comes to the finder before abandonment [by its original owner].,

Below - in our discussion, "From where do we know that a lost object swept away by a river, etc."

From now, that he despairs (it is abandoned) - For behold, it fell; and when he knows, his mind will no longer be upon it.