Talmud Shiur 5784 #6

§ 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.

(A mnemonic representing those proofs: Peh, mem, gimmel, shin; mem, mem, kuf, gimmel, tet, yod; kaf, kaf, samekh, ayin, zayin.)

1. Come and hear: If one found scattered produce, it belongs to him.
   1. Isn't the owner unaware that they fell from him?
      1. 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?
      2. That is a deliberate loss.
2. Come and hear: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him.
   1. Why do they belong to the one who finds them? Isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him?
      1. There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair, in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: A person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly.
      2. Here too, a person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly.
3. Come and hear: If one found round cakes of pressed figs or baker’s loaves, these belong to him.
   1. Why? Isn't the owner unaware that they fell from him?
      1. There too, since these items are heavy he knows that they fell.
4. Come and hear: If one found strips of purple wool, these belong to him.
   1. And why? Isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him?
      1. There too, since they are significant, the owner feels around for them, and it is in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak.
5. Come and hear: One who finds coins in synagogues, and in study halls, and in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him due to the fact that the owners despair of their recovery. Why do they belong to him; isn’t the owner unaware that the coins fell from him? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: 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.

That is a deliberate loss - As it did not fall from him, and he knowingly placed them down [to be] ownerless.

Prone to feel - So before this one finds it, it is known to the owners that they fell and they abandon it.

Are heavy (literally, weighty) - A load that is heavy.

Come and hear, who finds coins etc. -

1. It is a wonder: Since it already brought a difficulty from our mishnah about scattered coins, why does it also challenge from this baraita?
   1. And also why did Rabbi Yitzhak not say his piece about our mishnah?
2. And it can be said that it was stronger for it to raise a difficulty on the baraita,
   1. Since it implies that it is the [finder's] in all cases - even in the case where there is an identifying mark,
      1. since it establishes the reason to be because the multitudes are found there.
   2. And it is also implied [that this is the case] even when [the finder] picked it up while the owner of the lost object was still in the study hall, and he didn't know that it had fallen from him.