Talmud Shiur 5784 #9

1. Come and hear:
   1. If a river swept away one’s beams, one’s wood, or one’s stones and placed them into the field of another,
      1. these items belong to the latter
      2. due to the fact that the respective owners despaired of their recovery.
   2. The reason that the owners despaired; but in an unspecified case they do not belong to the finder.
   3. With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing them.
      1. If so, say the latter clause:
         1. If the owners were pursuing the items, the finder is obligated to return them.
      2. If it is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing, why did the baraita specifically cite a case where the owners were pursuing the items?
         1. Even if they were not pursuing the lost items, the items also remain in their ownership!
   4. With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items with difficulty.
      1. If the owners pursue the items, it indicates that they did not despair,
      2. but if the owners do not pursue the items, it indicates that they despaired.

A river swept away his beams - [the beams] of one person, and another found it.

Behold they belong to him -How we write it is "Behold, they belong to him, since the owners despaired." Since every sweeping river, when it sweeps away beams and wood and stones, the owners know immediately that it has power.

But in an unspecified case - If it had been another lost object, where we wouldn't say that the owner knew, it would not belong to the finder. And this is a challenge to Rava.

When one is able to save - And thus it is similar to another lost object that has a sign on it, since one can give the sign and take the object, since one is required to return it.

Even if one is not pursuing them - That he is waiting to save them tomorrow or the next day, and he is not despairing.

With difficulty - that if he does not hurry to save them, they will not be saved. Therefore, if he doesn't pursue them, they are surely ownerless, since he knew but did not save them.

1. Come and hear:
   1. When did the Sages say that in the case where one separates teruma without the owner’s consent, his teruma is considered teruma?
   2. Where there was someone who entered another’s field and gathered produce from it and separated teruma without the owner’s permission.
      1. If the owner is concerned about robbery, his teruma is not teruma,
      2. but if he is not , his teruma is teruma.
   3. And from where would does he know whether the owner is concerned about robbery or not?
      1. If the owner came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma from that,
         1. if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma.
         2. But if not, his teruma is not teruma.
   4. If the owners were gathering and adding, either way, his teruma is considered teruma.
2. But why is that the halakha, that if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found his teruma is teruma?
   1. At the time that he separated the teruma, he did not know.
3. Rava interpreted the matter in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: This is a case where the owner designated him as an agent.
4. So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that the owner did not designate him as an agent, would his teruma be teruma?
   1. But doesn’t the Merciful One state: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states “you,” the addition of the word “also” in the term “you also” serves to include an agent.
      1. Just as when you, the owner, separate teruma, it is with your knowledge, so too when your agent separates teruma, it must be with your knowledge.
5. Rather, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owner designated him as an agent and said to him: Go and separate teruma, but he did not say to him: Separate teruma from these specific crops.
6. And when the owner’s intent is unspecified, when the agent separates teruma, it is from the crops of intermediate quality that he separates teruma.
   1. And in this case, the agent went and separated teruma from higher-quality produce, and the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality.
   2. If produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma. But if not, his teruma is not teruma.
7. Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to come to the orchard [levustana] of Mari bar Isak.
8. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them.
9. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate the fruit, but Mar Zutra did not eat.
10. Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came and found them eating his fruit and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits?
11. Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit?
    1. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: if produce of better quality than the produce he had separated is found, his teruma is considered teruma!
12. Mar Zutra said to them that this is what Rava said: The Sages said that the statement: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate teruma, is only with regard to the matter of teruma, due to the fact that it is a mitzva and the owner is amenable. But here, in this incident, it is due to shame that he said this.

(28) so shall also you on your part set aside a gift for יהוה from all the tithes that you receive from the Israelites; and from them you shall bring the gift for יהוה to Aaron the priest.