Talmud Shiur 5784 #11

1. Come and hear
   1. which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak:
   2. 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?
   3. 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).
      1. That which is lost from him, the owner, but is available to be found by any person.
      2. Excluded from that obligation is that which is lost from him and is not available to be found by any person.
   4. And the prohibition is similar to the allowance:
      1. 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,
      2. so too in the case of the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, it is prohibited.
      3. The refutation of the opinion of Rava is indeed a conclusive refutation.
2. 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.

"From him" - this is an additional word in the Torah, coming to teach that it is only "lost" to the owner.

And the forbidden is similar to the permitted - Since from the one text we derive that it must be considered "found" by anyone who returns it, and it if isn't considered "found", the finder merits it, we compare it to here. The former is the permitted, and the latter is the forbidden.

Just as in the allowance - That is not "found", there is no differentiation between whether or not there is an identifying marker.

So too with the forbidden - that is "found" by everyone else, there is no differentiation whether there is an identifying marker, where when he finds out he will despair, or whether there is not an identifying marker, where when he finds out he will not despair. So here [in a case of being unaware], since if there is a sign, the object is forbidden, when there is no identifying marker, it is also forbidden, since one could say: "I did not know it fell before it came to his hand."

Yael Kegam - Signs of halachot [in which Abaye is followed over Rava]:

1. Despair that is unaware here
2. A conspiratorial witness is retroactively considered unfit, in Tractate Sanhedrin.
3. A Lechi that stands by itself, in Tractate Eruvin
4. Betrothal that is not given to consummation, in Tractate Kidushin
5. 
   

This that we permit when it is lost from him and from all people, you are forced to say that we do not need the verse when he knew and despairs. Even when it is available to all people, it is permitted [for the finder to keep it] through despair; rather, we need [the verse] only when he did not know. Even though when he finds out, he will not despair, even if there is a Siman, since it is lost from everyone (the finder keeps it). Similarly, the case of Isur [to keep it], when it is available to all people, it is forbidden in such a case when we do not know that he despaired, whether or not there is a Siman; We permit only when he despaired before it came to the finder's hand, [the case in] which the Torah permitted.

1. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that the opinion of Rava was conclusively refuted, those dates are blown off the tree by the wind, how do we eat them?
2. Rav Ashi said to him: Since there are repugnant creatures and creeping animals that eat the dates after they fall, the owner despairs of their recovery from the outset.
3. Rav Aḥa asked: Perhaps the tree belonged to minor orphans who, because they are not capable of relinquishing, what is the justification for eating found dates?
4. Rav Ashi said to him: We do not presume a valley to be land belonging to orphans.
5. Rav Aḥa asked: If the presumptive status of the trees was previously established as belonging to orphans, what is the halakha?
   1. If the trees are surrounded by fences, what is the halakha?
6. Rav Ashi said to him: The dates are forbidden in those cases.

(38) but if he puts water on the seed and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it shall be impure for you.