Talmud Shiur 5784 #13

1. Bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him.

2. Rabba says: And even with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark.
   1. Apparently, Rabba holds a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark.
3. Rava said: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to an item on which there is no distinguishing mark, but with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, the one who finds it is obligated to proclaim his find.
   1. Apparently, Rava holds that a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is a distinguishing mark.
4. And there are those who teach this halakha independent:
   1. A distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled:
   2. Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark.
   3. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.
5. We learned: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him; in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find.
   1. What are the circumstances? If there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles, when one finds them in a secluded area, what does he proclaim?
   2. Rather, is it not a case where there is a distinguishing mark. And yet, it is taught that if he finds the bundles in a public area those belong to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of Rava.
6. Rava could have said to you: Actually, it is a case where there is no distinguishing mark on the bundles.
   1. And that which you said: In a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims that the owner should provide the location where he lost the bundles.
7. And Rabba said: The location is not a distinguishing mark.
   1. As it was stated: With regard to location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark.

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. 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.

Let us say that this is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im . Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it, or a loaf of bread with coins inside it, he must proclaim his find. One may conclude by inference that the first tanna holds that even in that case those items belong to him. In explaining the tannaitic dispute, the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come on its own without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that one passes by food without picking it up. What is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled that they disagree? As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that its legal status is not that of a distinguishing mark, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that its legal status is that of a distinguishing mark. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find? Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.