1)ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW TO DESPAIR
(a)Support (for Rava - Beraisa): If property of Reuven was taken by a Ganav (covert thief), Gazlan (open robber) or (overflowing) river and given to Shimon, Shimon may keep it.
1.Reuven is aware of a Gazlan or river, but he is not aware of a Ganav!
(b)Rejection (Rav Papa): In the Beraisa, 'Ganav' refers to armed robbers.
(c)Question: It also mentions a Gazlan!
(d)Answer: It discusses two kinds of robbers.
(e)Support (for Abaye - Beraisa): If a river took Reuven's beams, wood and rocks and deposited them on Shimon's property, he may keep them, because Reuven despaired.
1.Inference: Unless (we heard that) Reuven despaired, Shimon could not keep them!
(f)Rejection: The case is, Reuven could save them.
(g)Question (Seifa): If Reuven was chasing after them, Shimon must return them.
1.If Reuven could save them, even if he was not chasing them, Shimon must return them!
(h)Answer: The case is, Reuven could save them with difficulty.
1.If he chases them, he shows that he does not despair. If not, we may assume that he despairs.
2)TAKING TERUMAH FOR ANOTHER PERSON
(a)(Beraisa) Question: In what case can one separate Terumah without the will of the owner, and it takes effect?
(b)Answer: Reuven entered Shimon's field, gathered fruit, and separated Terumah without consulting Shimon;
1.If Shimon considers Reuven's separation of Terumah to be theft, the Terumah does not take effect. If not, it takes effect.
2.Question: How do we know whether or not he considers it to be theft?
3.Answer: If when Shimon sees him, he says 'why didn't you take nicer ones?', and there are nicer fruit that Reuven did not select for the Terumah, Shimon is being sincere, and the Terumah takes effect;
i.If Reuven took the best fruit, Shimon is being sarcastic. He resents that Reuven 'stole' the best fruit to be Terumah, so it does not take effect.
ii.If Shimon gathered fruit and added to the Terumah that Reuven separated, whether or not Reuven took the best fruit, Reuven's separation takes effect.
(c)Question: When we find that there is better fruit, how does the separation take effect?
1.At the time Reuven called it Terumah, he did not know whether or not Shimon would agree to it!
(d)Answer (Rava, on behalf of Abaye): The case is, Shimon had made Reuven a Shali'ach to separate Terumah.
(e)Version #1 (our text) Support: Presumably, this is correct. Had he not made him a Shali'ach, the Terumah could not take effect!
1."You... also you" includes that a Shali'ach (and only a Shali'ach!) may separate Terumah for the owner;
2.Just like the owner separates like he wants, the Shali'ach can separate only if the owner wants him to.
3.The case is, Shimon did not tell Reuven which fruit to make Terumah. Most people select average Peros to be the Terumah, but Reuven took nicer Peros.
i.Shimon said 'why didn't you take nicer ones?' If there are nicer fruits, the Terumah takes effect. If there are no nicer fruits, it does not take effect.
(f)Version #2 (Gra and many Rishonim) Objection: Is this reasonable?!
1."You... also you" - this includes that a Shali'ach may separate Terumah for the owner. Just like the owner separates like he wants, the Shali'ach can separate only if the owner wanted him to.
2.Once Reuven was appointed, it doesn't matter if Shimon approves of the fruits he selected!
(g)Answer: Shimon did not specify which fruits to take, and most people select average Peros to be the Terumah, but Reuven took nicer Peros. Therefore, unless we see that Shimon approves, he was not authorized to do this.
1.Shimon said 'Why didn't you take nicer ones?' If there are nicer fruits, the Terumah takes effect. If there are no nicer fruits, it does not take effect. (end of Version #2)
(h)Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi came to Mari bar Isak's orchard. Mari's sharecropper put dates in front of them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate, but Mar Zutra did not. Mari found them.
1.Mari (to his sharecropper): Why didn't you give them from these nice ones?
2.Ameimar and Rav Ashi (to Mar Zutra): Why don't you eat now?
i.(Beraisa): If there are better fruits, the Terumah takes effect (because the owner is sincere).
3.Mar Zutra: Rava taught that 'why didn't you take nicer ones?' applies only to Terumah, for people are happy to do Mitzvos (nicely);
i.Here, (perhaps) Mari suggested giving nicer ones only because he was embarrassed (to say that he did not want to give us).
(i)(Beraisa): If Peros were still wet from dew and the owner was pleased, they are Huchshar (receive Tum'ah);
1.If they became dry, even if the owner was later pleased, they are not Huchshar.
2.Suggestion: This is because current satisfaction is never considered as if he was pleased retroactively.
3.Rejection: Hechsher is an exception. It says "Ki Yiten (when he will put, i.e. willingly)" - he must be happy when the liquid is (put) on the Peros.
4.Question: If so, when the Peros were still wet when he was pleased, why are they Huchshar?
5.Answer: This is like Rav Papa taught;
i.Contradiction (Rav Papa): It is written "Yiten (he will put)", but tradition says to read this like "Yutan (will be put)"!
ii.Resolution (Rav Papa): We require that (a liquid) will be put, similar to when he will put. Just like a man puts only if he wants to put, he must want that the liquid was put.
(j)Question (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael ben Yehotzedek): What is the source that one may keep something that was taken by an overflowing river?
(k)Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael): "And so you will do to his donkey... that will be lost from him, and you found it (you must return it)" applies only when it is lost from him, but available to others. It excludes what is hopeless for anyone to retrieve it.
1.Presumably, the case of something forbidden to take resembles what is permitted. Just like one is permitted something (in the river) whether or not it has a Siman, also one is forbidden to take an Aveidah (on the land) whether or not it has a Siman.
2.This refutes Rava. The Halachah follows Abaye against Rava in six places, whose acronym is YA'AL KAGAM:
i.Yud - Yi'ush (despair) without knowledge;
ii.Ayin - Edim Zomemim are disqualified retroactively;
iii.Lamed - (Rashi - Lechi (a post to permit carrying in an alley); Tosfos - Leidah (days of childbirth on which blood is not seen; or, Lo Efshar (inevitable), undesired benefit from something forbidden);
iv.Kuf - Kidushin that forbids the couple to have relations;
v.Gimel - Giluy (revealing) intent to nullify a Get;
vi.Mem - Mumar (a wanton sinner) who sins to fulfill his desires.
(l)Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Since the Halachah follows Abaye, why may we eat dates that fall off other people's trees in the wind?
(m)Answer (Rav Ashi): Since vermin eat dates that fall, people despair from them from the beginning.
(n)Question: If the owners are orphans (minors), how can we answer? Their despair is invalid!
(o)Answer: That is an unusual case, we are not concerned for it.
(p)Questions: If we know that the owners are minors, what is the law? If a wall of stones surrounds the tree, what is the law? (Rashi - vermin cannot eat them; Aruch - this shows that he wants them.)
(q)Answer: Indeed, then it is forbidden.
3)A SIMAN THAT WILL NOT LAST
(a)(Mishnah): One may keep (small) bundles of sheaves found in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(b)Version #1 (Rabah): This is even if they have a Siman.
(c)Inference: He holds that a Siman that is apt to be (destroyed when) trampled is not a valid Siman.
(d)(Rava): One may keep them only if they do not have a Siman.
(e)Inference: Rava holds that a Siman that is likely to be trampled is a valid Siman.
(f)Version #2 (Rabah): A Siman that is likely to be trampled is not a valid Siman.
(g)(Rava): It is a valid Siman. (end of Version #2)
(h)Question (against Rava - our Mishnah and the Seifa (25a)): One may keep bundles of sheaves found in the Reshus ha'Rabim. If one found bundles of sheaves in a Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and announces (to return them).
1.Question: What is the case?
i.If there is no Siman on them, in a Reshus ha'Yachid, why must he return them?
2.Answer: Rather, there is a Siman on them, and in the Reshus ha'Rabim, he keeps them!
3.Conclusion: A Siman that is likely to be trampled is not a valid Siman. This refutes Rava!
(i)Answer (for Rava): Really, there is no Siman on them, but the place they were found is a Siman.
(j)Rabah holds that the place is not a Siman; they explicitly argued about this.
1.(Rabah): The place is not a Siman.
2.(Rava): It is a Siman.
(k)Question (Beraisa): One may keep (small) bundles of sheaves found in the Reshus ha'Rabim. If he found them in a Reshus ha'Yachid, he takes them and announces.
1.Big bundles of sheaves, whether in a Reshus ha'Yachid or Reshus ha'Rabim, he takes them and announces.
2.This is difficult for Rabah and Rava. (What is the difference between big and small bundles?)
(l)Answer #1 (Rabah): Small bundles of sheaves have Simanim. In the Reshus ha'Rabim, the Siman will be trampled (so the finder keeps them). in a Reshus ha'Yachid, they will not be trampled;
1.Big bundles, because they are tall, are not trampled even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.
(m)Answer #2 (Rava): The only Siman on the bundles is their place. In the Reshus ha'Rabim, bundles get kicked around, so they do not remain where they were left. In a Reshus ha'Yachid, they remain where they were left;
1.Big bundles, because they are heavy, are not kicked around even in a Reshus ha'Rabim.