Bava Metzia - Daf 22
- כלך אצל יפות
The Gemara attempts to support Rava’s opinion, that יאוש שלא מדעת is considered יאוש, from a Baraisa which teaches that one who separates terumah for someone else without permission, the terumah is invalid if the owner objects, as the Baraisa illustrates: if he said, כלך אצל יפות – “You should go to the better produce to separate as terumah instead,” then if there is better produce, his statement is taken literally and the terumah is valid. If there is not any better produce, it is interpreted as sarcastically saying that if he would have had better produce, he would have stolen that as well. Since terumah is effective based on the owner’s subsequent approval, although he did not know it then, the same should apply to יאוש!? Rava answers for Abaye that the Baraisa’s case is where the owner appointed him a shaliach to separate terumah beforehand (but did not indicate which produce to use). The Gemara adds that this must be the case anyway, since separating terumah is derived from "גם אתם" – you also, indicating that one’s shaliach must be like himself, requiring the shaliach to be לדעתכם – with your knowledge.
- אבידה ששטפה נהר
A Baraisa supports Abaye’s opinion: מנין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת – from where do we know that a lost item swept away by a river is permitted to be kept by the finder? The passuk says to return property " אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה" – that is lost from him and you have found, implying that only something lost by him but accessible to others must be returned, which excludes this case, שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם – which is lost from him and not accessible to all men, since items swept away by a river are normally lost to everyone. The Gemara infers: איסורא דומיא דהיתירא – the forbidden case (where the finder cannot keep it) is similar to the permitted case (when it is lost to all), since they are both taught in one passuk. Just as the permitted case applies whether it has a siman or not, so too the prohibited case must have an application even without having a siman. This must be a case of יאוש שלא מדעת, where the owner is unaware of his loss, proving that this is not considered יאוש!? The Gemara concludes that Rava’s opinion is refuted, and this is one of the six places we pasken like Abaye against Rava.
- סימן העשוי לידרס
The Mishnah taught that one may keep כריכות – small bundles of grain found in רשות הרבים. Rabbah says that this is true even if the bundles have a siman, because he holds סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן – a siman which is liable to be trampled is not considered a siman, even before it is destroyed, because the owner despairs from recovering the item. Rava says the Mishnah’s ruling only applies to bundles without a siman, but one may not keep bundles with a siman, because he holds a siman which is likely to be trampled is considered a siman. The Gemara attempts to disprove Rava from the Mishnah later, which teaches that small bundles in רשות היחיד must be announced. These bundles must have a siman, for otherwise there would be nothing to announce. Still, the first Mishnah teaches that if such bundles are found in רשות הרבים (where they will be trampled), he may keep them, despite their having a siman!? Rava answers that although the bundles have no siman, מכריז מקום – he announces the place where they were found, and the owner claims them by stating that he lost bundles there. Rabbah rejects this interpretation, because he holds מקום is not a siman.
