סקר
עם סיום מס' שבת





 

Steinsaltz

three coins stacked one atop another; bundles of grain in a secluded area; loaves of a homeowner, as each shapes his loaves in his own unique manner; wool fleeces that are taken from the house of a craftsman, as each craftsman processes the wool in his own unique manner; jugs of wine; or jugs of oil. If one finds any of these, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason one is obligated to proclaim his find is that he found produce inside the vessel or coins inside the pouch; but if he found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. The Gemara comments: We learn from this mishna by inference that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If one found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. If some of the produce is in the vessel and some of the produce is on the ground, or if some of the coins are inside the pouch and some of them are on the ground, one is obligated to proclaim his find.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: If one found an item on which there is no distinguishing mark alongside an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, he is obligated to proclaim that he found both. If the owner of the item with the distinguishing mark came and took his item but did not claim ownership of the other item, the other person, who found the items, acquires the item on which there is no distinguishing mark. This halakha should also apply when one finds a vessel on which there is a distinguishing mark and produce on which there is no distinguishing mark.

The Gemara cites several possible resolutions to this contradiction. Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of both the vessel and the produce, is referring to a container and flax. Since the flax fibers are intertwined, when part of the flax falls out of the container, all of the flax would fall out. Therefore, the fact that the flax is completely outside the container is not an indication that it was never in the container. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a basket and produce. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, presumably some produce would remain in the basket, because the individual units of produce are not connected. Therefore, the fact that no produce was found in the basket indicates that the produce did not fall out of the basket.

Rav Pappa said: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a basket and produce, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the vessel, is referring to a case where some produce remains in the basket. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, indicating that the produce fell from it. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is not facing the produce.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the empty basket has a rim. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, the rim would have prevented some of the produce from falling. This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the basket has no rim and therefore the produce in its entirety could have fallen from the basket.

§ The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Piles of produce and piles of coins. Conclude from it that number is a distinguishing mark, and one reclaims his produce or coins by correctly declaring the number of piles. The Gemara rejects that proof. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: A pile of produce. It is not the number of piles but their location that serves as a determining mark. Based on that emendation, conclude from it that location is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara rejects that proof as well. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: Piles of produce. Since the authoritative version of the mishna is unclear, no proof can be cited from it.

§ The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Three coins stacked one atop another. Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal says: And one is obligated to proclaim the find in a case where the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers. This is also taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The baraita elaborates: And these coins are arranged in towers: Three coins stacked one atop another.

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction in the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. In the first clause of the baraita, you said: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap [meshalḥefei shalḥufei], he is obligated to proclaim his find. Say the latter clause of the baraita: If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap, those coins belong to him. The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita calls any pile of coins that is not arranged in well-ordered towers: Scattered.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins minted by three different kings, but if all the coins were minted by one king, one is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if all the coins were minted by one king, the finder should also be obligated to proclaim his find. And if the coins are not arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if the coins were minted by three kings, the finder should also not be obligated to proclaim his find.

Rather, if Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins of different sizes minted by one king, which are similar to coins minted by three kings. But if they are coins of the same size minted by one king, he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara elaborates: According to this interpretation, what are the circumstances of coins that are arranged in well-ordered towers and which one must proclaim? It is when the bottom coin is broadest, and the intermediate-sized coin is atop it and the smallest coin is atop the intermediate one, as we say: They were placed there and are not lost at all. But if one finds coins minted by one king, each of them sized like the other, even if each is placed upon the other, those coins belong to the finder. The reason is that it is possible to say that it is happenstance and they fell together, so their arrangement is not a distinguishing mark.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if the coins were minted by one king, one is also obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What does one proclaim in order to invite the owner to describe his item? The Gemara answers: He proclaims that he found coins and the owner specifies the number of coins. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna specifically teach a case where one found three coins when even if one found two coins they could be identified by their number? Ravina said: Since the finder proclaims that he found coins, using the plural term, indicating that there were at least two coins, if the owner claims that he lost two coins, the default of the plural term, he is not providing a distinguishing mark. Therefore, the mishna teaches a case of three coins.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one found coins config-ured like a round bracelet, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a straight line, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a triangle, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a ladder, one partially upon the other and partially protruding, what is the halakha?

The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: For any arrangement of coins such that if one were to introduce a wood chip between the coins he could thereby lift them all at once with that wood chip, he is obligated to proclaim his find. Based on that criterion, one can conclude that if one finds coins configured like a ladder, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר