Elu Metziot shiur #5, 21b-22a

  • Rav Joshua Amaru

ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM);

Introduction to the Study of Talmud

By Rav Josh Amaru

 

Elu Metziot shiur #5,  21b-22a.

 

Today's shiur includes the vocabulary list for the shiur itself. If you wish to consult the full cumulative vocabulary list, it is found at HERE.  

As usual, the citations to the text of the gemara are linked to the online scan of the daf, for those who do not have an open gemara before them.  The gemara can be found on-line at
http://www.e-daf.com/dafprint.asp?mesechta=22&daf=%2021b

This week, we are introducing a new feature.  For key vocabulary words, instead of linking to the key words list, you can place your cursor over the word and the translation/explanation will pop up.  The key words and general vocabulary lists appear at the end of the shiur as usual.  As always, any feedback as to how well these things work is appreciated.

Useful tip:  Anytime you click on one of the hypertexts in the shiur, e.g. to look at the schematic analysis, just click on the "Back" button on your browser to go back to where you left off.

 

Summary of last week's shiur:

  We have begun the process in which Abaye and Rava's opinions about yeush she-lo mida'at are tested out.  The gemara introduced a series of  precedents based upon our mishna that challenged Abaye's position that yeush she-lo mida'at is not yeush.  The theme of all the precedents was the same:  we quoted cases from the mishna, and later on a baraita, in which the finder can keep a lost object.  In none of these cases is there an explicit requirement that the owner be aware of the loss in order for yeush to be effective, implying that so long as the lost object does not have simanim, the finder may keep it even before the owner has discovered his loss.  The rebuttal of all these precedents was more or less the same:  According to Abaye, all these cases of "finder's keepers" must be understood in light of Rav Yitzchak's rule that a normal person checks his purse at frequent intervals.  The various cases of yeush mentioned in the mishnah and baraita are all examples of things that a normal person is aware of their loss almost immediately, and only because of that can we say "finder's keepers."

   

This week's shiurOpen your gemara and learn from ...ת"ש מאימתי כל אדם ("Ta shema mei-eimatai kol adam...") until עניים דהתם מלקטי ליה ("'aniim de-hatam melaktei lei") - lines 1-4 in the schematic analysis. 

 

    This time the gemara quotes a mishna in tractate Pe'ah, dealing with the mitzva of "leket".  The mishna teaches us that when the "nemushot" have passed through a field, then the remaining gleanings are no longer dedicated exclusively to the poor.  From that point on, anyone can collect the last remaining gleanings.  Before explaining how this mishna is relevant to out makhloket, the gemara pauses to explain the unusual term "nemushot." Two interpretations are offerred:  R. Yohanan says that the nemushot are the old men who walk with a staff, while Reish Lakish claims that the nemushot are the second wave of gleaners.  Since the gleanings of the field are allotted to the poor, we can say that the collective poor have first right to the gleanings.  This mishna teaches us that this right has a limit.  After a certain point, we assume that the poor have had their chance and whatever is left is simply hefker, abandoned, ownerless property.  This point is defined by the mishna as when the nemushot have passed through. 

 

In order to better understand the makhloket between R. Yohanan and Reish Lakish, take a look at Rashi.  See Rashi, s.v. "sabei de-azli atigra"  ד"ה סבי דאזלי אתיגרא, and s.v. "lekutei batar lekute"  ד"ה לקוטי בתר לקטוי, in the middle of the inside column of the gemara page.  The Rashi text with translation is provided at the end of the schematic analysis.  Rashi explains how each interpretation is connected semantically to the word "nemushot."  R. Yohanan understands "nemushot" as coming from the root משש m.sh.sh, meaning to feel or touch.  The old men, because they move so slowly, check and feel for every last stalk.  Reish Lakish bases his interpretation on the root מוש m.vav.sh, meaning to remove or leave.  The second wave of gleaners take everything with them.  Rashi refers us to a Biblical verse that exemplifies each interpretation.  In any case, after the nemushot are gone, the field is considered gleaned, and anything left  is hefker, and open to all.

 

    How is the mishna about the nemushot relevant to our sugya of yeush she-lo mi-da'at?  The gemara understands that the reason why the passage of the nemushot marks the end of the special right of the poor to the leket is because from that point forward the poor are mityaesh from the leket.  In other words, the collective poor abandon hope of extracting any more from a field once the nemushot have passed through.  Any gleanings found there afterwards are thus hefker.  We can see now how this halakha is relevant:  The leket becomes permitted to all through the yeush of the poor.  The gemara then points out that regarding any particular field, the local poor's yeush is informed, is yeush mi-da'at, but the right to the leket is not limited to the locals.  Any poor person has a theoretical right to the leket and the poor from elsewhere are not aware that the nemushot have passed through.  Since they (the non-local poor) would certainly be mityaesh if they knew that the nemushot had passed through, it appears that the case of leket is a case of yeush she-lo mi-da'at!  How can Abaye claim that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is not yeush given the mishna about leket

 

   The gemara defends Abaye's position with the claim that the non-local poor do not abandon their rights to the leket only after the nemushot pass through. The local poor are mityaesh with the passage of the nemushot.  The poor of other places, however, initially give up hope of collecting leket elsewhere.  Theoretically, all the leket of all of Israel belongs collectively to all the poor.  However, since every place has its own poor people who collect leket, every poor person knows that he has no chance of collecting leket in some other place.  He or she therefore abandons hope from the start regarding the leket of other places.  Thus, regarding non-local poor, their abandonment of the leket is a case of yeush mi-da'at and not relevant to our discussion. 

 

Let us continue with the gemara.  Learn from "Ta shema ketziot ba-derekh..."  תא שמע: קציעות בדרך... until the next Ta shema, lines 5-10 in the schematic analysis. 

 

Remember how you can find out the reference of a quote.  In the text of the gemara, on the word קציעות, there appears an asterisk.  This refers us to the Masoret Hashas (note top left corner of the page where the heading מסורת הש"ס appears).  In the left margin directly opposite the asterisk, the Masoret HaShas tells us two things:  1.  That we should change the word קציעות to קציצות (and that is indeed how it appears in the original mishna).  2.  That this quote comes from Tractate Ma'asrot, perek 3, mishna 4
- מעשרות פ"ג = פרק ג, מ"ד = משנה ד.  The tiny letter ח that appears next to the asterisk refers to the עין משפט נר מצוה which we will explain on another occasion
.

Here we encounter a quote from a mishna in Tractate Ma'asrot.  This mishna describes a familiar situation:  Fruit (in this case figs cut and left to dry) from an orchard that has fallen into a public area.  Does it still belong to the owner of the orchard?  Can passersby take it?  The mishna teaches us a distinction between different fruits.  Figs (both cut and whole)are permitted, and one is not a thief if one takes them.  In addition, there is no requirement to tithe such figs.  Carobs and olives, on the other hand, are forbidden.

 

    Why need one not take tithes from the figs in the road?  Look in Rashi s.v."u-peturot min ha-ma'aser" ופטורות מן המעשר, about 3/4 of the way down the page.  Rashi explains that these figs are understood to be hefker (ownerless), and teaches us that in general hefker produce need not be tithed.

 

    It would appear that at least the first part of this mishna (the gemara refers to it as the reisha רישא), regarding figs, also furnishes support to Rava's position.  After all, the owner of the field does not know that his figs have fallen into the road, and yet the figs are still hefker, presumably because he will be mityaesh when he discovers the loss.  However, the gemara immediately dismisses this threat to Abaye's position.  Cut figs are a valuable commodity and we can presume that the owner checks frequently, is aware of any figs that have fallen in the road, and has been mityaesh.  So too, with the figs that have fallen off the tree hanging over the road.  Since the owner knows that the figs are likely to fall off the tree, he is initially mityaesh from those figs hanging over the road.  

 

    Actually, says the gemara, it is the seifa, the second part of the mishna, regarding carobs and olives that is interesting.  This halakha challenges Rava's position.  If the owner of the field is going to be mityaesh eventually, why cannot one take the carobs and olives that have fallen in the road?

 

    R. Abahu explains: Since olives (and presumably carobs, though the gemara oddly does not mention them) are identifiable, i.e. one can tell which type of tree (and hence which field) they came from,  everyone knows that these olives belong to the owner of the field. Hence, the owner will not be mityaesh.  Note here that we are following the corrected text of the gemara.  Instead of the word "duchta" דוכתא, we are glossing "de-zeita" דזיתא, following the tiny writing right next to the printed gemara text.  The asterisk next to the the word "duchta" points to the correction.  Rava holds that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is yeush, but in the case of the seifa, of the olives fallen into the road, there is no yeush at all, and this baraita is no threat to his position. 

 

    The gemara, however, immediately notices that the logic of the seifa, of the case of olives, can just as easily be applied to the reisha, to the case of the figs.  If we do not allow passersby to take fallen olives because people understand that these fruits come from the adjoining field, and thus the owner is not mityaesh, why do we allow people to take the fallen figs in the same situation?  Why do we presume yeush for figs and not for olives?

 

    Rav Papa comes to the rescue of Rava's position. According to Rav Papa, figs are different from olives in that upon falling from the tree they become disgusting (anyone who has a fig tree can testify to this - soft figs often explode on impact).  Why does this make a difference?  Let us take a look at Rashi to help us understand how Rav Papa's point is relevant.  The relevant Rashi is s.v. "im nefilata nim'eset" עם נפילתה נמאסת, the second to last Rashi on the page, text and translation appear at the end of the schematic analysis. 

 

    According to Rashi's interpretation of Rav Papa, the distinction between figs and olives lies in the owner's expectations.  Figs are both likely to fall, and likely to subsequently become disgusting, so the owner initially gives up on any figs that end up in the public thoroughfare.  Thus, even though the passersby know that figs on the road come from the adjacent field, they still may take them.  This is the case even with figs that are not disgusting, for the owner has been mityaesh from all figs that make their way into the road because of the likelihood of their becoming disgusting.  Olives, on the other hand, generally do not fall and even when they do, they remain intact.  In such circumstances, the owner relies on the decency of the passersby that they will not take what obviously belongs to him, and thus he or she (the owner) is not mityaesh.

 

    We will look at one more Ta shema.  Learn from "Ta Shema ha-ganav...תא שמע הגנב"  until the next Ta Shema (until the end of the fourth line on 22a).  Use lines 11-15 of the schematic analysis.  Here we encounter a baraita* about property that has changed

How do I know that this is a baraita and not a mishna?  Notice the asterisk next to the word "ha-ganav" הגנב. Look in the margin opposite the asterisk.  The Masoret Ha-shas indicates that this passage appears in "Tos. Ketubot P"ch"  תוס' כתובות פ"ח, short for Tosefta Ketubot Chapter 8, תוספתא כתובות פרק ח.  The Tosefta is a compendium of baraitot.  If this passage was a mishna, the Masoret HaShas would have referred us to the Mishna, which is a far more authoritative source.
hands against the will of the owner. The baraita teaches us that when

a "ganav" or a "gazlan" or even a river (see Rashi - the Jordan is just an example) has taken property from one person and "given" it to another, that property now belongs to the new owner. 

 

    Without entering into the nuances of a complicated discussion that appears in Tractate Bava Kama, let us posit that stolen goods, if they change hands after the victim has been mityaesh, are no longer recoverable.  Of course, the thief must reimburse the victim, but the victim cannot sue the buyer in order to recover the actual object after is has been established that he or she was mityaesh.  Given this fact, the gemara points out that in the case of a gazlan or a flood, where the victim is necessarily aware immediately of his or her loss, and presumably is mityaesh*

 

The Tosafot, s.v. "Ma she-natan natan" מה שנתן נתן, point out that this baraita (and the subsequent discussion) makes sense only according to the opinion that there is a presumption of yeush on the part of victims of theft and robbery.

of recovering it, it is clear why the third party (the buyer or the person who recovered it from the river)can keep the object.  However, in the case of the ganav, we cannot assume that the victim is aware of his or her loss!  If the right of the buyer to keep the stolen object depends upon yeush, this would appear to be a case of yeush she-lo mi-da'at!  The actual yeush may not yet have taken place and yet we still allow the buyer from a ganav to keep the the stolen object.

 

    Rav Papa explains how this baraita sets no precedent.  According to Rav Papa, Abaye understands the term "ganav" as it appears in this baraita to refer to armed robbers and not burglars.  Thus, in all the circumtstances listed in the baraita, the original owner is aware of the loss and is mityaesh in practice.    The gemara then asks the obvious question:  according to Abaye's reading, the baraita is redundant. Why does the baraita need to include armed robbers as a separate category - are they not just another type of gazlan

   

    Apparrently, the gemara does not view this redundancy as a significant difficulty for Abaye.  The response is to quite simply accept the redundancy. Indeed, according to Abaye, the baraita list two types of gazlan.  This redundancy is not sufficient reason for Abaye to concede that the baraita implies that yeush she-lo mi-da'at is valid.

  

    To sum up: In this week's shiur, we have continued our discussion of yeush she-lo mi-da'at.  We examined three precedents which seemed to point one way or the other, and each time we saw that the mishna or baraita can be interpreted in accordance with both opinions about yeush she-lo mi-da'at. Along the way we learned about the laws of leket, tithing, and theft, as well as something about the difference between figs and olives.  This eclectic collection of knowledge is one of the great pleasures of gemara learning - though we are indeed focused on a single subject - yeush she-lo mida'at, the Sages, in the breadth of both their knowledge and interests, allow us to peek into multiple worlds.         

 

      

 

Schematic Analysis of Bava Metzia 21a-22b

 "ת"ש:  מאימתי כל אדם...  אין מרדפין - אייאושי מיאש"

 

 

text of the gemara

analysis

translation

1.  תא שמע: מאימתי כל אדם מותרים בלקט - משילכו בה הנמושות.

Prooftext supporting one side of the makhloket

1.  Ta shema:  At what point are all permitted to take the leket?  - When the nemushot have already been through it [the field].

2.  ואמרינן: מאי נמושות?
ואמר רבי יוחנן: סבי דאזלי אתיגרא.
ריש לקיש אמר: לקוטי בתר לקוטי.

Parenthetical explications of the term “nemushot”

2.  We explain:  what are nemushot?
Rabbi Yochanan said: old men who walk with a staff.
Reish Lakish said: gleaners after gleaners.

3.  ואמאי? נהי דעניים דהכא מיאשי, איכא עניים בדוכתא אחריתא דלא מיאשי!

Explanation how this baraita implies that yeush she-lo mi-da’at is yeush.

3.  Why [at this point is the leket permitted to all and not just the poor]?  Even though the local poor have been mityaesh, the poor of another place have not been mityaesh!

4.  אמרי: כיון דאיכא עניים הכא - הנך מעיקרא איאושי מיאש, ואמרי: עניים דהתם מלקטי ליה.

Rebuttal and counter - interpretation of the prooftext showing how it does not imply that yeush she-lo mi-da’at is yeush.

4.  They reply:  since there are poor people here, they (the poor of other places) are mityaesh originally, saying (to themselves): the poor of there (of that place) are collecting it.

5.  תא שמע: קציעות בדרך, ואפילו בצד שדה קציעות. וכן תאנה הנוטה לדרך, ומצא תאנים תחתיה - מותרות משום גזל, ופטורות מן המעשר. בזיתים ובחרובים - אסור.

New prooftext supporting one side of the makhloket.

5.  Ta shema: [cut] figs on the path, or even next to a field of  cut figs, or even the figs found under a fig tree leaning over the path, are permitted regarding theft (i.e. can be taken without so doing being considered theft) and are exempt from tithes.  Olives and carobs [in similar circumstances] are forbidden (and cannot be taken).

6.  בשלמא רישא לאביי לא קשיא, אגב דחשיבי - ממשמש בהו. תאנה נמי - מידע ידיע דנתרא.

Explanation how the first part of the prooftext poses no threat to Abaye’s position.

6.  Granted that the reisha (the first part of the prooftext) is not difficult for Abaye, for since they (the cut figs) are valuable, he [the owner] feels for them (i.e. checks that they are there).  [The figs that fell from] the fig tree as well, it is known that it [the fruit] falls.

7.  אלא סיפא, לרבא קשיא. דקתני: בזיתים ובחרובים אסור!

Assertion that the second half of the prooftext does contradict Rava’s position.

7.  However, the seifa (latter part of the prooftext) is difficult for Rava, as we learn:  Olives and carobs are forbidden (and cannot be taken)!

8.  אמר רבי אבהו: שאני זית, הואיל וחזותו מוכיח עליו, ואף על גב דנתרין זיתי מידע ידיע, (דוכתא) [דזיתא]  דאיניש איניש הוא.

Rebuttal and explanation by R. Abahu how the second part of the prooftext (the case of olives or carobs) does not conflict with Rava’s position.

8.  R. Abahu said:  An olive is different, since its appearance demonstrates (i.e. makes its source evident); and even though olives fall, it is known that  the olives (that recognizably belong to) someone are his.

9.  אי הכי, אפילו רישא נמי!

Difficulty with R. Abahu’s explanation

9.  If so, then the reisha (the case of the figs) also (one should presume that the figs belong to the proximate owner)!

10.  אמר רב פפא: תאנה עם נפילתה נמאסת.

Resolution of the difficulty.

10.  Rav Papa said:  A fig, upon falling, becomes disgusting.

11.  תא שמע: הגנב שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, וכן גזלן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, [דף כב, עמ' א'] וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, מה שנטל - נטל, ומה שנתן - נתן.

New prooftext supporting one side of the makhloket.

11.  Ta shema: When a ganav takes from one and gives to another, or a gazlan takes from one and gives to another, [daf 22a] or the Jordan (river) takes from one and gives to another, then what has been taken is taken, and what has been given is given.

12.  בשלמא גזלן וירדן - דקא חזי להו ומיאש, אלא גנב מי קא חזי ליה דמיאש?

Explanation how the prooftext supports one position.

12.  It is all right with regard to a gazlan and the Jordan, because [the owner] sees them [when they are taken]  and he is mityaesh, but with regard to a ganav - does the owner see him such that he is mityaesh?

13.  תרגמה רב פפא בלסטים מזוין.

Rebuttal by offering alternative explanation of prooftext.

13.  Rav Papa explained it as referring to armed bandits.

14.  אי הכי היינו גזלן!

Difficulty raised with alternative explanation.

14.  But then, it is the same as ‘gazlan’!?

15.  תרי גווני גזלן.

Resolution of that difficulty

15. [The baraita lists] two kinds of gazlan. 

 

 

Selected Rashi's from page 21b
Translation of Rashi

רש"י דף כא עמ' ב

Old men who walk with a staff - Old poor people who walk slowly with a cane, and see every stalk.  The term "nemushot" is similar to "lo yamushu (Isaiah 59) - that they feel as they go.

Gleaners after gleaners - the term "nemushot" is like "lo yamish" (Exodus 13) - that they take and remove all that is in front of them.

 

not liable for tithing - as in the case of hefker (ownerless) [fruit]; since hefker is not liable for tithing.

 

Upon falling becomes disgusting -  Therefore: as it is known that they [figs] fall [off the tree], one is mityaesh initially because of the fact that it is disgusting.  Thus, from the moment it falls, one does not care about it and makes it hefker (ownerless)

סבי דאזלי אתיגרא - זקנים עניים הולכים על משענתם בנחת, ורואין כל שבולת ושבולת, ולשון נמושות כמו לא ימושו (ישעיהו נט) - שממשמשין והולכים

לקוטי בתר לקוטי - לשון נמושות כמו לא ימיש (שמות יג) - שנוטלין ומשין הכל מלפניהם

 

ופטורות מן המעשר - כדין הפקר, דהפקר פטור מן מעשר

 

עם נפילתה נמאסת - הלכך: כיון דידיע דנתרא מעיקרא מיאש משום מאיסותא, דמכי נפלה לא חשיבא עליה, ומפקר לה.


 

 

New Key words

אי הכי

 אם כך

 Iy hakhi, if this is the case

אימא

 אומר

 eima, say

אלא

 ela, but however

בשלמא

 זה בסדר, זה נכון

 bishelama, it is all right, it is true, granted.  The gemara usually uses the term bishelama in order to point to a problem elsewhere: e.g. bishelama  x is the case, however, y is difficult for such and such a reason.

גזלן

 gazlan, robber.  A gazlan in halakha is one who steals openly such that the victim is aware of the theft while it is taking place.  As opposed to a ganav (see above), a gazlan is merely required to return the lost object and does not pay kefel .

גנב

 ganav, thief.  A ganav in halakha is one who steals in secret, without the awareness of the victim.  When he is caught he must return the stolen object and in addition must pay kefel, double, i.e. the value of the object, to the victim.

הכא במאי עסקינן

 במה עוסקים אנחנו כאן

  hakha bemai akinan, what are we dealing with here

טעמא

 ta’ama, the reason

מאי אריא

 מה השייכות של

 mai iraya, what is the relevance of

מי

 האם

 mi, is it the case, is it true

נהי

 נניח

 nehi, granted, even though

סיפא

 seifa, latter or last section of a mishna or baraita

רישא

 reisha, first section of a mishna or a baraita

שאני

 שונה

shani, is different

תרגמה

 תרגם, הסביר אותה

 tirgema, explained it.  lit., translated it. Tirgema is used usually when the gemara offers an alternative explanation of a term or concept in order to solve a difficulty.

New Vocabulary

אלא

 ela, but however

בשלמא

 זה בסדר, זה נכון

bishelama, it is all right, it is true, granted.  The gemara usually uses the term bishelama in order to point to a problem elsewhere: e.g. bishelama  x is the case, however, y is difficult for such and such a reason.

חזי

 1. ראה 2.  ראוי

chazi, 1. he sees,  2.  it is appropriate

תרגמה

 תרגם, הסביר אותה  

 tirgema, explained it.  lit., translated it. Tirgema is used usually when the gemara offers an alternative explanation of a term or concept in order to solve a difficulty.

לסטים מזוין

 שודדים מזוינים

 listim mezuyin, armed robbers

מי

 האם

 mi, is it the case, is it true

טעמא

 ta’ama, the reason

הכא במאי עסקינן

 במה עוסקים אנחנו כאן

  hakha bemai akinan, what are we dealing with here

אי הכי

 אם כך

 Iy hakhi, if this is the case

אימא

 אומר

 eima, say

מאי אריא

 מה השייכות של

 mai iraya, what is the relevance of

גנב

 ganav, thief.  A ganav in halakha is one who steals in secret, without the awareness of the victim.  When he is caught he must return the stolen object and in addition must pay kefel, double, i.e. the value of the object, to the victim.

גזלן

 gazlan, robber.  A gazlan in halakha is one who steals openly such that the victim is aware of the theft while it is taking place.  As opposed to a ganav (see above), a gazlan is merely required to return the lost object and does not pay kefel .

דוכתא

 מקום

 dukhta:  place

לקט

 leket:  gleanings of the harvest.  There is a mitzvah to leave the leket to the poor.  When less than three stalks have fallen in one place during the harvest, the owner it forbidden to collect them.  Only poor people are permitted to collect the leket and it is one of several agricultural mitzvot dedicated to taking care of the poor. 

נהי

 נניח

 nehi, granted, even though

נמאס, נמאסת  

nim'as, nim'eset, becomes disgusting

סיפא

 seifa, latter or last section of a mishna or baraita

רישא

 reisha, first section of a mishna or a baraita

שאני

 שונה

shani, is different