POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Metzia 22
1) ONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW TO DESPAIR
(a) (Mishnah): Dried figs on the road, even next to a field
of drying figs, or figs found under a tree whose foliage
leans over the public domain - one who finds them may
keep them, they are exempt from Ma'aser;
2) TAKING TERUMAH FOR ANOTHER PERSON
1. By olives and carobs, they are forbidden.
(b) Answer (R. Avahu): Because olives are recognizable (from
whose tree they fell), the owner does not despair.
2. The first clause is not difficult for Abaye - since
figs are valuable, the owner (constantly checks and)
is aware once it falls off.
3. The second clause refutes Rava!
(c) Question: If so, even by figs, the owners should not
(d) Answer (Rav Papa): A fig becomes detestable when it
(e) (Beraisa): Property of Reuven was taken by a thief,
(open) robber or river and given to Shimon - Shimon may
1. By a robber or river, Reuven is aware - but by a
thief, he is not aware!
(f) (Beraisa): A flooding river took Reuven's beams, wood and
rocks and deposited them by Shimon - he may keep them,
because Reuven despaired.
2. Answer (Rav Papa): When the Beraisa says 'thief', it
refers to armed robbers.
3. Question: But is also speaks of a robber!
4. Answer: It speaks of two kinds of robbers.
1. Inference: Unless (we heard that) Reuven despaired,
Shimon could not keep them!
(g) Rejection: The case is, Reuven could save them.
(h) Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, 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!
(i) Answer: The case is, Reuven could save them with
1. If he chases them, he shows that he does not
despair; if not, we may assume that he would
(a) (Beraisa) Question: What is the case of one who takes
Terumah without the will of the owner, such that the
Terumah 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
as theft, the Terumah does not take effect; if not,
it takes effect.
(c) Question: When it is found that there is better fruit -
how does the separation take effect?
2. Question: How do we know if he considers it as
Terumah or not?
3. Answer: If when Shimon sees him, he says 'Why didn't
you take nicer ones?' - if there are nicer fruit
which 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
ii. If Shimon gathered fruit and added to the
Terumah that Shimon separated, whether or not
Reuven took the best fruit, Reuven's separation
1. At the time Reuven called it Terumah, he did not
know if Shimon would agree to it!
(d) Answer (Rava, on behalf of Abaye): The case is, Shimon
had made Reuven an agent to separate Terumah.
(e) [Version #1 (Our text): Presumably, this is correct - had
he not made him an agent, the Terumah could not take
1. "You...also you" - this includes that an agent (and
only an agent!) may separate Terumah for the owner;
(f) [Version #2 (Gra and many Rishonim) Objection: Is this
2. Just as the owner separates as he wants, the agent
can only separate if the owner wants him to.
3. The case is, Shimon did not tell Reuven which fruit
to make Terumah. Most people select average produce
to be the Terumah, but Reuven took nicer fruits.
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.]
1. "You...also you" - this includes that an agent may
separate Terumah for the owner - just as the owner
separates as he wants, the agent can only separate
if the owner wanted him to.
(g) Answer: Shimon did not specify which fruits to take, and
most people select average produce to be the Terumah, but
Reuven took nicer fruits - therefore, unless we see that
Shimon approves, he was not authorized to do this.
2. Once Reuven was appointed, it doesn't matter if
Shimon approves of the fruits he selected!
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.]
(h) Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi came to Mari bar Isak's
orchard. Mari's sharecropper set dates before them.
Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate, Mar Zutra did not. Mari found
1. Mari (to his sharecropper): Why didn't you give them
from these nice ones?
(i) (Beraisa): If produce was still wet from dew and the
owner was pleased, they are Huchshar (prepared to receive
2. Ameimar and Rav Ashi (to Mar Zutra): Why don't you
i. (Beraisa): If there are better fruits, the
Terumah takes effect (because the owner is
3. Mar Zutra: Rava taught, 'Why didn't you take nicer
ones?' only applies to Terumah, for people are happy
to do Mitzvos (nicely);
i. Here, Mari only suggested giving nicer ones
because he was embarrassed (to say that he did
not want to give us).
1. If they became dry, even if the owner was later
pleased, they are not Huchshar.
3) A SIMAN THAT WILL NOT LAST
2. Suggestion: This is because we do not (ever)
consider current satisfaction as if retroactively,
he was pleased.
(j) Question (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael ben Yehotzedek):
How do we know that one may keep something that was taken
by an overflowing river?
3. Rejection: Hechsher is an exception - the Torah
writes "Ki Yiten (when he will put)" - he must be
happy when the liquid is (put) on the produce.
4. Question: If so, when the produce was still wet when
he was pleased, why is it Huchshar?
5. Answer: As Rav Papa taught.
i. Contradiction (Rav Papa): The Torah writes
"Yiten (he will put)" - but tradition says to
read this as "Yutan (will be put)"!
ii. Resolution (Rav Papa): We require that (a
liquid) will be put which resembles when he
will put - just as a man only puts if he wants
to put, he must want that the liquid was put.
(k) Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Yishmael): "And so you will
do to his donkey...that will be lost from him, and you
find it (you must return it)" - this only applies when it
is lost from him, but available to others, not when it is
hopeless for anyone to retrieve it.
1. Presumably, the case of something forbidden to take
resembles what is permitted - just as one is
permitted something (in the river) whether or not it
has a Siman , also one is forbidden to take a lost
object (on the land) whether or not it has a Siman.
(l) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Since the law is as
Abaye - why are we allowed to eat dates that fall off
other people's trees in the wind?
2. This refutes Rava; The law is as Abaye against Rava
in 6 places, whose acronym is YA'AL K'GAM:
i. Yud - Yi'ush (despair) without knowledge;
ii. Ayin - Edim Zomemim are disqualified
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
iv. Kuf - Kidushin in which the man (Tosfos -
becomes) forbidden to have relations with the
v. Gimel - Giluy (revealing) desire to nullify a
vi. Mem - Mumar (a wanton sinner) who sins to
fulfill his desires.
(m) Answer (Rav Ashi): Since insects eat them, people despair
from the beginning from dates which will fall.
(n) Question: How can we answer when the owners are orphans
(minors) - their despair is invalid!
(o) Answer: That is an unusual case, we are not concerned for
(p) Questions: What if he surrounded them with a wall of
stones? (Rashi - insects cannot eat them; Aruch - this
shows that he wants them.) What if we know that the
owners are minors?
(q) Answer: Indeed, then it is forbidden.
(a) (Mishnah): One may keep (small) bundles of sheaves found
in the public domain.
(b) [Version #1 (Rabah): This is even if they have a Siman.
1. Inference: Rabah holds, a Siman which is apt to be
(wiped out when) trampled is not a valid Siman .
(c) (Rava): One may keep them only if they do not have a
(d) Inference: Rava holds, a Siman which is likely to be
trampled is not a valid Siman.]
(e) [Version #2 (Rabah): A Siman which is likely to be
trampled is not a valid Siman.
(f) (Rava): It is a valid Siman.]
(g) Question (against Rava - Mishnah): One may keep bundles
of sheaves found in the public domain...bundles of
sheaves found in a private domain, he takes them and
announces (to return them).
1. Question: What is the case?
(h) Answer (for Rava): Really, there is no Siman on them -
but the place they were found is a Siman.
i. If there is no Siman on them - in a private
domain, why must he return them?
2. Answer: Rather, there is a Siman on them - and in
the public domain, he keeps them!
i. We conclude that a Siman which is likely to be
trampled is not a valid Siman - this refutes
1. Rabah holds that the place is not a Siman ; they
explicitly argued on this.
(i) Question (Beraisa): One may keep (small) bundles of
sheaves found in the public domain; if found in a private
domain, he takes them and announces;
i. (Rabah): The place is not a Siman .
ii. (Rava): It is a Siman .
1. Large bundles of sheaves, whether in a private or
public domain, he takes them and announces.
(j) Answer #1 (Rabah): Small bundles of sheaves have Simanim;
in the public domain, the Siman will be trampled (so the
finder keeps them); in a private domain, they will not be
2. This is difficult for Rabah and Rava!
1. Big bundles, because they are tall, are not trampled
even in a public domain.
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): The only Siman on the bundles is their
place. In the public domain, bundles get kicked around,
they do not remain in the place left; in a private
domain, they remain where left;
1. Big bundles, because they are heavy, are not kicked
around even in a public domain.