Bava Metzia 22b

בבא מציעא כ״ב ע״ב

Learn Bava Metzia 22b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 22b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

יאוש שלא מדעת is settled like אביי; wind-fallen dates; and whether a trampled סימן or the place of loss counts as a סימן.

Overview

The גמרא finishes its long test of the argument between אביי and רבא about יאוש שלא מדעת (giving up hope before the owner even knows the item is lost). A proof from the laws of הכשר is rejected. The פסוק of כי יותן, as רב פפא explains it, requires the wetting to happen with the owner's knowledge, and that is a special rule for הכשר alone. Then a פסוק about an item swept away by a river shows that an item lost only to its owner must be returned even when it has no סימן. That refutes רבא, and the הלכה follows אביי, one of the six cases of יע"ל קג"ם. רב אחא בריה דרבא then asks how we may eat dates blown down by the wind. רב אשי answers that the owner gives up on them in advance, because creatures eat them. Those dates are forbidden, though, when the land is known to belong to orphans or the trees are fenced in. Next the גמרא turns to bundles found in a public area. רבה and רבא argue whether a סימן likely to be trampled counts, and whether the place where an item was lost counts as a סימן. Each of them reads a ברייתא about bundles and sheaves according to his own view, and רבה's explanation continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (26)

1. StatementEnd of the ברייתא: dried produce does not become susceptible
2. ProofTrying to prove that later approval does not reach back
3. RejectionRejected: הכשר is different because the פסוק says 'when one places'
4. ChallengeChallenge: then dew should not work in the first clause either
5. ResolutionAnswer: the first clause follows רב פפא
6. Questionרב פפא's contradiction: written יתן, read יותן
7. Responseרב פפא's answer: 'it is placed' must be with knowledge, like 'he places'
8. ProofA verse about an item swept away by a river
9. ProofThe forbidden case matches the permitted case
10. Conclusionרבא is refuted
11. ConclusionThe הלכה follows אביי in six cases
12. ChallengeHow can we eat dates blown down by the wind?
13. ResolutionThe owner gives up on fallen dates from the start
14. ChallengeWhat if the fallen dates belong to orphans?
15. ResolutionWe don't assume a field belongs to orphans
16. QuestionKnown orphans' land, or fenced trees
17. ResponseIn those cases the dates are forbidden
18. Statementרבה: bundles in a public place are the finder's even with a סימן
19. Statementרבא: only without a סימן; a trampled סימן still counts
20. StatementA second version: the dispute taught on its own
21. ChallengeThe bundles ruling seems to refute רבא
22. Resolutionרבא: no סימן, the announcement is about the place
23. StatementA second dispute: does a place count as a סימן?
24. QuestionThe fuller ruling with sheaves: how does each explain it?
25. ResponseEach explains it by his own view
26. Responseרבה's explanation begins