Bava Metzia 23a

בבא מציעא כ״ג ע״א

Learn Bava Metzia 23a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Metzia 23a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Is a סימן that is likely to be trampled still a valid סימן? רבה and רבא each read the ברייתא of כריכות and אלומות in their own way, and the גמרא then challenges רבה from the משנה of loaves of bread.

Overview

This amud continues the argument between רבה and רבא about a סימן העשוי לידרס, a sign likely to be trampled. רבה says it does not count, and רבא says it does. First רבה and רבא each read the ברייתא about bundles and sheaves their own way, so that ברייתא proves nothing. Next the גמרא tries to refute רבה from the משנה, which requires announcing a homeowner's loaves even in a public area. רבה answers that people don't step on food, and his answer survives the challenges about גוים and animals. Then the גמרא asks whether the argument between the תנא קמא and רבי יהודה in the משנה matches the argument of רבה and רבא. In two versions, רב זביד in the name of רבא shows that the תנאים really argue only about a סימן הבא מאיליו, a sign that came by accident. רבה can read the משנה that way too. The amud ends with practical rulings: saying 'woe for my money loss' counts as יאוש, bundles without a סימן are kept or announced depending on the place and how they lie, and an item with a סימן must always be announced.

Opening lines

The steps (20)

1. Resolutionרבה finishes reading the ברייתא through signs
2. Resolutionרבא reads the same ברייתא through location
3. ChallengeProof from the homeowner's loaves refutes רבה
4. Resolutionרבה: people don't step over food
5. ChallengeBut non-Jews might trample them
6. ResolutionNon-Jews fear sorcery
7. ChallengeBut animals and dogs might trample them
8. ResolutionA place without animals and dogs
9. QuestionMaybe this is an older argument between תנאים
10. ProofThey must be arguing about a sign likely to be trampled
11. RejectionThe תנא קמא himself requires announcing a homeowner's loaves
12. ResolutionThe real argument is about a sign that came by itself
13. ResolutionHow רבה explains the dispute in the משנה
14. QuestionAnother version: maybe they argue about passing over food
15. RejectionThe loaves in a public place disprove the suggestion
16. Resolutionרב זביד's conclusion: they argue only about an accidental sign
17. Resolutionרבה's way of explaining the argument in the second version
18. StatementThe general rule: saying 'woe for my money loss' means giving up hope
19. ConclusionThe final ruling on bundles found in public and private places
20. ConclusionThe ruling applies only to items without a sign