דף כא,ב גמרא יאוש שלא מדעת: אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש, ורבא אמר הוי יאוש. בדבר שיש בו סימן כולי עלמא לא פליגי, דלא הוי יאוש. ואף על גב דשמעיניה דמיאש לסוף, לא הוי יאוש. דכי אתא לידיה באיסורא הוא דאתא לידיה דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה לא מיאש, מימר אמר סימנא אית לי בגויה יהבנא סימנא ושקילנא ליה. בזוטו של ים ובשלוליתו של נהר אע"ג דאית ביה סימן רחמנא שרייה כדבעינן למימר לקמן
Abandonment without knowledge is, Abaye maintains, no abandonment, but Raba maintains, it is an abandonment.
[If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment, and even if in the end we hear him [express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear] that he has abandoned it, it is not [deemed to be an] abandonment.
For when [the finder] took possession of it he had no right to it because [it is assumed that] when [the loser] becomes aware that he lost it he will not give up the hope [of recovering it].
Rather, he says [to himself], 'I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.' [If the lost article is found] in the intertidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it], as we shall explain further on.
Should a person who doesn't know they lost something still have rights to it? Or does a finder get to pick up those lost objects even if the owner doesn't know they lost it? What implications does this have on the practice of finding and losing stuff?
Pavla #3
ReplyDeleteI think that (as we learn later with the coins in one's pocket), you are generally aware when you lose something important, and if you lose something and don't realize for a while, or perhaps ever, then the item probably wasn't that special for you (or you wouldn't care if you ever got it back). With this in mind, I don't really think a person who is unaware should have rights to it, especially if it is a long time after they lost it. However, if the loser loses something and does not relinquish ownership of it (because of its value) they should have the opportunity and time to look for it and try and find it. I am curious as to why the Talmud does not deal with the situation of time (pertaining to losers and finders)? I think it is important to differentiate when you are allowed to claim something as your own. Perhaps you lost something, and look for it for a while, and then give up looking. You still did not make it Hefker, but you have also stopped putting in an effort to look for it. Is it no longer yours, even though you did not Yayush it? In practicality, giving up in your search for your property seems very similar to saying "I no longer care about this item and want it, anyone can take it.)
post # 1.5
ReplyDeleteI disagree that if you lose something without noticing, and only after a while you happen to notice you lost it you will not give up hope. I think you will give up hope because you have no clue where you dropped it, it would be way to hard to try and look for it, and he could possibly relies only a couple years from when he lost it. So i think the guy that lost it without releasing would definitely heker it.
But when someone loses something important i think he would notice that he lost it on the same day and he will not give up hope and try to look for it. There for he does not hefker it and he will not give up hope.
Risa
ReplyDeletePost #3.5
I would like to address the contradictory statement "[If the lost article is found] in the intertidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it]." This statement completely defies the statement "If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment, and even if in the end we hear him [express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear] that he has abandoned it, it is not [deemed to be an] abandonment." How can it be that objects found in the deposits of the sea or on the banks of rivers are ok for the finder to take? I think it is because objects that wash up on the banks of rivers or on the shore of the sea are much too far from the place the loser dropped the object, and therefore the likelihood that the loser will find it is very low, and therefore the finder may take it even if the loser has not ye-ooshed it. If this is true, then does that mean that the distance a lost object travels determines whether or not an object may be taken by the finder? This relates to Pavla's question about time and whether that also has something to do with whether or not a finder may take a lost object. Objects that are found on the shore of the sea or on the banks of a river must have traveled by water for quite a bit of time before reaching those places, therefore perhaps time does play a role in determining whether a finder may keep the lost object.
Sophia Gluck
ReplyDeletePost #4
The Talmud introduces a new topic, yeyush,which is an object that you lost, but do not know that you lost it. Abaye and Raba begin with an argument: "Abandonment without knowledge is, Abaye maintains, no abandonment, but Raba maintains, it is an abandonment." Abaye is saying you should never pick something up because you aren't sure if it was hephker, while Raba thinks that you are permitted to pick the object up.
The Talmud then presents a statement: an object that has an identifying mark, may NOT be picked up. What puzzles me is that right after it says: "[If the lost article is found] in the inter tidal space of the seashore or on ground that is flooded by a river, then, even if it has an identification mark, the Divine Law permits [the finder to acquire it]." This is a contradictory statement. Like Risa explained, I also think that it is because of the time lapse between someone losing something at the banks of a river and then someone finding it a long time later, the owner would have most likely, given up hope of finding it and relinquished ownership of the object. I think that this follows Raba's rule: "abandonment without knowledge, Raba maintains it is abandonment."
Addressing Rabbi Goodman's question: Should a person who doesn't know they lost something still have rights to it? Or does a finder get to pick up those lost objects even if the owner doesn't know they lost it? What implications does this have on the practice of finding and losing stuff?
My personal opinion on this matter follows sort of with Abaye, I think that if someone loses something and doesn't notice, or have any knowledge of it's misplacement, nobody should be able to pick it up, because it still belongs to the owner. Only once the person realizes that they have lost it and has given it up, or hephkered it, can the finder then take the object. This is very unrealistic because how do you know when someone realizes that they have lost something, and then would relinquish it? The only way to figure out wold be to apply different rule to different situations. For instance the Talmud will later address scattered coins and say that you are able to take scattered coins, because a person frequently checks his pockets, and thus would notice if they were missing.
I would like to relate this piece of text to a personal story. When I was in 4th Grade my family took a trip to LA where we visited Universal Studios. On a tour bus in Universal Studios, I had a mister which I left on the tour bus. But only until I got home that night did I realize that I misplaced my mister. If a finder had found my mister [without any identification] before I had realized I had lost it, yeyush, could he have taken it? According to Raba, yes. But according to Abaye the finder could not take my mister.
Post #4
ReplyDeleteWhen I first looked at this Gemara, I was reminded of an April 2010 news story in which Gary Powell lost the iPhone 4 prototype (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apple-engineer-gray-powell-lost-iphone/story?id=10430224) According to the article, a patron of the bar (where Powell lost the phone) picked up the prototype and later sold it back to Powell for $5000. According to Jewish law, was it wrong for the patron to pick it up? It was, after all, "abandonment without knowledge". The Gemara suggests two possibilities, so how do we know which to follow? Additionally, was putting a "return price" on the iPhone legal by Jewish law? The Gemara does not address the process of recovery. Lastly, another question about the recovery of the prototype. Should Powell have been able to give an "identification mark", or was it enough to know that the prototype was a prototype, or the only one of its kind? And if the fact that it is a prototype does count as an identification mark, was the patron allowed to pick it up in the first place?
Now about the Gemara itself... Personally, I agree with Raba. If you don't know you lost something, then you aren't trying to abandon it. I think the Gemara and Judaism generally focus on intent rather than the action itself (ex. the milachatchila vs. bedieved situations we discussed earlier this year). On the other hand, if something is valuable (personally or in terms of money), wouldn't you take enough care not to lose it in the first place?
Risa
ReplyDelete#4
I would like to go back to Sophia's answer of R' Goodman's questions "Should a person who doesn't know they lost something still have rights to it? Or does a finder get to pick up those lost objects even if the owner doesn't know they lost it?" and pose a question of my own. When a finder picks up an object, how are they to know whether it is yeh-oosh or not? Since there is no way to tell, if you were to be on the safe side, it would make the most sense to side with Abayeh-who thinks that the loser always has rights to the object.
On another not, I believe that Sophia's statement "apply different rules to different situations" is a very simple way of putting a complicated process that begins when an object is found. I think that there are certain rules that apply when an object is chashivi and when an object has been lost for a long time or is found far away. Does anyone else think that these three things apply different rules? Or are they exempt from Abayeh and Raba's rules?
#4
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/world/never-lost-but-found-daily-japanese-honesty.html
I agree with Risa when she says to stay on the safe side. Here ^, we see that all over Japan, people are finding lost objects with symbols, and rather than taking them they have a big lost and found for them. If we were to go by the Talmudic law then what they are doing is correct. To reference what Sophia said, there is no way all of these people could have known that this man's leather business card holder was hephkered or not. And even if it was yeushed, it is almost impossible for the finder to know. Which just circles us back to the age old question, how could we know?
We have talked a great deal about chashivi and terach. That man (in the article) who just stopped by the lost and found center to pick up his leather business card holder, it was obviously no trouble because his office was nearby. But let's say he worked an hour away, would he go to all that trouble for such a small and not important item? If it were me, trouble would outweigh the value.
In response to Talia. That is a very interesting situation and some good fair questions to ask the lady who didn't even know she has lost her phone. It really depends on what is and isn't important to the loser. The question of the first contact on the list, in modern terms, maybe she doesn't know who the first person on their list is, I certainly dont. The question I ask is who is the one who determines whether or not the description was accurate, or good enough. Would it be the woman herself, the man who picked it up, or the cashier? Is there some way to determine that at all?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRisa
ReplyDelete#5
I would like to address the statement 'I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.' and the concept of whether a person does enough to identify the object. For example, if a person sees the identifying mark such as maybe a scratch or discoloration on a ring, and say that their ring has a scratch and is discolored on the inside have they indicated the identifying mark enough to take it back? For if they did not know they lost it, perhaps they would have to see the identifying mark in order to know that it is theirs and they lost it in the first place. Or perhaps they must tell the finder more about HOW those identifying marks came to be in order to redeem it?
I have a personal connection. A few months ago I lost a ring that was very important to me. I knew that I lost it, and never ye-ooshed it. A few days ago I saw Ari Berman wearing the ring at school. I told her it was mine and she questioned me. I then told her that it was originally my mom's and that she had bought it in Nepal while she was traveling. Ari then gave me the ring saying that it was not very important to her. According to this mishnah, what I said was not enough to get my ring back, I needed to identify a Siman in order to get it back, however since I had a story about the ring and it was of very little value to Ari, I got it back. What if this had happened with something that she had attached to and loved? Would my story have been enough for her to give it back to me? Probably not. I think that the rule of 'I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.'is a very smart and logical rule because it works for things of great value or little value, such as the ring.
#2
ReplyDeleteHere’s the situation:
A woman drops her phone in a parking lot on her way into a grocery store. A nice man walks by and sees a phone on the ground. What should he do? He could think it is hefker – if the person doesn’t know they lost it. How could he know? The phone has no contact information, just phone numbers of other people. He decides to “announce” it and brings the phone to the check-out counter. By coincidence at the same check out counter, the woman who doesn’t even know she lost her phone is checking out. What happens now? The man tells the cashier he found a phone in the lot and the woman realizes it is her phone. What does the woman have to say in order to get it back? How does the woman have to describe her phone? The cashier asked the woman what the first contact name was on the phone. Do you think this is a fair question? What if it was a different item of more value? Would the question be harder because there is more at risk, for example a wallet filled with cash? What would be the identifying mark? What if there was no sign in it, just money? What would happen now? What do you think?
#3
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that this is a difficult subject area to decide what is the right thing to do. I agree with Sophia and Risa, every situation is different.
What about this one: (true story) Someone was staying in a hotel room, and found an ipod cable (not an item of that much value). The finder took it without even thinking about whether it could be hefker or not. He might not have known what hefker meant! If you were there in this situation, what would you do? Would you explain it to him? If you do, would you make him give the cord to the hotel’s front desk just in case the loser comes back for it?
If I were the one who found the cable, which had so sign on it, I would have left it in the room or I would have returned it to the front desk. I would feel bad taking it because I wouldn’t know whether or not the loser made it hefker. If the item were that important to me, I would have left it at the desk for a certain amount of time, and if no one claimed it, I would consider it hefker and take it.
After hearing the laws and what the rabbis say in the Talmud about this exact situation, the finder ended up taking it, because he thought that since it wasn’t worth so much in comparison to an actual ipod and it didn’t have a sign, the loser would have made it hefker. Since he had stayed in a hotel, the finder figured that the loser had traveled far away and might not have chosen to return. A parallel can be found in the situation of finding something in the alluvium of a river. An item found washed up on the shore, I believe is hefker, because who knows whether it drifted all the way from Australia! Is there a difference when you find an item in a hotel versus in the alluvium of a river? What do you think?
post #2.5
ReplyDeleteThe text says that if you find an object with or without an identification mark on the seashore, it is okay to pick it up because the object was most likely washed up, therefore to far away from its owner. But how do you know if the object is washed up or not? What if a person takes a walk on the beach and drops something in the water, which makes it seem that the object is washed up but it really is not. What if someone loses a hat and the wind some how blew the hat all the way to the seashore? Or even if someone was swimming in the water and drops something. How is the finder supposed to know if the object was washed up or not? Is the finder just supposed to assume that the object was washed and to hard to get it back to its owner. So it is okay for him to pick it up? because there is a very big chance that the item was not washed up from far away. And that there is a chance to get it back to its owner if the object has a sign on it.
The Gemara states that the whole world agrees that if an object has a symbol on it the finder cannot take it. I think this is a very logical statement. If it is possible to find the owner then it should not be allowed to be taken by the finder. Later the Gemara contradicts it’s self by stating that even if an object has a symbol on it if it is found on the banks of a river the finder can keep it. I think this is because when you loose something in the water the owner would usually hefker it. For the most part you would realize if you dropped something in the water. If your sunglasses fall off your head and into the water and the tide takes them away you are going to give up hope that you will ever find them because there is no way to know where they are going to wash up. I think it’s safe to assume that if you find something on the banks of a river the owner would have hefkered it. The sunglass you find could have traveled hundreds of miles in the river and it would be way too much of a trouble for the owner to come find it so they would surly hefker it.
ReplyDeletePost #5
ReplyDeleteIn response to Talia’s example, I think the finder had every right to take it. Like she said, it had no sign/symbol and the loser is giving it up. Additionally, he “did not express regret at his loss in a way that makes it clear” (such as calling the hotel and asking for it, coming back to look for it, etc.).
Addressing the point made about the alluvium of a river, I don’t think this is a valid parallel because the object doesn’t have the possibility to travel on its own (before anyone finds it). In the case of the river, the loser doesn’t know where the lost object will end up, but in this case, the iPod cable will stay in the hotel room (and the loser knows where it is) until found.
In response to Gali, the Gemara doesn’t say anything about where the object washed up from. If I drop my sunglasses, let’s say, in the water at Ocean Beach and two days later someone sees them wash up on the shore of that same beach, they can still take them. Additionally, the Gemara tells us specifically that if an object is found washed up or on the alluvium of a river, the finder can take it whether or not it has an identification mark.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRisa
ReplyDelete# 7 (bonus)
I would like to relate an article I found to the statements "[If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment." and "Rather, he says [to himself], 'I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.'" and Abayeh's opinion Yeoosh shelo midaat, lo havei yeoosh-therefore saying no one can ever take something with a symbol if they don't know they lost it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/30reunite.html?scp=1&sq=lost%20item&st=cse
The article above talks about a photograph that was lost in a tornado and was posted onto a facebook lost and found. Immediately after seeing the photograph a woman wrote "That man is my granddaddy. It would mean a lot to me to have that picture.” The article continues on and talks about the facebook lost and found and how many tornado survivors have found their lost items through the site. The article also touches on how the site has been used
Not only were the people who turned in those photographs abiding by the rule [If the lost article is] a thing which has an identification mark, all agree that [the anticipation of its abandonment by the owner] is no abandonment." but they were also making a small scale version of Abayeh's idea that there should be a giant lost and found for people's unknowingly lost belongings-for yeoosh shelo midaat lo havei yeoosh. There are multiple examples throughout the article, including the one above about the picture, that also follow the rule of "Rather, he says [to himself], 'I can recognise it by an identification mark; I shall indicate the identification mark and shall take it back.'"
I thought that this article was a particularly good example of three very important things stated by the Talmud.
#7 (Bonus)
ReplyDeleteI discovered a lost and found section on Craigslist.com where you post either what you found or what you lost and the location. For example, a lost parakeet was posted, that was found in the Lakeview District of San Francisco. Would the laws be different for an animal versus an object? I think that an animal belongs to their owner and therefore the finder should try their best to find the rightful owner.
I agree with Risa, about how since the person saw the picture on Facebook and said she would like to have it back, meaning she has not lost hope of getting it back, it is not hefker. It is an interesting situation because the picture was in a tornado, so the finder could assume it is like in the case of finding something in the alluvium of the river. Is the finder able to pick it up in that case or do they have to post it online right after they find it? I think it was the right thing to do to post it because the photo was clearly a member of a specific family and would not have sentimental value to someone else or to the finder.
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/laf/2397112551.html
Post #6
ReplyDeleteHere is a website I found for lost or missing animals in particular, http://www.LostFoundPets.US/ I agree with Talia in saying that for an animal it belongs to their owner, and so the finder should try to get the animal to its owner.
I agree with Sharon by how she responded to Talia’s 3rd post about if there is a difference when you find an item in the alluvium of a river or finding an item in a hotel room. They are not equivalent to each other because in one of the cases like Sharon says the item could travel on its own from very far away, thus the owner would have no clue where the item could be. But in a hotel room the object cannot travel on its own, therefore the loser knows where to look for it.
Evan
ReplyDeletePost #4
In response to Sharon, I find it funny that you talk about taking care not to lose things of value in the first place, in the same post as you talk abut the lost iPhone prototype. Is that not one of those things that you'd be checking every second for? The talmud appears to say that, at least for things without a mark, that things of value can be taken because you'd check for them in your pocket, so should the iPhone really have been his? I'm sure that there was more than one prototype, and once the information had been wiped from it, there was no software way to identify it.
In response to Shai, not only are they following the law, they are going above and beyond because the Talmud clearly states that even things with a mark can be taken if they are found washed up from the sea, even if someone is still looking for them. This would indicate that anyone in Japan could have taken the things, but the lost and found was still a great thing to do, especially for those that lost everything.
Prompted by Risa's talking about markings on the object: Does the mark on the object have to be intentional, or could it just be something that had occurred through everyday wear that you were able to identify? This prompted the additional question for me of whether the reason that anyone can take something that is washed up in water might be because the mark may have changed? The thing might be damaged and/or unrecognizable.
Additionally, with finding things on a beach, the Talmud says that anything found on a beach can be taken. Does this mean that if you find an unattended cooler on a nice summer day at the beach that you can remove and drink the enclosed soda? It was unattended, at the edge of the sea, and it was something that you wanted. The talmud would seem to say yes, even if there was a mark on the cooler, but that doesn't seem to be the spirit of the law. If you see something on the beach, like and iPod, that would be damaged by water and it is clearly untouched by water, does that mean that you can't take it because it's not washed up?
I also have a personal story relating directly to this. I was on a ferry once when I was young, and my parents always made me wear a hat. My favorite hat at the time was one that I had gotten at Disneyland that had all of the characters on it. It, of course, had my name in it but unfortunately it was not tight enough on my head and blew off into the water. Already at that point it was clear that I wouldn't be getting it back and my parents, although unhappy, had already given up. I on the other hand cried for a while until I forgot about it and, though I still harbor sad feelings, have given up as well.