 |
| 'The Gleaners' by Jean-François Millet , 1857 |
Bava Metzia 21b Bottom
ת"ש המוצא מעות בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ובכל מקום שהרבים מצויין שם הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתיאשין מהן. והא לא ידע דנפל מיניה! אמר רבי יצחק אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה.
ת"ש מאימתי כל אדם מותרים בלקט? משילכו בה הנמושות. ואמרינן מאי נמושות? וא"ר יוחנן סבי דאזלי אתיגרא. ריש לקיש אמר לקוטי בתר לקוטי.
ואמאי? נהי דעניים דהכא מיאשי: איכא עניים בדוכתא אחריתא דלא מיאשי! אמרי כיון דאיכא עניים הכא הנך מעיקרא איאושי מיאש, ואמרי עניים דהתם מלקטי ליה. 1
Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or in a house of study, or in any other place where many people congregate, it belongs to him, because the owner has given up the hope of recovering it. [Is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. Isaac answered: people usually feel for their purse at frequent intervals.
Come and hear: From what time are people allowed to appropriate the gleanings [of a reaped field]?After the 'rummagers' have gone through it.Whereupon we asked: What is meant by the 'rummagers' ? and R. Johanan answered: Old people who walk leaning on a stick,while Resh Lakish answered: The last in the succession of gleaners.Now why should this be so? Granted that the local poor give up hope [of finding any gleanings].there are poor people in other places who do not give up hope?— I will say: Seeing that there are local poor, those [in other places] give up hope straight away, as they say. 'The poor of that place have already gleaned it.
How does the case of לקט help is understand the case of יאוש ? Does the conclusion support the case of רבא or אביי ? What other observations do you have about this text?
Pavla #5
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion that appears above supports the case of Abaye, who believes that the poor in "Marin" will consciously יאוש the לקט because they will assume that the people in San Francisco have already taken everything, so the people of Marin will not make the effort to go and pick up anything. Also San Francisco will assume the same about Marin, so the two counties stick to their own "fields" and only collect לקט in their own areas.
However, the flip side of this is Raba's opinion, which is that the people of Marin cannot possibly יאוש it because they would not even know whether there is food for them to take in San Francisco, so it becomes moot point.
I personally resonate with Raba because I don't see why it is even an issue if one group of people would not know the לקט status of another group of people. It is not realistic for a city, county, or state to be specifically aware of what goes on in another city, agriculturally (unless it is big state-wide food news).
On a different note, I feel it is slightly immoral for someone to keep money found in a synagogue or house of study. It just seems like something that one should go to greater lengths to return to the owner, and I would have thought Judaism would have a stricter standing on what happens in a house of worship.
#1 the בריתא is saying that at a Synagogue or in a house of study a lost item becomes יאוש automatically, and i agree with the idea because when you are siting down praying/ studying you are very likely to look in your pocket and realize you lost something, and also when you lose something in a public place you are so unlikely to find what you lost that you must יאוש it.
ReplyDeletebut i was wondering what if you lost something valuable that doesnt have a סימן but due to the fact that its a smaller place is it still יאוש?
Post 4
ReplyDeleteLike Nitai I agree with the בריתא in saying that if you lose an item in a synagogue or in a house of study that it will automatically become יאוש. Because since you lose something in a public place it is very improbable you will find what you lost. I think you will look for maybe five minutes and then give up hope and יאוש it. But the בריתא only mentions that if someone finds money in a synagogue or in a place of study he can take it. But what if he doesn’t find money, what if he finds a different kind of object? Does this rule still apply? Was the בריתא only giving an example with money?
Sophia Gluck
ReplyDeletePost #6
The Talmud begins by saying that anything found in a synogouge, house of study, or public place, may be picked up. The reason is because people usually notice if something is gone because they check for their purse/walet/bag frequently and therefore would notice if something was missing.
I personally don’t completely understand this part, why would someone frequesntly check his or her pockets while in the midst of torah study? Wouldn’t they be completely involved in the Torah and not think to check their pocket? I can understand why someone would check their pockets in a public domain but not in a synagogue.
Then the Talmud transitions into talking about Leket and asks the questions When are the owner's allowed to go through the left over leket? After the rummagers come. But then the Tlamudw wonders: What is the definition of a rummager. Rabbi Yochana defines it as an old man with a cane while Reish Lakish, his chevrutah, defines it as people who take leket over people who take leket. Rabbi Yochana’s point of view is simple; after the old men with canes pick through all the Leket, then the owners, or people who don’t qualify as poor are allowed to take form the extra sheath. Reish Lkaish’s point of view is a little bit more confusing, he says “gleaners after gleaners,” this is interpreted as there will never be any leket left for people to take, because gleaners after gleaners, or people who take leket, will keep on coming, so the owner can never take the leket ever.
As it continues the Talmud states “Granted that the local poor give up hope [of finding any gleanings].there are poor people in other places who do not give up hope? — I will say: Seeing that there are local poor, those [in other places] give up hope straight away, as they say. 'The poor of that place have already gleaned it.”
Rabbi Goodman’s question is how is leket like yeyush?
The answer is in the lines above. First off the Talmud says that even if people here in Oakland are done gleaning, or have yeyushed the leket, there are people in piedmont who haven’t yeyushed it. Then the Talmud says that the people in piedmont will say that “the Oakland people have already gleaned it” thus yeyushing it.
The Talmud comes to a conclusion with Abaye, who says that the people in Oakland will consciously relinquish ownership of the leket in piedmont and the people in piedmont will consciously relinquish ownership of the leket in Oakland. So people will only take leket from their own cities, or places. We know that the Talmud sides with Abaye in the end because the people of piedmont will say “the people of Oakland have already gleaned it” this is conscious resignation, “havi yeyush” Reversely, the Talmud the gives Raba’s opinion, which is that the people of piedmont will not yeyush the Leket in Oakland because they don’t know it is here for them to take and vise versa.
Post #8 (Bonus #2)
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the last few lines of Pavla's post about having a stricter standing of what goes on in the temple. In my opinion, the place in which we connect with God should exemplify how we behave in our daily lives. For that reason, you should do EXACTLY what the Talmud says and keep the money- no more, no less.
In response to Nitai, if you lose something valuable without a sign, you are, according to Raba, relinquishing ownership of it (yeoush she lo mida'at). The text says nothing about the size of the place, and the size of a place is irrelevant unless a finder is attempting to pick up grain.
In response to Gali, I think this is a demonstrative list, because it compares the case to other items listed in the Mishnah. Since the list in the Mishnah is demonstrative, it makes sense that this one would be as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete^^^ Sorry what i posted up there was post number 5 not 4.
ReplyDelete#2 the second בריתא talks about the concept of lecket, which is a concept the comes for the help of the poor it is a law the forbids owners of fields from collecting the wheats or any other type of grain form the ground once they've dropped it and the only one who could pick it up are the poor. the בריתא is concerned when does leket become יאוש, though i was wondering what does it mean when a poor person picks up the grain does it become his and he can do anything with it (like sell it) or must he only use it for him self and his family?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePavla Bonus #1
ReplyDeleteTo Sharon, I like what you said in response to me, but I realized that even if a religious center should represent our daily lives, I think a religious/holy center should do this in values, not actual practice. In synagogue we recite many prayers and sing songs (such as Al Shlosha D'Varim) which reflect our Jewish values and moral obligations. However, we do not do community service or collect tzedakah during the Torah service for example, even though we are fulfilling a commandment by reading Torah. Simply, to do these acts in a place of worship is a bit inappropriate. Also, it is my experience that when I go to shul, I treat shul on Shabbat as something out of the ordinary, even though it is a consistent or regular part of my life. I get dressed up, wear my tallit, and spend my morning singing and listening. This sets apart the Shabbat day for me because I treat it differently than I do other aspects of my life. Even though shul is related to my Jewish identity, my school, and my community (by osmosis), it is a holy space and I take it more seriously than other aspects of my Judaism. I have said this to emphasize my point of a stricter standing needed when rules pertain to synagogue.
Post #9 (bonus #3)
ReplyDeletePavla (I always seem to comment on your comments!)
I hear what your saying about collecting money and doing tzedakah at shul not being appropriate, but I have to play devils advocate here. If a shul needs money, is it not our obligation as Jews to help pay for it? I mean there are Christian churches that pass out a basket to collect a tithe and a way to keep the church going. At my temple, we pay dues, this is our way of tzedakah to the shul, is that not appropriate either?
And, about taking Shabbat more seriously than other parts of Judaism. I think it has to do with who you are, some might and some might not. I for example, dont go to shul on Saturday morning, but my Friday night Shabbat dinner with family represents a sacred time for me. So I would like to commend you for bringing up some great points.
In response to Sharon/Pabva, I would like to to say that I dont know if I agree with you there. I dont think Judaism should have a stricter standing on what goes on in the house of worship. I think that the stricter it gets, the less people want to come, or even be a part of Judaism. I know that I like being a reformed Jew and being in a pluralistic school like JCHS I have the freedom to choose how "Jewish" I want to be. If the law was so strict about doing this and that, I would appreciate Judaism much less than I do now.
(Dont mean to be a downer by disagreeing with all your points, but they were all so good and totally valid!)
^and I meant to say PAVLA
ReplyDeleteEvan
ReplyDelete#6
I like the commenters before me find it interesting that it says that in a house of study, if someone finds money that they can keep it. I think this is odd because communities grow around houses of study and the people know each other. If you see someone leave money there, or see money that has been left, I would think that you should let people know so that the person could claim it if it is a substantial amount. Even though it may be unlikely to happen, it is still a nice thing to encourage. I disagree with Sharon because I think that in a in a temple just because it says that you *can* take it doesn't meant that you have to or should. Also, if you want to talk about following the torah to the letter of the law in temples, let the sacrifices and the stonings begin. And that's actually in the Torah, the Talmud must have less authority than that.
The case of Leket gives some clarification to the case of Yeoush because it gives us the final opinion. In saying that the poor from both places give up the other's left over gleanings without knowing it, it shows that the final verdict is going to support Abaye. This seems to be the logical conclusion because a magical lost and found waiting for everyone to claim anything they've ever lost is just not possible. It is also illogical that a farmer would have to wait for every poor person in the world to find out that they could take the Leket but then consciously Yeoush it before that farmer could take it for themselves especially with the torah not wanting waste. I think that you should be able to take it as it is about to go bad if no one else has.