בבא מציעא כא . (continued)
קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דנפיש טרחייהו חצי קב בשתי אמות כיון דלא נפיש טרחייהו לא מפקר להו או דלמא משום דלא חשיבי וחצי קב בשתי אמות כיון דלא חשיבי מפקר להו קביים בשמונה אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דנפיש טרחייהו וכ"ש קביים בשמונה אמות כיון דנפישא טרחייהו טפי מפקר להו או דלמא משום דלא חשיבי וקביים בשמונה אמות כיון דחשיבי לא מפקר להו קב שומשמין בארבע אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דלא חשיבי ושומשמין כיון דחשיבי לא מפקר להו או דלמא משום דנפיש טרחייהו וכ"ש שומשמין כיון דנפיש טרחייהו טפי מפקר להו קב תמרי בארבע אמות קב רמוני בארבע אמות מהו קב בארבע אמות טעמא מאי משום דלא חשיבי קב תמרי בארבע אמות קב רמוני בארבע אמות נמי כיון דלא חשיבי מפקר להו או דלמא משום דנפישא טרחייהו וקב תמרי בארבע אמות וקב רמוני בארבע אמות כיון דלא נפיש טרחייהו לא מפקר להו מאי תיקו
Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is not troublesome to collect, is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting [when spread over such a space], and therefore half a kab within two cubits, which is still less worth the trouble of collecting, is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] two kabs [scattered over the space] of eight cubits? Is the reason why a kab within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are still more troublesome to collect, are even more readily abandoned [and should certainly belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore two kabs within eight cubits, which are worth the trouble [of collecting] are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? [Again,] how is it [if one finds] a kab of poppy-seed [scattered over a space] of four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble [of collecting], and therefore poppy-seed, which is worth the trouble [of collecting] is not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome [to collect], and therefore poppy-seed, which is even more troublesome [to collect], is abandoned [and should belong to the finder]? [Again], how is it [if one finds] a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits? Is the reason why a kab [of ordinary fruit] within four cubits [belongs to the finder] that it is not worth the trouble of collecting, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits, or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which also is not worth the trouble [of collecting] is abandoned [and should belong to the finder], or is the reason [in the case of a kab within four cubits] that it is troublesome to collect, and therefore a kab of dates within four cubits or a kab of pomegranates within four cubits, which are not troublesome [to collect], are not abandoned [and should not belong to the finder]? — The questions remain unanswered.
So if the question remains unanswered, what was the point of all that? What rules are established about picking up valuable or troublesome items? And lastly, why does the Talmud spend so much time on this question?
Evan Fenner
ReplyDelete#3
This section is in general is confusing to me. The Talmud seems to be contradicting its self multiple times before finally deciding that they can't come to a conclusion. I think they all agree that someone won't pick something up if it's too much trouble, but if it's value is worth more than the trouble, then they would. The problem is that value is a judgement call and something that is worthless to one person might be worth the world to another. Also, since we're talking about the trouble that it takes to collect it and that that would be the reason for leaving it behind, why would you have any more reason to pick it up? I think that there can be no definitive ruling, because values change and are subjective, but must again refer to the Talmud that we are working on a little further along with the coins: If it is worth more, they will be paying more attention to it. They will notice that they lost it and pick it up if they care. I think that this holds true here for the most part, but advise logical discretion.
To pose an additional question: What do you do if you find a trail of grain or seed as if it had been leaking from a bag with a small hole? It is spread over a large area, but unless the flow is stemmed, the value will add up as well, and as both become greater, the trouble will be greater for both the finder and the loser.
Pavla #2
ReplyDeleteI agree that this page of Talmud is extremely redundant, but that it probably just for emphasis, as the Talmud really doesn't want you to accidentally make the wrong judgement call if you find yourself in this situation.
To answer Evan's grain leakage question: For the loser, if the grain has trailed out in a line, he would probably try to pick it up, but this depends on how much value it holds for him and whether he wants it all back. If he does not, he shall abandon it. (This reminds me of the trail of breadcrumbs in Hansel and Gretel...) The finder would put in the effort to pick up the trail of grain if she figured out a practical way of doing this, in which she did not have to trouble for it too much. I think what the Talmud would try to do for this situation is to brainstorm the methods one could trouble in picking up this trail of grain, i.e. what tool do you use? Do you start scooping the grain from where it came out of the bag or at the end of the trail? Which is the best way to replace the grain in the bag if necessary? The Talmud likes to polish around all the edges in this way.
I think the rule established about value is that a person will go to greater lengths to collect something if they consider it to have much worth. Because I am still a bit confused, I would ask (as an analogy): If you are a small child and your toys are spread all over your floor, with 10 toys in 1 square foot, is it worth picking up? But if those 10 toys are spread in 2 square feet, it is even more of a hassle to crawl all over the floor picking up toys? Yes, you probably wouldn't bother. However, if you have double the amount of toys (20) and they are spread out in a large space, it is worth your trouble to pick them all up? How would you guys further help to explain my analogy?? Please answer this issue, as I am confused about the point I have begun to make....
Sophia Gluck
ReplyDeletePost #3
This part of the Talmud is very confusing. I don't think that the Talmud is contradicting itself but rather posing two different angles to decide whether you as the finder can pick up something . It poses trouble/bother vs. value/worth. The Talmud is saying that for a large amount of space (2 kavs and 8 amot) it would be too much trouble to pick it up, but it has a lot of value so the owner wouldn't hephker it. Reversely, a small amount wouldn't have a lot of value but isn't a bother either. The Talmud is having trouble coming to a conclusion.
The Talmud then continues on placing different foods inside of these measurements. They put poppy-seeds inside of a kav and 4 amot. Poppy seeds during this time period were very expensive and valuable, so the Talmud concludes that someone would go back because it is valuable, or perhaps they wouldn't because they are such a pain to pick up. The Talmud also places pomegranates and dates into a kav and four amot and say that they aren't valuable so would be abandoned. But aren't any trouble, so would be picked up and not abandoned.
Responding to Pavla's analogy of the toys I would like to say that I think what she is trying to say is that, if a child is in their room and they have 10 toys in 2 square feet, it would be a hassle and they most likely wouldn't pick it up. This is a specific case and cannot be related to any of the measurements given my the Talmud because you are saying 10 toys in 2 square feet which is the same as 1 kav in 8 amot, which is something that the Talmud doesn't address. My opinion on the matter would be that they would definitely wouldn't bother to pick it up (hephker it) because it doesn't have that much value and is a huge trouble because it is spread over 2 square feet. I think that Pavla's analogy is very good, because as you double the amount of toys and the space it can be related to 2 kavs in 8 amot.
Case 1: What if you have 1/2 kav in 2 amot filled with pearls (very valuable). This amount of space isn't that much trouble to pick up and has value. I assume you would not hephker it in this case, and so the finder cannot take it. Any thoughts?
#2
ReplyDeleteEven though the Gemara doesn't ultimately find a conclusion I do not think it is pointless. The Gemara is trying to teach us two main principles when trying to figure if the owner would Hefker it. You have to keep in mind how much trouble/ effort it would take the loser to pick it up and how valuable the object is.
In response to Sophia, I think according to the Gemara if you see 1/2 a kav of pearls in 2 amot you can not assume that the owner would not hefker it and therefore you can not take it because it is both not troublesome for the owner to pick up and very valuable.
I think the reason the Gemara gives so many different examples and seems to contradicting it's self is because it is trying to show us that every case is different. They can't make an overlying rule because there are so many different variables, so they give you to principles to base your decision on. It is up to the finder to figure out if the owner would have hefkered it or not. I think this puts the finder in a difficult position because he doesn't want to end up stealing
Post #3
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shoshana in that I think everything in the Gemara has relevance... In my opinion, this section is laying out what is considered Hefker, and therefore what you can take without committing theft. This is important, as theft is absolutely prohibited by Jewish (and judicial and moral) law. Additionally, if you were on the losing end, you probably wouldn't think this is redundant because you would be trying to see if you can still go back and get your grain!
The question I would like to pose is what if the dropped grain is valuable but spread over a large amount of space? The Chashivi law would tell us to pick it up, but the Terach law tells us not to. Which one should we follow? The same question can be posed if the grain is not valuable but easy to pick up. In other words, which is more authoritative, "chashivi" or "terach"?
#2
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sophia's question, I think it's pretty clear that the loser would come back and pick it up. It's the same question Rabbi Jeremiah asked although changing the actual value (chashivi), not amount of the object. I think the fact that the object is a lot more valuable than any other object like grain, it sort of cancels out that fact that it half the amount.
Responding to Shoshana's, I agree. I do not think this whole thought process is pointless. It's fleshing out different situations that could possibly happen and trying to figure out the best way to deal with them, according to the rules they have already established. That's where the "contradicting" comes in. When the Rabbi's establish one rule, then think of another situation that has to be dealt with in a way that does not make sense with the other is the way everything goes. That's why, we are thinking of these situations in the place of the finder, because it's their thought process while they're standing there in front of that lost object wondering what they shall do. And the rabbis did the favor of thinking of different ways to approach these situations, but at the end its up to the finder and requires a little common sense.
About Sharon's question about which is more authoritative, Chashivi or terach, I think what the Rabbi's are trying to convey in this long babble/rant of confusion is that it all really depends. It's not one or the other. When there are different situations, one weighs the other element out. Like according to Rabbi Okva bar chama, you would hefker a kav and 4 amot because the area is too much effort for the amount of the object. But if the object is poppy seed is valuable and 1 kav in 4 amot the value weighs out the area. So it's give and take.
Also, referencing Pavla, yes I agree, talmud and even the torah too can be very redundant. But I think that's the point. It's to clarify and emphasize important topics and points, like we're doing now. So technically, we're all be redundant, talking about the same thing, just asking questions and clarifying, just like the talmud.
comment above is #2 and #3
ReplyDelete#4
ReplyDeletethe גמרא is using the case of half a kav in two אמות to bring proof to the one kav in four אמות It is saying that because 1/2 a kav in two אמות is not troublesome to pick up it does not become hefker; my question is how does that prove anything it's a different case?
Responding to Even's question if there was a trial of grain the owner probably didn't notice that it fell from him so if you take רבא approach you could pick it up because it would be יאוש שלא מדעת but according to אביי approach it you couldn't pick it up.