כי פליגי בדבר שאין בו סימן אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש דהא לא ידע דנפל מיניה רבא אמר הוי יאוש דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה מיאש מימר אמר סימנא לית לי בגויה מהשתא הוא דמיאש <סימן פמג"ש ממקגט"י ככסע"ז> תא שמע פירות מפוזרין הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה הא אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא הכא במכנשתא דביזרי עסקינן דאבידה מדעת היא ת"ש מעות מפוזרות הרי אלו שלו אמאי הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי כדרבי יצחק דאמר אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה הכא נמי אדם עשוי למשמש בכיסו בכל שעה ושעה ת"ש עיגולי דבילה וככרות של נחתום הרי אלו שלו אמאי והא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי אגב דיקירי מידע ידע בהו ת"ש ולשונות של ארגמן הרי אלו שלו ואמאי הא לא ידע דנפל מיניה התם נמי אגב דחשיבי משמושי ממשמש בהו וכדרבי יצחק
They differ only where the article has no identification mark. Abaye says: It is no abandonment because [the loser] did not know that he lost it;8 Raba says: It is an abandonment, because when he becomes aware that he lost it he gives up the hope [of recovering it] as he says [to himself], 'I cannot recognise it by an identification mark,' it is therefore as if he had given up hope from the moment [he lost it].9
(Mnemonic: PMGSH MMKGTY KKS'Z.) Come and hear: SCATTERED FRUIT — [is not this a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — R. 'Ukba b. Hama has already explained that we deal here with [the remains of] what has been gathered on the threshing floor, so that [the owner] is aware of his loss.
Come and hear: SCATTERED MONEY, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also it is even as R. Isaac said: A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals. So here, too, [we say,] 'A man usually feels for his purse at frequent intervals' [and soon discovers his loss].
Come and hear: ROUND CAKES OF PRESSED FIGS, A BAKER'S LOAVES, [etc.] BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost it? — There also he becomes aware of his loss, because [the lost articles] are heavy.
Come and hear: STRIPES OF PURPLE [etc.] — THEY BELONG TO THE FINDER. Why? [Is it not a case where the loser] did not know that he lost them? — There also [he becomes aware of his loss] because the articles are valuable, and he frequently feels for them, even as R. Isaac said.
#5
ReplyDeleteI question Raba's logic here referring to 'I cannot recognize it by an identification mark,' it is therefore as if he had given up hope from the moment [he lost it." Does the man not know his own identification mark? Even if he himself had not been the one to mark it, if the object was indeed his, in my opinion, he should have known what the identifying mark on it was!
In regards to the "come and hears... scattered money, round cakes of pressed figs, a bakers loaves, stripes of purple." These objects are all singled out, so does that make this an all inclusive list or an exclusive list. I understand each one, as the points do make sense to me, but I question why a man would feel for his pockets. Let's say he has 50 cents in there. Would he be feeling for his pocket then? And lets say the 50 cents fell out of his pocket, this is obviously not very much money and it is only two coins (nowadays lets say) so what if he didn’t know that he had lost it. This verse is not very clear because they assume we feel for our pockets when we don’t necessarily, so if the man didn’t know he lost the coins from his pocket, where does that leave us?
To me, it makes more sense that he would know he lost the tongues of purple and the round fig cakes because they are either valuable to him or they weigh enough for him to have noticed. I just take issue with the fact that the scattered money from his pocket may not have been noticed by him, therefore we don’t know if he yeushed it or not because of it’s little value to him and small size.
Pavla #4
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Shai, I think that even if a man had little money in his pocket, he would still feel for it, because (especially in this day and age) it is money and so therefore holds value, no matter how much there is. I want to add that although we always talk about what 'The Rabbis' opinions are, it is important to make Talmud relevant to our own lives today, because Talmud in itself is a oral dialogue that evolved for a long time, addressing issues of that time, but we can do the same today. In our society in the USA we are constantly conscious of money--how much money we have, how much we need, what we earn per hour--so we would certainly be aware of coins in our pockets. Also, it is a physical sensation of having items jingling in one's pocket that we are very aware. I personally don't usually carry items in my jacket pockets, but if I put my phone in my pocket, I constantly worry that it will fall out, so I am very conscious it is there. I think this addresses Shai's קשא of why a man would feel in his pockets in the first place-he worries about his property, so he would check his pockets, and if he lost it, he would know.
Like this seemingly strange list of items that belong to the finder, I found a humorous account of why a finder should keep an item he found. (This is slightly different from the issue at hand in the Talmud, but it talks about the reasons and relationship between finder and loser.) I believe it was created in good humor: http://www.thesharkguys.com/lists/top-10-reasons-to-keep-found-money-and-valuables/
#4
ReplyDeleteI agree with Pavla in regards to Shai’s question that even if it is a few quarters that fell out of your pocket, it is likely the person will realize they lost them. Losing a small amount of money would be more significant to a poor person than to a rich person. Money for food, begged for on the side of the street all day might be more valuable than a few quarters is to someone who has a refrigerator full of food.
This brings me to another question. If a rich person finds an object on the ground that might not be valuable to him or her, but for a poor person it might be their most prized possession, does it change what the finder should do?
In the Gemara, its states, since a person feels in their pocket all the time, he or she will realize they lost coins and will therefore make them hefker. The Gemara goes on to consider what should happen when a person loses fig cakes or baker’s loaves. Since fig cakes and baker’s loaves are heavy, a person would know if they fell out of a grocery bag. Next the Gemara mentions “purple tongues” which the Gemara states are valuable so therefore a person would hefker them. If we are talking about the issue of value, it is different for every person, and a poor person would come back for an item that a rich person might abandon. Again, it is important to ask, would this change what a finder should do?
Post #6
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the things both of you said, though I would like to add to your comments about dropping coins. Though this Gemara in particular does not refer to the value of the dropped coins, the text of Bava Metzia 21a does. In that text, we encounter other factors of determining whether or not the finder can pick up a lost object- the value of the object and the difficulty of picking it up.
In response to Pavla's point that any amount of money has value, I don't know if this is a correct assumption because this is not addressed in our parts of the Talmud.
In my opinion, the latter factor, difficulty to pick it up, is more relevant in this case. If you have a lot of coins in your pocket and you drop them, the finder may be allowed to pick them up according to this Gemara but may deem it as too much "terach" and proceed to leave it there. But like we said before... if you had a lot of coins in your pocket you probably wouldn't drop them anyway because you would be aware of their presence.
just a quick note... i was referring to only shai and pavla's posts in my post because i didn't see talia's.
ReplyDeletesorry if this caused any confusion!
post #3
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Pavla, that even if there is a small amount of money in his pocket, he would still feel it to check for it. For example nowadays for Muni it costs seventy-five cents which is not that much money for a ride. So even if it might be a small amount of money it still has value.
I have to say I agree with both Abaye and Raba. They both have good interpretations of the text. Abaye's interpretation of the text makes sense because if you don't realize you lost something, you obviously cant hefker it. And Raba’s interpretation also makes sense because the person that lost it has no clue when or where he lost it so he would hefker the object and give up hope. I agree with him except for the part that he says he cannot recognize the object by his own identification mark. Because if the object was his, he should certainly know what his identification mark looks like.
Sophia Gluck
ReplyDeletePost #5
The Talmud here brings a list of items, that belong to the finder if found, and then give reasons for why the finder is allowed to keep them in each case. First Scattered fruit, Rabbi Ukva bar Chamah already explained that we are dealing with the threshing floor, so the owner knows that he lost the object. I think what Rabbi Ukva bar Chamah means is that when you go to the threshing floor you bring specific items, and so when you leave if one of those specific items is missing you will notice and therefore yeyush it. The Talmud then addresses scattered coins. They bring logic for this by saying that a man/woman frequently feels his pockets to check that his coins are there, and if they are not he will notice and yeyush it, so the finder may take the scattered coins he finds. Next, baker's loaves, dried fig cakes, and stripes of purple are addressed. The reason the finder can take these objects is because they are heavy and are valuable so the owner would notice if they went missing therefore, would relinquish ownership of those items.
http://www.kplctv.com/story/14638805/teen-turns-in-lost-money-police-decide-to-keep-it
This article I found presents a case where a young teenage girl found an envelope filled with 2,000 dollars in the grass outside a PetSmart. The teenager returned the money to a Chase bank, because CHASE was written on the envelope. If you classify the envelope that the young girl found, as scattered it would fall under the category of scattered coins (money) then this girl could have kept the money because the owner would have checked his pocket frequently and realized that his money was lost, and then relinquished ownership of it, as the Talmud explains. But two other factors have to be taken into account, one the envelop said CHASE on it, is this a identification mark, Therefor making the item not allowed to b picked up? And as well what if the owner realized he lost it, because he checked his pocket/purse and realized it was gone but did not relinquish ownership of it, and kept on searching for the envelope of money? In the case, of someone realizes that they lost their money but does not give it up, how is the finder supposed to know if they gave it up, or didn't? Does it depend on the value of the item that is found? In this article the money was delivered to a Chase bank and kept for 90 days and then presented to Ashley, the girl who found the money, because the owner did not claim the money.
Just as clarification, I began writing this post only when I saw Shai and Pavla's posts, sorry if I didn't address Sharon, or Gali's posts.
ReplyDeletePost #4
ReplyDeleteIn response to Talia's post about if it matters whether the person was rich or poor I think the Talmud does not make a distinction because we are dealing with the point of view of the finder and the finder would not knew whether or not the looser was rich or poor. The same thing applies to the other objects listed. Whether or not the fig cake was really important to the loser or he didn't care about it at all doesn't really matter in this case because there is no way for the finder to know so if it doesn't have a symbol he can take it.
Building off of what Sophia was saying I was wondering I there is a time limit for how long you have to hold an object with a symbol? In the story she brought up the envelope has a symbol on it but they declared it and no owner claimed it. Does the Gemra discuss a situation like this? Is the finder required to continue to wait for the owner to claim it or after a certain amount of time can they consider it theirs?
#6
ReplyDeleteNew York City taxi cab has a website where if you lose something in one of their cabs, you can report it lost and post it online. Obviously since the person posts they lost an item, it doesn’t involve the issue of the person not knowing they lost it. What happens on the other side of this situation though? The people who lost the objects may not be relinquishing ownership and have not yet lost hope. It is tricky because it is a taxi cab, so it can travel many miles away, just like in the case of finding something in the alluvium of a river.
When a person finds an object in the alluvium of a river, the finder gets to keep what is found. Is that true with a lost item in a taxicab? I think that it is safe to say that since the person went to the effort and posted their item as being lost, they would like to get it back. Therefore, the finder should not be allowed to keep it and should put it in the lost in found at the taxicab company. Although there is no way for the finder to know if the loser will try to get the lost object back, the finder should at least look at the website before claiming it as theirs.
I would like to take this situation a step further. What if someone finds money in the taxicab? Do we say, since the loser realized they lost the money because they feel in their pockets for it, that they have relinquished ownership of it, or do we say if we relate it to the circumstance of someone finding something in the alluvium of a river, is it automatically hefker even if the loser didn’t realize the money had been lost? Either way it will be hefker, meaning the finder is allowed to take the money that they found.
Here is the website: http://nycitycab.com/Customer/nytaxilostfound.aspx
#3 the גמרא states that if someone finds stripes of purple it belongs to him because it is valuable and the loser will notice he lost it because he'll be checking on it constantly. i disagree with the גמרא because i think that due to the fact that stripes of purple were extremely valuable back then; if you were to lose them it wont be like losing some fruit or a coin or two it could really effect you business and financial stand.
ReplyDeletein response to Talia's question about finding money in a taxi, money can not be identify especially not on a taxi which hundreds of people go on every day there for i think it belongs to the finder.
Evan
ReplyDelete#5
As I read the part about money and how someone frequently checks their pockets, I had the image in my mind of someone with a hole in their pocket who drops one coin after every time that he feels. They can't be checking every moment, so there is bound to be some time when a coin would have a chance to fall, and one coin is not enough to notice. Although one coin is also not valuable enough to be worth it many will be, but by the time he has dropped enough to be worth it to pick them up, it probably won't be worth the trouble. Of course this is based off of a lot of hypotheticals, but so is everything else, right? But this made me think, by checking his pocket and not noticing the missing coin, is it Yeoush? Can a poor man who is walking behind and sees the coin fall take it, does he have to wait until the man checks his pockets again, or is he obligated to return it to the loser.
As I was thinking about things that still belong to the finder I posed the question to myself of, how does one find lost objects and, of course, turned to the internet for guidance. Google helpfully pointed me to this site: http://www.wikihow.com/Find-Lost-Objects
I read through the page and while most of it was logical, steps 13 and 15 made me wonder about what the talmud would say. Steps 13 and 15 say, in some form or another, to stop looking for the object. In our reading, we have generally been treating Yeoush as when a person stops looking for the object, so when someone reaches step 13 in this process, are they Yeoushing the object? It seems that they would not be because, lehatchilah they are planning to start looking again, but bediavad they might not. If they don't start looking again because they forget, is it Yeoush? They were intending to look again and they obviously were attached to the object if they had been looking for it before.