Bava Metzia — Daf 11a

ילפינן מציאה מגט ומר סבר לא ילפינן מציאה מגט

ואיבעית אימא בקטנה כולי עלמא לא פליגי דילפינן מציאה מגט והכא בקטן קא מיפלגי

מר סבר ילפינן קטן מקטנה ומר סבר לא ילפינן קטן מקטנה

ואיבעית אימא מר אמר חדא ומר אמר חדא ולא פליגי:

מתני׳ ראה אותן רצין אחר מציאה אחר צבי שבור אחר גוזלות שלא פרחו ואמר זכתה לי שדי זכתה לו היה צבי רץ כדרכו או שהיו גוזלות מפריחין ואמר זכתה לי שדי לא אמר כלום:

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל והוא שעומד בצד שדהו

ותקני ליה שדהו דאמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו

הני מילי בחצר המשתמרת אבל חצר שאינה משתמרת אי עומד בצד שדהו אין אי לא לא

ומנא תימרא דחצר שאינה משתמרת אי עומד בצד שדהו אין אי לא לא

דתניא היה עומד בעיר ואומר יודע אני שעומר שיש לי בשדה פועלים שכחוהו לא יהא שכחה יכול לא יהא שכחה תלמוד לומר (דברים כד, יט) ושכחת עומר בשדה בשדה ושכחת ולא בעיר

הא גופא קשיא אמרת יכול לא יהא שכחה אלמא הוי שכחה ונסיב לה גמרא בשדה ושכחת ולא בעיר אלמא לא הוי שכחה

אלא לאו הכי קאמר בשדה שכוח מעיקרו הוי שכחה זכור ולבסוף שכוח אין שכחה מאי טעמא דכיון דקאי גבה הויא ליה חצרו וזכתה ליה

אבל בעיר אפילו זכור ולבסוף שכוח הויא שכחה מאי טעמא דליתיה גביה דלזכי ליה

ממאי דלמא גזירת הכתוב היא דבשדה נהוי שכחה ובעיר לא נהוי שכחה

אמר קרא (דברים כד, יט) לא תשוב לקחתו לרבות שכחת העיר

האי מיבעי ליה ללאו

אם כן נימא קרא לא תקחנו מאי לא תשוב לרבות שכחת העיר

ואכתי מיבעי ליה לכדתנן שלפניו אין שכחה שלאחריו יש שכחה שהוא בבל תשוב

זה הכלל כל שהוא בבל תשוב שכחה כל שאינו בבל תשוב אינו שכחה

אמר רב אשי אמר קרא (דברים כד, יט) יהיה לרבות שכחת העיר

וכן אמר עולא והוא שעומד בצד שדהו וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה והוא שעומד בצד שדהו

איתיביה רבי אבא לעולא מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו באים בספינה אמר רבן גמליאל עישור שאני עתיד למוד נתון ליהושע

we derive [the law regarding] a found object from [the law regarding] divorce,  and the other  is of the opinion that we do not derive [the law regarding] a found object from [the law regarding] divorce.  And if you wish I will say: As regards a female minor there is no difference of opinion [and all agree] that we derive [the law regarding] a found object from [the law regarding] divorce, but here they differ regarding a male minor: One  says: We derive [the law regarding] a male minor  from [the law regarding] a female minor, and the other  says: We do not derive [the law regarding] a male minor from [the law regarding a female minor]. And if you wish I will say: One deals with one case  and the other deals with another case, and they do not really differ [as regards the law]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SEES PEOPLE RUNNING AFTER A LOST ARTICLE [E.G.,] AFTER AN INJURED STAG [OR] AFTER UNFLEDGED PIGEONS,  AND SAYS: 'MY FIELD ACQUIRES POSSESSION FOR ME',  IT DOES ACQUIRE POSSESSION FOR HIM.  BUT IF THE STAG RUNS NORMALLY, OR THE PIGEONS FLY [NATURALLY], AND HE SAYS: 'MY FIELD ACQUIRES POSSESSION FOR ME,' THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT HE SAYS. GEMARA. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: This  is, provided he is present by the side of his field. But ought not his field to acquire it for him [in any case], seeing that R. Jose, son of R. Hanina, said:  A man's 'ground' acquires [property] for him [even] without his knowledge? — These words apply only to a [piece of] 'ground' that is guarded,  but when [the piece] of 'ground' is not guarded, [then the law is that] if [the owner] is present by the side of his field he does [acquire the property], [but] if [he is] not [present] he does not [acquire it]. And whence do you derive that when [the piece of] 'ground' is not guarded [the owner] does [acquire the property] if he is present by the side of the field, [but that he] does not [acquire it] if [he is] not [present]? — From what was taught: If one stands in town and says, 'I know that the sheaf which I have in the field has been forgotten by the labourers,  [and it is my wish that the sheaf] shall not be regarded as forgotten',  I might think that it shall not [in any circumstances]  be regarded as forgotten: the scriptural verse therefore tells us: And thou hast forgot a sheaf in the field [etc.]  implying 'only if thou hast forgotten it [while thou wast] in the field [does the law of the forgotten sheaf apply] and not [if thou hast forgotten it when thou hast returned] to town.' Now, this seems self-contradictory. First you say: 'I might think that it shall not be regarded as forgotten' — from which it would appear that [in fact] it is regarded as forgotten; and then the Gemara  concludes: 'Only if thou hast forgotten it [while thou wast] in the field [does the law of the forgotten sheaf apply] but not [if thou hast forgotten it when thou hast returned] to town' — from which it would appear that [in the case discussed] it is not regarded as a forgotten [sheaf]. It must therefore be assumed that what is meant is this: In the field, [i.e.,] if it was forgotten at the outset, [while the owner was still in the field,] it must be regarded as [a] forgotten [sheaf], [but] if it was remembered [by the owner in the field] and was subsequently forgotten [by the labourers] it is not regarded as [a] forgotten [sheaf]. For what reason? Since he was standing near it [in the field, the field] acquires it for him. But [when the owner is again] in town, even if [the sheaf] was at first remembered [by him] and was forgotten later [by the labourers in the field], it must be regarded as [a] forgotten [sheaf].  For what reason? Because he is not there beside it, so that [the field] does not require possession [of the sheaf] for him. But how does it follow?  Perhaps it is a Biblical decree that [only that which is forgotten by the owner while he is] in the field shall be subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf, but that [when the owner is] in town [again] the sheaf is no more subject to that law?  The Scriptural verse says [further]: Thou shalt not go back to fetch it — this is to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this needed to indicate that disregard of the law involves the transgression of a negative command?  — If that were so, the Scriptural verse would only have to say 'Thou shalt not fetch it'. Why does it say: 'Thou shalt not go back'? [Obviously] in order to include the sheaf which has been forgotten [by the owner on his return] to town. But is not this [additional phrase] still required for [the rule] which we have learned: That which is in front of him [who is engaged in reaping] is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; that which is behind him is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf], as it is included in the prohibition: 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]'.  This is the general rule: All that can be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]; all that cannot be included in the prohibition 'Thou shalt not go back [to fetch it]' is not [subject to the law of the] forgotten [sheaf]?  — R. Ashi said: The Scriptural verse says: It shall be [for the stranger]  etc., so as to include that which has been forgotten [by the owner when he is back] in town. 'Ulla also said:  'This is, provided that he is present by the side of his field'. And Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said likewise: 'This is, provided that he is present by the side of his field'. R. Abba placed before 'Ulla the following objection: It happened once that Rabban Gamaliel and some elders were going in a ship.  Rabban Gamaliel then said: The tithe which I shall measure off [when I come home] is given [by me] to Joshua.