Bava Metzia

the term If water] be put [upon the seed] does not apply to it.'  Is not the reason [for this ruling] that we do not say, 'because it appears that he is pleased now it is as if he had been pleased originally'?  — There it is different: It is written, 'If one puts',  [which means] only when he puts [the water on].  But if so, this should apply also to the first case?  That [can be explained] according to R. Papa. For R. papa pointed out a contradiction: It is written, 'If one puts'. and we read, 'If it be put'  — how is it to be explained? 'Being put must be like 'putting': As 'putting' can only be done with the knowledge [of him who puts] so 'being put' must happen with the' knowledge [of the person concerned]. Come and hear: R. Johanan said in the name of R. Ishmael  b. Jehozadak: Whence [do we learn] that an article lost through the flooding of a river may be retained [by the finder]? It is written, And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother's, which he hath lost, and thou hast found.  [which means to say that only] if the object has been lost to him and may be found by any person [has it to be returned to him, and it follows that] a case like this  is exempt [from the Biblical law],  since it is lost to him and cannot be found by any person. Moreover, the object which is forbidden [to be kept by the finder] is like the object which is permitted [to be kept by the finder]: Just as the permitted object  may be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification mark or not, so the forbidden object  may not be kept irrespective of whether it has an identification mark or not.  [This is] a complete refutation of Raba. And the law is in accordance with Abaye in [the cases indicated by the initials] Y'AL KGM. R. Aha, the son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: Seeing that Raba has been refuted,  how is it that we eat dates that have been shaken down [from the tree] by the wind?  — [R. Ashi] answered him: [The owner] gives them up straight away because there are vermin and creeping creatures that eat them.  [But what if they belong to] orphans who [are minors and] cannot legally renounce [their possessions]? — [R. Ashi] answered him: We do not assume that every piece of ground is the property of orphans.  But what if it is known [to be the property of orphans]? Or if the tree is surrounded by a fence?  — [R. Ashi] answered him: Then they are forbidden. SMALL SHEAVES IN A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE BELONG TO THE FINDER. Rabbah said: Even when they have an identification mark. Consequently [it must be assumed that] Rabbah is of the opinion that an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on  is not [deemed to be] an identification mark.  Raba said [on the other hand]: [The Mishnah] refers only to things which have no identification mark, but things which have an identification mark have to be announced.  Consequently [it must be assumed that] Raba is of the opinion that an identification mark that is liable to be trodden on is [deemed to be] an identification mark. Some teach this as an independent controversy.  In regard to an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on, Rabbah says that it is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, but Raba says that it is [deemed to be] an identification mark. We have learnt: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, [but if found] on private grounds  they have to be taken up and announced.  How is this to be understood? If [the sheaves] have no identification mark — what is there to be announced [if they are found] on private grounds? It must therefore be that they have an identification mark, and still it is stated that [if found] in a public thoroughfare they belong to the finder. Consequently [it must be assumed that] an identification mark which is liable to be trodden on is not [deemed to be] an identification mark, which is a refutation of Raba! — Raba may answer you: In reality they have no identification mark; and as to your question, 'What is there to be announced [if they were found] on private grounds?', [the answer is:] The place [where they were found] is announced.  But Rabbah says that the place is no identification mark. For it has been stated: [In regard to] the place — Rabbah says, it is not considered an identification mark, but Raba says, it is an identification mark. Come and hear: Small sheaves [which are found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder, but [if found] on private grounds they have to be taken up and announced. Big sheaves, however, whether [they are found] in a public thoroughfare or [are found] on private grounds, have to be taken up and announced. How does Rabbah explain it,  and how does Raba explain it?  — Rabbah explains it according to his view: By the identification mark.  Raba explains it according to his view: By the place.  Rabbah explains it according to his view — by the identification mark — [and the reason why] small sheaves [found] in a public thoroughfare belong to the finder [is] that