Rabbi Angela Buchdahl's Rosh HaShanah Sermon: "All Is Not Lost"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPDbWYvz2VY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPDbWYvz2VY
מתני׳ אלו מציאות שלו ואלו חייב להכריז אלו מציאות שלו מצא פירות מפוזרין מעות מפוזרות כריכות ברשות הרבים ועגולי דבילה ככרות של נחתום מחרוזות של דגים וחתיכות של בשר וגיזי צמר הלקוחין ממדינתן ואניצי פשתן ולשונות של ארגמן הרי אלו שלו דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר כל שיש בו שינוי חייב להכריז כיצד מצא עגול ובתוכו חרס ככר ובתוכו מעות רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל כלי אנפוריא אין חייב להכריז: גמ׳ מצא פירות מפוזרין וכמה א"ר יצחק קב בארבע אמות היכי דמי אי דרך נפילה אפילו טובא נמי ואי דרך הינוח אפילו בציר מהכי נמי לא א"ר עוקבא בר חמא במכנשתא דבי דרי עסקינן קב בארבע אמות דנפיש טרחייהו לא טרח איניש ולא הדר אתי ושקיל להו אפקורי מפקר להו בציר מהכי טרח והדר אתי ושקיל להו ולא מפקר להו בעי רבי ירמיה חצי קב בשתי אמות מהו 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 איתמר יאוש שלא מדעת אביי אמר לא הוי יאוש ורבא אמר הוי יאוש בדבר שיש בו סימן כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא הוי יאוש ואף על גב דשמעיניה דמיאש לסוף לא הוי יאוש דכי אתא לידיה באיסורא הוא דאתא לידיה דלכי ידע דנפל מיניה לא מיאש מימר אמר סימנא אית לי בגויה יהבנא סימנא ושקילנא ליה בזוטו של ים ובשלוליתו של נהר אע"ג דאית ביה סימן רחמנא שרייה כדבעינן למימר לקמן 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 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 ת"ש קציעות בדרך ואפילו בצד שדה קציעות וכן תאנה הנוטה לדרך ומצא תאנים תחתיה מותרות משום גזל ופטורות מן המעשר בזיתים ובחרובים אסור בשלמא רישא לאביי לא קשיא אגב דחשיבי ממשמש בהו תאנה נמי מידע ידיע דנתרא אלא סיפא לרבא קשיא דקתני בזיתים ובחרובים אסור אמר רבי אבהו שאני זית הואיל וחזותו מוכיח עליו ואע"ג דנתרין זיתי מידע ידיע דוכתא דאיניש איניש הוא אי הכי אפילו רישא נמי אמר רב פפא תאנה עם נפילתה נמאסת תא שמע הגנב שנטל מזה ונתן לזה וכן גזלן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה מה שנטל נטל ומה שנתן נתן בשלמא גזלן וירדן דקא חזי להו ומיאש אלא גנב מי קא חזי ליה דמיאש תרגמה רב פפא בלסטים מזוין אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן ת"ש שטף נהר קוריו עציו ואבניו ונתנו בתוך שדה חבירו הרי אלו שלו מפני שנתיאשו הבעלים טעמא דנתיאשו הבעלים הא סתמא לא הכא במאי עסקינן כשיכול להציל אי הכי אימא סיפא אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם חייב להחזיר אי ביכולין להציל מאי אריא מרדפין אפילו אין מרדפין נמי הכא במאי עסקינן ביכולין להציל על ידי הדחק מרדפין לא אייאוש אין מרדפין אייאושי מיאש
MISHNA: In a case where one discovers lost items, which found items belong to him, and for which items is one obligated to proclaim his find so that the owner of the lost items can come and reclaim them? These found items belong to him: If one found scattered produce, scattered coins, bundles of grain in a public area, round cakes of pressed figs, baker’s loaves, strings of fish, cuts of meat, unprocessed wool fleeces that are taken from their state of origin directly after shearing, bound flax stalks, or bound strips of combed purple wool, these belong to him, as they have no distinguishing marks that would enable their owners to claim them. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it or a loaf of bread with coins inside it, he is obligated to proclaim his find, as perhaps the owner of the item inserted them as a distinguishing mark by means of which he could reclaim his property in case it became lost. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels, since their shape is uniform and they are indistinguishable, he is not obligated to proclaim his find. GEMARA: The mishna teaches as an example of items that one finds without any distinguishing mark: If one found scattered produce. The Gemara asks: And how much produce in how large an area constitutes scattered produce? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is considered scattered produce when it has a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he found the produce scattered in a manner indicating that it came there by falling and was not deliberately placed there, then even if the volume of produce in that area was greater than this limit, it should also belong to him, because there is no distinguishing mark that would enable the owner to reclaim it. And if he found produce scattered in a manner indicating intentional placement, then even if the volume of produce in an area that size was less than this limit, he should also not be allowed to keep the produce, as clearly the owner plans on returning to reclaim his produce. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor. For kernels scattered with a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits, whose gathering requires great exertion, a person does not exert himself and does not return and take them. Therefore, he renounces his ownership of them and one who finds the kernels may keep them. For kernels scattered in an area smaller than that, the owner exerts himself and returns and takes them. And therefore, he does not renounce his ownership of them. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If a half-kav of kernels were scattered in an area of two by four cubits, what is the halakha? The aspects of the dilemma are: In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces his ownership of the kernels? It is due to the fact that gathering the kernels requires great exertion. In the case of a half-kav of kernels scattered in an area of two by four cubits, since gathering them does not require great exertion, he does not renounce his ownership of them. Or perhaps, the owner renounces ownership in the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits due to the fact that they are not of significant value. In the case of a half-kav of kernels scattered in an area of two by four cubits, since they are certainly not of significant value, he renounces his ownership of the kernels. Rabbi Yirmeya raises a related dilemma: If two kav of kernels were scattered in an area of eight by four cubits, what is the halakha? The aspects of the dilemma are: If one kav of kernels is scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership? It is due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion. This is true all the more so in the case of two kav of kernels scattered in an area of eight by four cubits, and since gathering them requires even greater exertion, the owner renounces his ownership of them. Or perhaps, the owner renounces his ownership in the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits due to the fact that they are not of significant value. But in the case of two kav of kernels scattered in an area of eight by four cubits, since they are of significant value, he does not renounce his ownership of them. If one kav of sesame seeds was scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the halakha? The aspects of the dilemma are: In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership? It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value. And in the case of sesame seeds, since they are of significant value he does not renounce his ownership of them. Or perhaps, the owner renounces ownership in the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion. That is true all the more so in the case of sesame seeds. Since gathering them requires even greater exertion, he renounces his ownership of them. If one kav of dates was scattered with a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits, or if one kav of pomegranates was scattered with a dispersal ratio of one kav in an area of four by four cubits, what is the halakha? The aspects of the dilemma are: In the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits, what is the reason that the owner renounces ownership? It is due to the fact that they are not of significant value; and also in the case of one kav of dates in an area of four by four cubits or one kav of pomegranates in an area of four by four cubits, since they are not of significant value he renounces ownership of the fruit. Or perhaps, the owner renounces ownership in the case of one kav of kernels scattered in an area of four by four cubits due to the fact that gathering them requires great exertion. And in the case of one kav of dates in an area of four by four cubits or one kav of pomegranates in an area of four by four cubits, since gathering them does not require great exertion he does not renounce his ownership of them. In all these cases, what is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: All these dilemmas shall stand unresolved. § It was stated: With regard to one’s despair of recovering his lost item that is not a conscious feeling, i.e., were he aware of the loss of his property, he would have despaired of its recovery, but he was unaware of his loss when the finder discovered the item, Abaye said: It is not considered despair; the owner maintains ownership of the item, and the finder may not keep it. And Rava said: It is considered despair and the finder may keep it. The Gemara limits the scope of the dispute. In the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, everyone agrees that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. And even though we hear that he ultimately despairs of recovering the item, it is not considered despair, as when the item came into the possession of the finder, it was in a prohibited manner that it came into his possession. It is prohibited because when the owner learns that it fell from his possession, he does not despair of its recovery immediately. Instead, he says: I have a distinguishing mark on the item; I will provide the distinguishing mark to the finder, and I will take it. With regard to an item swept away by the tide of the sea or by the flooding of a river, even though the item has a distinguishing mark, the Merciful One permits the finder to keep it as we seek to state below, later in the discussion. When they disagree, it is with regard to an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. Abaye said: Despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, as he did not know that the item fell from him; therefore, he cannot despair of recovering it. Rava said: Despair that is not conscious is considered despair, as when he discovers that it fell from him, he will despair of its recovery; as he says upon this discovery: I have no distinguishing mark on the item. Therefore, it is considered from now, when the item fell, that he despairs. The Gemara proceeds to cite a series of proofs for and against the opinions of Abaye and Rava and provides a mnemonic representing those proofs: Peh, mem, gimmel, shin; mem, mem, kuf, gimmel, tet, yod; kaf, kaf, samekh, ayin, zayin. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found scattered produce, it belongs to him. The Gemara asks: Why does it belong to him; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: Didn’t Rav Ukva bar Ḥama say: We are dealing with kernels of wheat that remained during the gathering of grain on the threshing floor? The owner knowingly left the kernels on the threshing floor because it was not worth his while to gather them. That is a deliberate loss, and therefore the despair is conscious. Therefore, this clause in the mishna is not relevant to the dispute in question. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: Why do they belong to the one who finds them; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: A person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly. Here too, a person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that shortly after the coins fell, the owner became aware of his loss. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found round cakes of pressed figs or baker’s loaves, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: Why do they belong to the one who finds them; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair. Since these items are heavy he knows that they fell, and it is reasonable to assume that shortly after they fell the owner became aware of his loss. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found strips of purple wool, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: And why do they belong to the one who finds them; isn’t the owner unaware that they fell from him? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Gemara rejects that proof: There too, it is not a case of unconscious despair. Since they are significant and valuable, the owner feels around for them to ensure that they are not lost, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that shortly after the strips fell, the owner became aware of his loss. This reasoning is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak with regard to coins. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues, and in study halls, and in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him due to the fact that the owners despair of their recovery. Why do they belong to him; isn’t the owner unaware that the coins fell from him? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A person is prone to feel his money pouch constantly; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that shortly after the coins fell, the owner became aware of his loss. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Pe’a 8:1): From when is it permitted for any person to collect gleanings, which the Torah designates as exclusively for the poor (see Leviticus 19:9–10)? It is permitted once the nemushot have walked in the field. And we say in interpreting the mishna: What are nemushot? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They are the elderly people who walk leaning on a cane. Since they walk slowly, they will see any stalks that remain and take them. Reish Lakish said: They are the second wave of gleaners who pass through the field after the initial gleaners, collecting any stalks that remain. The Gemara asks: And why is it permitted for any person to take the stalks, given that although the poor who are here renounce ownership of the stalks after seeing the nemushot pass through the field, there are poor people in another place who are unaware of the passing of the nemushot and do not renounce ownership? Apparently, despair that is not conscious is considered despair. The Sages say in rejecting that proof: Since there are poor people here, those poor people in the other places despair of the gleanings from the outset, and they say: The poor people who are there gather the gleanings. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Ma’asrot 3:4): If dried figs are found on the path, and even if they were found at the side of a field where dried figs are spread to dry, and likewise, if there is a fig tree whose branches extend over a path and one found figs beneath it, those figs are permitted and taking them is not prohibited due to the prohibition of robbery. And as these are ownerless property, one who finds them is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. In the case of olives or of carobs, it is prohibited to take the fruit. Granted, the first clause of the mishna is not difficult according to the opinion of Abaye, as he can explain that one consciously despairs of recovering the dried figs. Since dried figs are significant and valuable, one feels around for them to ensure that they have not become lost. It is reasonable to assume that shortly after the fruits fell, the owner became aware of his loss and despaired of recovering them. In the case of the fig tree, too, one knows that it is a common occurrence for the fruit of the fig tree to fall from the tree and he renounces ownership from the outset. But the latter clause of the mishna is difficult according to the opinion of Rava, as it teaches: In the case of olives or of carobs, it is prohibited to take the fruit. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. Rabbi Abbahu said: The halakha of an olive is different, since its appearance proves the identity of the owner, as the fruit fallen from the tree appears similar to the fruit on that tree, and even though the olives fall off the tree, the one who finds the olives knows that an olive tree that is located in a place that is owned by a specific person belongs to that person and the owner will not renounce ownership of his fruit. The Gemara asks: If so, then even in the first clause as well, it should be prohibited to take the fruit that fell from the fig tree. Rav Pappa said: A fig becomes disgusting with its fall from the tree. Even if the fruit can be attributed to the tree of origin, since it is no longer fit for consumption, the owner would not want the fruit and consequently renounces his ownership of it. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: A thief who took an item from this person and gave it to that person, and likewise, a robber who took an item from this person and gave it to that person, and likewise, in the case of the Jordan River or another river that took an item from this person and gave it to that person, in all those cases, that which the person took, he took, and that which the person gave, he gave. Likewise, that which the river took, it took, and that which the river gave, it gave. The person who received the item need not return it. The Gemara asks: Granted in the cases of the robber and the Jordan River, one could say that the owner sees them take the item and despairs of its recovery; but in the case of the thief, who takes the item surreptitiously, does the owner see him take the item and would that lead him to despair? The Gemara explains: Rav Pappa interpreted the term thief in the baraita to be referring to armed bandits [listim]; therefore, the owner is aware that the item was taken and he despairs of its recovery. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as a robber, why mention two identical cases? The Gemara answers: The baraita mentioned two types of robbers; in both cases the owner was aware that his item was taken. The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If a river swept away one’s beams, one’s wood, or one’s stones and placed them into the field of another, these items belong to the owner of the field due to the fact that the respective owners despaired of their recovery. The Gemara infers from the baraita: The reason they belong to the finder is that the owners despaired; but in an unspecified case, where it is not definitively known that the owners despaired, they do not belong to the finder. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. The Gemara rejects the proof: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the beams, wood, or stones; therefore, their decision not to rescue them is a clear indication of despair. The Gemara asks: If so, say the latter clause of the same baraita: If the owners were pursuing the items, the finder is obligated to return them. If it is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items, why did the baraita specifically cite a case where the owners were pursuing the items? Even if they were not pursuing the lost items, the items also remain in their ownership, as they did not despair of their recovery. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the owners are capable of rescuing the items with difficulty. In that case, if the owners pursue the items, it indicates that they did not despair of their recovery, but if the owners do not pursue the items, it indicates that they despaired of their recovery.
אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא כללא דאבידתא כיון דאמר ווי לה לחסרון כיס מיאש ליה מינה ואמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הלכתא כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו ברשות היחיד אי דרך נפילה הרי אלו שלו אי דרך הנחה נוטל ומכריז וזה וזה בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן לא שנא ברה"ר ולא שנא ברשות היחיד בין דרך נפילה ובין דרך הנחה חייב להכריז
§ Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is the principle of a lost item: Once the owner of a lost item says: Woe is me for the monetary loss, this indicates that he has despaired of its recovery. And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one finds bundles of grain in a public area, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a secluded area in a manner indicating that they had fallen, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And both this ruling and that ruling are in the case of an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. But in the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, it is no different if the bundles were found in a public area and it is no different if the bundles were found in a secluded area; whether the bundles were found in a manner indicating that they had fallen or whether they were found in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, he is obligated to proclaim his find.
בעא מיניה רב ביבי מרב נחמן מקום הוי סימן או לא הוי סימן אמר ליה תניתוה מצא חביות של יין ושל שמן ושל תבואה ושל גרוגרות ושל זיתים הרי אלו שלו ואי ס"ד דמקום הוי סימן לכרוז מקום אמר רב זביד הכא במאי עסקינן ברקתא דנהרא אמר רב מרי מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן רקתא דנהרא לא הוי סימן דאמרינן ליה כי היכי דאתרמי לדידך אתרמי נמי לחברך איכא דאמרי אמר רב מרי מאי טעמא אמרו רבנן מקום לא הוי סימן דאמרינן ליה כי היכי דאתרמי לדידך האי מקום אתרמי נמי לחברך האי מקום ההוא גברא דאשכח כופרא בי מעצרתא אתא לקמיה דרב א"ל זיל שקול לנפשך חזייה דהוה קא מחסם א"ל זיל פלוג ליה לחייא ברי מיניה לימא קא סבר רב מקום לא הוי סימן א"ר אבא משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה דחזא דקדחי ביה חלפי: ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר וכו': מאי אנפוריא א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל כלים חדשים שלא שבעתן העין היכי דמי אי אית בהו סימן כי לא שבעתן העין מאי הוי אי דלית בהו סימן כי שבעתן העין מאי הוי
§ Rav Beivai raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: Is the location where the lost item was found a distinguishing mark, or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Naḥman said to him that you learned it in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. And if it enters your mind that location is a distinguishing mark, let the finder proclaim what he found, and have the location serve as a distinguishing mark. Rav Zevid said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the case of a barrel that was found on the bank of the river. Since it is the place where ships dock and merchandise belonging to many people is loaded and unloaded, the bank of a river cannot serve as a distinguishing mark. Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that in the case of a lost item, the location of the bank of a river is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location on the bank of a river: Just as it happened that you lost an item there, it also happened that another person lost an item there. Some say a slightly different version of that which Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that location is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location: Just as it happened that you placed an item in that place, it also happened that another placed an item in that place. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found pitch near the winepress. He came before Rav to ascertain what he should do with the pitch. Rav said to him: Go take the pitch for yourself. Rav saw that the man was hesitating, uncertain that he was entitled to the pitch. Rav, in an attempt to allay his qualms, said to him: Go divide it with Ḥiyya my son, as Rav would certainly not want his son to take a share of a stolen item. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav holds that location is not a distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba said: That is not Rav’s reasoning. Rather, it is due to the despair of its owner that the Sages touched upon this matter and permitted the finder to keep such a found item. As, Rav saw that grass was growing through the pitch, indicating that it had been there for an extended period. § The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it? He can describe the mark after even a short glance and claim his item. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels, then when the eye of the one who purchases them has sufficiently seen them, what of it?
(ח) עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר, מַתְרִיעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ תַנּוּרֵי פְסָחִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹקוּ. הִתְפַּלֵּל, וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. מֶה עָשָׂה, עָג עוּגָה וְעָמַד בְּתוֹכָהּ, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּנֶיךָ שָׂמוּ פְנֵיהֶם עָלַי, שֶׁאֲנִי כְבֶן בַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי בְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ. הִתְחִילוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִין. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ לֵירֵד בְּזָעַף. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן, בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה. יָרְדוּ כְתִקְנָן, עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִתְפַּלַלְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ כָּךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לָהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעִים. שָׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, אִלְמָלֵא חוֹנִי אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לְּךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְחַטֵּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְעוֹשֶׂה לְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ כְּבֵן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַטֵּא עַל אָבִיו וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (משלי כג), יִשְׂמַח אָבִיךָ וְאִמֶּךָ וְתָגֵל יוֹלַדְתֶּךָ:
(8) The mishna adds: In general, they cry out on account of any trouble that should not befall the community, a euphemism for trouble that may befall the community, except for an overabundance of rain. Although too much rain may be disastrous, one does not cry out over it, because rain is a sign of a blessing. The mishna relates: An incident occurred in which the people said to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray that rain should fall. He said to them: Go out and bring in the clay ovens used to roast the Paschal lambs, so that they will not dissolve in the water, as torrential rains are certain to fall. He prayed, and no rain fell at all. What did he do? He drew a circle on the ground and stood inside it and said before God: Master of the Universe, Your children have turned their faces toward me, as I am like a member of Your household. Therefore, I take an oath by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children and answer their prayers for rain. Rain began to trickle down, but only in small droplets. He said: I did not ask for this, but for rain to fill the cisterns, ditches, and caves with enough water to last the entire year. Rain began to fall furiously. He said: I did not ask for this damaging rain either, but for rain of benevolence, blessing, and generosity. Subsequently, the rains fell in their standard manner but continued unabated, filling the city with water until all of the Jews exited the residential areas of Jerusalem and went to the Temple Mount due to the rain. They came and said to him: Just as you prayed over the rains that they should fall, so too, pray that they should stop. He said to them: Go out and see if the Claimants’ Stone, a large stone located in the city, upon which proclamations would be posted with regard to lost and found articles, has been washed away. In other words, if the water has not obliterated the Claimants’ Stone, it is not yet appropriate to pray for the rain to cease. Shimon ben Shetaḥ, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at the time, relayed to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Were you not Ḥoni, I would have decreed that you be ostracized, but what can I do to you? You nag [mitḥatei] God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and his father does his bidding without reprimand. After all, rain fell as you requested. About you, the verse states: “Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her who bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).
על כל צרה שלא תבוא על הציבור מתריעין עליה חוץ מרוב גשמים מעשה שאמרו לחוני המעגל התפלל שירדו גשמים אמר להן צאו והכניסו תנורי פסחים בשביל שלא ימקו והתפלל ולא ירדו גשמים עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה ואמר רבש"ע בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מיכן עד שתרחם על בניך התחיל הגשמים מנטפין אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות ירדו בזעף אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שעלו ישראל מירושלם להר הבית מפני הגשמים אמרו לו כשם שנתפללת עליהן שירדו כך התפלל שילכו להם אמר להן צאו וראו אם נמחית אבן הטועים:
On every evil which does not come upon the community, they keen, except for an [over-]abundance of rains. A happening: They said to Honi the Circler: "Pray that the rains will fall;" he said to them "go and gather the pesah ovens so that they will not dissolve," and he prayed, but the rains did not fall. He circled a circle and stood with in it and said "O master of the world, your children placed their faith in me, for I am as a son of your house, and I swear by Your name that I will not move from here until you have mercy on your children" Soft rain began to fall, and he said "Not for this did I ask, rather for well-rains and ditch-rains and cave-rains!" [The rains] began to fall in tumult. He said, "Not for this did I ask, rather for rains of purpose and blessing and generosity. [The rains] fell according to his prescriptions until all Israel were driven up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount before the rains. They said to him, "As you prayed for them to fall, now pray for them to go." He said to them, "go and see if the Stone of Errors is erased."