Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts
and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha. Link to Transcript here: https://madlik.com/2024/09/11/lost-found/
(א) לֹֽא־תִרְאֶה֩ אֶת־שׁ֨וֹר אָחִ֜יךָ א֤וֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ֙ נִדָּחִ֔ים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֵ֖ם לְאָחִֽיךָ׃ (ב) וְאִם־לֹ֨א קָר֥וֹב אָחִ֛יךָ אֵלֶ֖יךָ וְלֹ֣א יְדַעְתּ֑וֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ֙ אֶל־תּ֣וֹךְ בֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְהָיָ֣ה עִמְּךָ֗ עַ֣ד דְּרֹ֤שׁ אָחִ֙יךָ֙ אֹת֔וֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹת֖וֹ לֽוֹ׃ (ג) וְכֵ֧ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַחֲמֹר֗וֹ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂה֮ לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ֒ וְכֵ֣ן תַּעֲשֶׂ֗ה לְכׇל־אֲבֵדַ֥ת אָחִ֛יךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַ֥ד מִמֶּ֖נּוּ וּמְצָאתָ֑הּ לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לְהִתְעַלֵּֽם׃ {ס}
(1) If you see your fellow Israelite’s ox or sheep gone astray, do not ignore it; you must take it back to your peer. (2) If your fellow Israelite does not live near you or you do not know who [the owner] is, you shall bring it home and it shall remain with you until your peer claims it; then you shall give it back. (3) You shall do the same with that person’s ass; you shall do the same with that person’s garment; and so too shall you do with anything that your fellow Israelite loses and you find: you must not remain indifferent.
(ד) כִּ֣י תִפְגַּ֞ע שׁ֧וֹר אֹֽיִבְךָ֛ א֥וֹ חֲמֹר֖וֹ תֹּעֶ֑ה הָשֵׁ֥ב תְּשִׁיבֶ֖נּוּ לֽוֹ׃ {ס}
(4) When you encounter your enemy’s ox or ass wandering, you must take it back.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. אֵלּוּ מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ: מָצָא פֵּירוֹת מְפוּזָּרִין, מָעוֹת מְפוּזָּרוֹת, כְּרִיכוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְעִגּוּלֵי דְבֵילָה, כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹם, מַחְרוֹזוֹת שֶׁל דָּגִים, וַחֲתִיכוֹת שֶׁל בָּשָׂר, וְגִיזֵּי צֶמֶר הַלְּקוּחִין מִמְּדִינָתָן, וַאֲנִיצֵי פִשְׁתָּן, וּלְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אַרְגָּמָן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
רבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁינּוּי – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. כֵּיצַד? מָצָא עִגּוּל וּבְתוֹכוֹ חֶרֶס, כִּכָּר וּבְתוֹכוֹ מָעוֹת.
רבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כְּלֵי אַנְפּוּרְיָא אֵין חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.
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.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. מַאי אַנְפּוּרְיָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי אִית בְּהוּ סִימָן – כִּי לֹא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן מַאי הָוֵי? אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ סִימָן – כִּי שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן מַאי הָוֵי?
שלא שבעתן - עדיין לא הורגל בראייתן ותשמישן שיהא מכירן יפה ולשון אנפוריא נוטריקון אין פה ראיה:
the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them: It is still not differentiated by usage that it can be well recognized. The language of "anpuria" is an abbreviation for Ein Po Reiah (there is not visual [differentiation/proof)
וֹטָרִיקוֹן m. (νοταρικόν, sub. μεθόδιον, S.) stenographer’s method, abbreviation. Sabb. XII, 5 כתב אות אחת נ׳ if one wrote (on the Sabbath) one letter as an abbreviation (e. g. ק׳ for קרבן). Ib. 105ᵃ לשון נ׳ the acrostic method of speech (ref. to א̇ב̇ ה̇מ̇ו̇ן̇, Gen. XVII, 5, אֹב, בֹחור, חֹביב, מֹלך, וֹתיק, נֹאמן). Ib. אנכי נ׳, v. אָנֹכִי; a. fr.—Trnsf. לשון נ׳ by a mere hint. Deut. R. s. 2, v. קִידּוּשׁ
מתני' אלו מציאות: מצא פירות מפוזרין - נתייאשו הבעלים מהן כדאמר בגמרא והפקר הן:
מעות מפוזרות - הואיל ואין להם סימן ניכר איאושי מיאש והוו להו הפקר וזהו טעם כולם:
(ח) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר הָמָן֙ לַמֶּ֣לֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵר֔וֹשׁ יֶשְׁנ֣וֹ עַם־אֶחָ֗ד מְפֻזָּ֤ר וּמְפֹרָד֙ בֵּ֣ין הָֽעַמִּ֔ים בְּכֹ֖ל מְדִינ֣וֹת מַלְכוּתֶ֑ךָ וְדָתֵיהֶ֞ם שֹׁנ֣וֹת מִכׇּל־עָ֗ם וְאֶת־דָּתֵ֤י הַמֶּ֙לֶךְ֙ אֵינָ֣ם עֹשִׂ֔ים וְלַמֶּ֥לֶךְ אֵין־שֹׁוֶ֖ה לְהַנִּיחָֽם׃
(8) Haman then said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s laws; and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to tolerate them.
(יז) שֶׂ֧ה פְזוּרָ֛ה יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֲרָי֣וֹת הִדִּ֑יחוּ הָרִאשׁ֤וֹן אֲכָלוֹ֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ אַשּׁ֔וּר וְזֶ֤ה הָאַֽחֲרוֹן֙ עִצְּמ֔וֹ נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּ֖ר מֶ֥לֶךְ בָּבֶֽל׃ {פ}
(17) Israel are scattered sheep, harried by lions. First the king of Assyria devoured them, and in the end King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon crunched their bones.
אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁא טִרְחַיְיהוּ, וְקַב תַּמְרֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְקַב רִמּוֹנֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ – לָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
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.
תֵּיקוּ m.n. PBH (formally intr. v.) stalemate, draw; the question remains unanswered. [Aram. תֵּיקוּ, short for תֵּקוּם (= it — the question — shall stand), from קוּם (= to stand), which is related to Heb. קוּם (= to stand up, rise). See קום.
According to popular etymology, an acrostic of תִּשְׁבִּי יְתָרֵץ קוּשְׁיוֹת וּבְעָיוֹת (= Elijah the prophet would solve such puzzles and questions).]
יֵאוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ. וְרָבָא אָמַר: הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ.
“Despair” makes a certain amount of sense as a legal criterion for ownership, but it also presents problems. As the Gemara asks in Bava Metzia 21b, is this despair a subjective, psychological condition, or is it an objective description of a person’s relationship to his lost possession?
Do you actually have to feel despair to be in despair, in a legal sense? If so, what happens in a situation in which a person loses property—say, drops his wallet—but doesn’t know that he has lost it? Presumably, that person could never be in despair, because he didn’t know he had suffered a loss in the first place. That means that whoever finds the wallet could never become its rightful owner. But how can the original owner prove his knowledge, his intention, his state of mind?
For Rava, despair can be assumed on logical grounds; but for Abaye, it must be actually experienced in order to apply legally.
See: Lost and Found, In this week’s ‘Daf Yomi,’ how the Talmud transforms absolute Torah commandments into contingent human laws, prizing practicality over literalism by Adam Kirsch
Abaye and Rava.
These sages were the leading scholars of the fourth generation (circa 300-350 C.E.). of Babylonian Amoraim, and in many ways the central figures of the Babylonian Talmud. Their machlokot and discussions range across the length and breadth of the Talmud such that the gemara is sometimes referred to as ‘havayot de-Abaye ve-Rava’, the doings of Abaye and Rava.
Abaye was an orphan and was brought up by his uncle Raba bar Nachmani (usually called simply Raba) who was the head of yeshiva in Pumbeditha. Abaye studied with his uncle and with Rav Yosef, who succeeded Rabba as head of the yeshiva. Abaye went on to succeed Rav Yosef.
Rava was primarily a student of Rav Nachman, Rav Hisda, and Rav Yosef. He is famous for his sharp reasoning and critical analysis and was himself the head of a yeshiva in Mechoza. Upon Abaye’s death the yeshiva of Pumbedita was moved to Mehoza and Rava became its head.
In the many makhlokot between Rava and Abaye, the halakha follows Rava, with the exception of six cases that are known by their acronym: יע"ל קג"ם.
See: Introduction to the Study of Talmud - Bava Metzia Elu Metziot- Lesson 8 21a-b: Unintentionally Abandoning Objects (1)Rav Joshua Amaru
"הוֹ, הוֹ אָמַר רָבָא, הוֹי אָמַר אַבַּיֵי!"
הֲפֹה בֵּית הַיּוֹצֵר לְנִשְׁמַת הָאֻמָּה?
הֲפֹה מְקוֹר דָּמֶיהָ, הַנּוֹטְעִים בָּהּ חַיֵּי
עוֹלָמִים, הַשֹּׁפְעִים בָּהּ אִשָּׁהּ וְחֻמָּהּ?
הֲפֹה אַדִּירֶיהָ – מְאוֹרוֹת עֲתִידִים,
הַיּוֹצְרִים אֶת-רוּחָהּ עַל הָאָבְנָיִם? –
"Oh, oh said Raba, oh said my Abaya!" –
Is this the house from which the soul of the nation comes?
Is this the source of her blood, which gives life?
Worlds, the ones who are in it, a woman and a wall?
Is here her beauty - future lights,
Who create her spirit on the stones? –
The Matmid, Haim Nachman Bialik
These rabbis are ubiquitous in the Talmud. However, the reason for their frequent contributions was not fully understood for a long time. Why was this pair of rabbis so active in contributing to the Talmud, far more than anyone before or after them?
Yitzchak Isaac Halevy (1847-1914) theorized that Talmudic learning was decentralized during the first two generations of Amoraim (the Talmudic rabbis of Babylonia from ca. 220 CE). This meant that each small school followed its own particular traditions, based on the teachings of a single rabbi and his disciples. Scholars have called these schools “disciple circles,” meaning that the students debated and preserved the traditions of one particular Amora. Halevy also claimed that the earliest amoraic debates dealt only with a single Amora’s particular traditions.
Abbaye and Rava’s revolutionary idea, however, was to advance one step beyond these impromptu fora. According to Halevy, they decided to collect teachings and traditions from across all the amoraic disciple circles, in the service of creating a common corpus of teachings and texts. This meant that the disciple circles (and, soon, the early Talmudic academies) began to study, discuss, and debate a shared set of traditions, texts, and problems. This ingathering of teachings also included traditions from many Palestinian sages who were in Babylonia at the time.
In short, according to Halevy’s theory, during the first half of the fourth century CE, Abbaye and Rava revolutionized Talmud study by gathering the traditions of individual rabbis and transforming them into a collective body of knowledge. It was, in other words, largely due to the efforts of these two sages that students of the Talmud began to study a single curriculum and a unified body of traditions, rather than the particular teachings of specific rabbinic sages. That collective body of knowledge, discussed and debated for hundreds of years, is what ultimately was preserved as our written Talmud. With their innovation, the great collective conversation that became the Talmud began.
See:
Abbaye and Rava, How two Babylonian sages started the great collective conversation that became the Talmud, by Ari Bergmann, January 04, 2022
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כָּפֵין עַנְיָא וְלָא יָדַע. אִי נָמֵי: רַוְוחָא לִבְסִימָא שְׁכִיחַ.
And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house.
Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found.
יֵאוּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ. וְרָבָא אָמַר: הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לָא הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ, דְּהָא לָא יָדַע דִּנְפַל מִינֵּיהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: הָוֵי יֵאוּשׁ, דִּלְכִי יָדַע דִּנְפַל מִינֵּיהּ – מִיָּאַשׁ. מֵימָר אָמַר: סִימָנָא לֵית לִי בְּגַוֵּיהּ, מֵהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּמִיָּאַשׁ.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹצֵא מָעוֹת בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. וְהָא לָא יָדַע דִּנְפַל מִינֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּכִיסוֹ בְּכׇל שָׁעָה.
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.
סַבְרוּהָ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סִימָן הַבָּא מֵאֵילָיו הָוֵי סִימָן, וּמַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. מַאי לָאו: בְּסִימָן הֶעָשׂוּי לִידָּרֵס קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי סִימָן, וּמָר סָבַר: הָוֵי סִימָן?
In explaining the tannaitic dispute, the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own (FOUND ART - gs) without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that one passes by food without picking it up. Accordingly, what is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled that they disagree? As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that its legal status is not that of a distinguishing mark, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that its legal status is that of a distinguishing mark.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבָּה: הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין. וְהָא אִיכָּא גּוֹיִם! גּוֹיִם חָיְישִׁי לִכְשָׁפִים. וְהָאִיכָּא בְּהֵמָה וּכְלָבִים! בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי בְּהֵמָה וּכְלָבִים.
וְדֶרֶךְ מִיל מְפִיגָה הַיַּיִן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר וְהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ מֵעַכּוֹ לִכְזִיב, וְהָיָה רַבִּי אִילְעַאי מְהַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו. מָצָא גְּלוּסְקִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִילְעַאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ. מָצָא גּוֹי אֶחָד, אָמַר לוֹ: מַבְגַּאי, טוֹל גְּלוּסְקִין הַלָּלוּ מֵאִילְעַאי. נִיטַּפֵּל לוֹ רַבִּי אִילְעַאי, אָמַר לוֹ: מֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: מֵעֲיָירוֹת שֶׁל בּוּרְגָּנִין. וּמָה שִׁמְךָ? מַבְגַּאי שְׁמֵנִי. כְּלוּם הִיכִּירְךָ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מֵעוֹלָם? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁכִּוֵּון רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים לָמַדְנוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה: לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הָאוֹכָלִין.
The Gemara poses a question: Does walking a path of only a mil dispel the effects of wine? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, and his student Rabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: Elai, take the loaves from the road. ....
At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined the gentile’s name by way of divine inspiration that rested upon him. And at that time we also learned three matters of halakha from Rabban Gamliel’s behavior: We learned that one may not pass by food, i.e., if a person sees food lying on the ground, he must stop and pick it up.
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּלָלָא דַּאֲבֵידְתָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״וַוי לֵהּ לְחֶסְרוֹן כִּיס״ – מִיָּאַשׁ לֵיהּ מִינַּהּ.
וַי, וַוי, וַה׳ m. h. a. ch. 1) woe; (interj.) oh! woe! Targ. Prov. XXIII, 29 ed. Wil. (ed. Lag. וָיָא or וַיָא). —Targ. Ps. CXX, 5; a. fr.—Gen. R. s. 26 לא ישלה ווי מפומך the word woe shall never cease from thy lips. Ib. ווי דלא וכ׳ woe that my son does not eat &c. Ab. Zar. 11ᵇ ו׳ לדין כד וכ׳ woe to this one (Esau), when that one (Jacob) shall rise. Meg. 16ᵃ וה׳ מביתא וכ׳ woe from inside, woe from outside! Ib. 11ᵃ (play on vayhi, Esth. I, 1) וה׳ והי הדא וכ׳ (Ms. M. וה׳ הוה מה וכ׳; v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note, a. marg. note in ed.) woe and grief, as it is written &c.; a. fr. —2) the preformative וַי in the Imperfect with Vav Conversive.—Pl. וַויִּן. Snh. 70ᵃ י"ג ו׳ נאמרו ביין thirteen times do we read vay (woe) in the chapter about wine (Gen. IX, 20 to 24); Gen. R. s. 36. כתיב בה ו׳ י"ד פעמים fourteen times &c. (Gen. IX, 20 to 25).
רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא דְגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְרַבָּנַן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ!
נַעֲשָׂה כְּצוֹוֵחַ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם.
The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Naḥman in the tanner’s market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him.
Rava asked: But isn’t the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Naḥman said to him:
He becomes as one who screams to no avail about his house that collapsed or about his ship that sank in the sea.
Pi. - יֵאֵשׁ (privat., cmp. דִּשֵּׁן) to consider undone, to give up; v. יֵאוּשׁ.
Hithpa. - הִתְיָאֵשׁ, הִתְיָי׳ ; Nithpa. נִתְיָאֵשׁ, נִתְיָי׳ 1) to lose energy, relax. Y. Ber. IX, end, 14ᵈ שנִתְיָאֲשׁוּ ידיהם וכ׳ whose hands have grown lax concerning the Law (who do not care to uphold the Law; Midr. Till. to Ps. CXIX, 126 רפו ידיהם). —2) (with מן) to give up hope, to discard from the mind. Ab. I, 7 אל תִּתְיָאֵשׁ וכ׳ do not give up the idea of divine retribution (when you see sinners prosper).—Esp. (of lost things) to despair of recovery, to resign possession (by which the finder acquires the right of keeping what he has found, and the robber obtains possession of the stolen object and must make restoration in value). B. Kam. 68ᵇ, a. e. גזל ולא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הבעלים if one has robbed, and the owner has not yet given the hope of recovery. B. Mets. 21ᵇ מפני שהבעלים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מהן because the owners (who dropped the coins) have given them up; a. v. fr.
Ithpa. - אִתְיָאֵשׁ 1) to become careless. Targ. Y. Deut. XXIX, 18. —2) contr. אִיָּיאֵשׁ, אִיָּאֵשׁ, Ithpe. (אִיאוֹשׁ) אִיאֵשׁ to resign possession, give up. B. Kam. 68ᵇ ודילמא לא איי׳ but may it not be that he has not resigned? Ib. שמעיניה דאיאוש they heard him say that he gave it up; B. Mets. 21ᵇ דמֵיאַשׁ (Ms. F. דאיאש). Ib. מִיָּאֲשֵׁי (Ms. F. a. R. מִיָּי׳) they give it up. Ib. אִיאוּשֵׁי מֵיאוּשׁ (better: יָאוּשֵׁי מִיָּיאֲשֵׁי, v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note 8). Ib. 22ᵃ; a. fr.