## Bava Metzia Daf 11a

###### Bava Metzia 11a:1
[Bava Metzia 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:1)

יָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**we derive** the *halakha* with regard to acquiring **a found item from** the *halakha* with regard to **a bill of divorce, and** one **Sage,** Abba Kohen Bardela, **holds** that **we do not derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a found item from** the *halakha* with regard to **a bill of divorce.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:2
[Bava Metzia 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:2)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בִּקְטַנָּה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּיָלְפִינַן מְצִיאָה מִגֵּט. וְהָכָא בְּקָטָן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that **with regard to a minor girl, everyone agrees** that **we derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a found item from** the *halakha* with regard to **a bill of divorce,** and she acquires an ownerless item that is found in her courtyard. **And here they disagree with regard to** whether **a minor boy** acquires an item that is placed in his courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:3
[Bava Metzia 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:3)

מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן קָטָן מִקְּטַנָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן קָטָן מִקְּטַנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **Sage,** Rabbi Yannai, **holds** that **we derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a minor boy from** the *halakha* with regard to **a minor girl,** as there should be no difference between them with regard to the *halakhot* of acquisition. **And** one **Sage,** Abba Kohen Bardela, **holds** that **we do not derive** the *halakha* with regard to **a minor boy from** the *halakha* with regard to **a minor girl;** only a minor girl acquires items by means of her courtyard, as the Torah includes this mode of acquisition with regard to acquiring a bill of divorce.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:4
[Bava Metzia 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:4)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מָר אֲמַר חֲדָא, וּמָר אֲמַר חֲדָא וְלָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead that there is no dispute here at all. Rather, one **Sage,** Abba Kohen Bardela, **said one** statement, that a minor girl is divorced by her husband placing a bill of divorce in her courtyard, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yannai, **said another** statement, that a minor boy or girl does not acquire an item that is found in his or her courtyard; **and they do not disagree.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:5
[Bava Metzia 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** רָאָה אוֹתָן רָצִין אַחַר מְצִיאָה, אַחַר צְבִי שָׁבוּר, אַחַר גּוֹזָלוֹת שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְחוּ, וְאָמַר: ״זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי״ – זָכְתָה לוֹ. הָיָה צְבִי רָץ כְּדַרְכּוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ גּוֹזָלוֹת מַפְרִיחִין, וְאָמַר: ״זָכְתָה לִי שָׂדִי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **saw** people **running after a found** ownerless animal, e.g., **after a deer** crippled by **a broken** leg, or **after young pigeons that** have **not** yet learned to **fly,** which can be caught easily, **and he said: My field has effected acquisition** of this animal **for me, it has effected acquisition** of it **for him.** If the **deer were running in its** usual **manner, or** the **young pigeons were flying, and he said: My field has effected acquisition** of this animal **for me, he has said nothing,** as one’s courtyard cannot effect acquisition of an item that does not remain there on its own.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:6
[Bava Metzia 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: And this** acquisition mentioned in the mishna is effective specifically in a case **where** the owner is **standing next to his field** at the time of the acquisition, so that it has the halakhic status of a secured courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:7
[Bava Metzia 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:7)

וְתִקְנֵי לֵיהּ שָׂדֵהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But shouldn’t his field effect acquisition** of the animal **for him** even without him standing next to it? **As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A person’s courtyard effects acquisition** of property **for him** even **without his knowledge.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:8
[Bava Metzia 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:8)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אֲבָל חָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אִי עוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This statement** applies only **to a secured courtyard,** where items remain in the courtyard without supervision. **But** with regard to **an unsecured courtyard, if** the owner is **standing next to his field, yes,** it effects acquisition of ownerless items on his behalf, but **if** he is **not,** it does **not** effect acquisition of items on his behalf.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:9
[Bava Metzia 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:9)

וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, אִי עוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do you say that** in the case of **an unsecured courtyard, if** the owner is **standing next to his field, yes,** it effects acquisition of ownerless items on his behalf, but **if** he is **not,** it does **not** effect acquisition of items on his behalf?


###### Bava Metzia 11a:10
[Bava Metzia 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:10)

דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד בָּעִיר וְאוֹמֵר, ״יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁעוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בַּשָּׂדֶה פּוֹעֲלִים שְׁכֵחוּהוּ – לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה״, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה״, ״בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ״ – וְלֹא בָּעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: There is a case where a landowner **was standing in the town and saying: I know that** my **laborers forgot a sheaf that I have in the field,** which I had intended for the laborers to bring in, but since I remember it, **it shall not be** considered **a forgotten** sheaf, which must be left for the poor. Then, the landowner himself forgot about the sheaf. In this case, one **might** have thought **that it is not** considered **a forgotten** sheaf. To counter this, **the verse states:** “When you reap your harvest in your field, **and have forgotten a sheaf in the field,** you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19). It is derived from here that the phrase: **“And have forgotten”** applies **“in the field,” but not in the town.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:11
[Bava Metzia 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:11)

הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא שִׁכְחָה – אַלְמָא הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא ״בַּשָּׂדֶה וְשָׁכַחְתָּ״ וְלֹא בָּעִיר, אַלְמָא לָא הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **This** *baraita* **itself** is **difficult.** First **you said** that one **might** have thought **that it is not** considered **a forgotten** sheaf, so **apparently** the *tanna* seeks to prove that **it is** considered **a forgotten** sheaf. **And** then the *baraita* **adduces the derivation** that the phrase **“and have forgotten”** applies only **“in the field,” but not in the town,** which **apparently** means that a sheaf forgotten by the owner while he is in the town **is not** considered **a forgotten** sheaf.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:12
[Bava Metzia 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:12)

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּשָּׂדֶה – שָׁכוּחַ מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הָוֵי שִׁכְחָה, זָכוּר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכוּחַ אֵין שִׁכְחָה, מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּכֵיוָן דְּקָאֵי גַּבַּהּ, הָוְיָא לַיהּ חֲצֵרוֹ וְזָכְתָה לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t this what** the *tanna* **is saying:** In a case where the owner is **in the field,** if the sheaf was **forgotten at the outset, it is** considered **a forgotten** sheaf; but if **it** was **remembered** at first **and** was **ultimately forgotten,** it does **not** assume the status of **a forgotten** sheaf? **What is the reason** for this distinction? The reason is **that since he is standing** in the field, **beside** the sheaf, his field **is** tantamount to **his courtyard, and** his courtyard **effects acquisition** of the sheaf **for him** once he remembers it.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:13
[Bava Metzia 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:13)

אֲבָל בָּעִיר, אֲפִילּוּ זָכוּר וּלְבַסּוֹף שָׁכוּחַ – הָוְיָא שִׁכְחָה. מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּלֵיתֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ דְּלִזְכֵּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a case where the owner is **in the town, even** if the sheaf was **remembered and ultimately forgotten, it is** considered **a forgotten** sheaf and must be left for the poor. **What is the reason** for this? It is **because** the owner **is not beside it,** which is necessary **for** his courtyard **to effect acquisition** of the sheaf **for him.** Evidently, an item that is in a person’s courtyard is acquired by him only if he is standing next to the courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:14
[Bava Metzia 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:14)

מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא גְּזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הִיא, דְּבַשָּׂדֶה נֶהֱוֵי שִׁכְחָה וּבָעִיר לָא נֶהֱוֵי שִׁכְחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **From where** can it be proven that this is the reason? **Perhaps** the *baraita* should be understood in a different manner: **It is a Torah edict that** if the owner is **in the field, it is** considered **a forgotten** sheaf, **but** if the owner is **in the town, it is not** considered **a forgotten** sheaf and does not need to be left for the poor. Accordingly, the distinction would not be derived from the *halakhot* of acquisition.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:15
[Bava Metzia 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:15)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תָּשׁוּב לְקַחְתּוֹ״, לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds that **the verse states: “You shall not go back to take it”** (Deuteronomy 24:19), which is interpreted **to include** sheaves **forgotten** while the owner is in **the town.** Evidently, there is no fundamental difference between a town and the field with regard to the *halakhot* of forgotten sheaves; rather, the distinction is due to the fact that one cannot acquire a sheaf by means of his courtyard if he is not standing next to the courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:16
[Bava Metzia 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:16)

הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **This** phrase is **necessary to** impose **a prohibition** upon one who takes his sheaf after he forgot it, instead of leaving it for the poor. It is therefore not superfluous and cannot be interpreted as including an additional case.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:17
[Bava Metzia 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:17)

אִם כֵּן נֵימָא קְרָא ״לֹא תִּקָּחֶנּוּ״, מַאי ״לֹא תָּשׁוּב״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if the verse serves only that purpose, **let the verse say: You shall not take it. What** is added by the phrase: **“You shall not go back** to take it”? It is written **to include** sheaves **forgotten** while the owner is in **the town.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:18
[Bava Metzia 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:18)

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לִכְדִתְנַן: שֶׁלְּפָנָיו – אֵין שִׁכְחָה, שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו – יֵשׁ שִׁכְחָה, שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** the phrase “you shall not go back” **is still necessary for that which we learned** in a mishna (*Pe’a* 7:4): While a landowner collects the sheaves from his field, any sheaf **that** remains **before him,** as he has not reached it yet, does **not** assume the status of **a forgotten** sheaf, even if he has forgotten about its existence. Any sheaf **that is** already **behind him has** the status of **a forgotten** sheaf, **as the prohibition of: You shall not go back,** applies.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:19
[Bava Metzia 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:19)

זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב – שִׁכְחָה, כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּבַל תָּשׁוּב – אֵינוֹ שִׁכְחָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is the principle: Any** sheaf **to which the prohibition of: You shall not go back,** applies, as one would need to retrace his steps in order to retrieve the sheaf, assumes the status of **a forgotten** sheaf; and **any** sheaf **to which the prohibition of: You shall not go back,** does **not** apply, i.e., a sheaf that one has yet to reach, does **not** assume the status of **a forgotten** sheaf. The phrase “You shall not go back” is apparently necessary to teach this *halakha*, and it cannot be interpreted as including a case where the owner is in the town.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:20
[Bava Metzia 11a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:20)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר קְרָא ״יִהְיֶה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שִׁכְחַת הָעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said** that the inclusion of this case is derived from another phrase in the verse. **The verse states: “It shall be”** (Deuteronomy 24:19), which is interpreted **to include** sheaves **forgotten** while the owner is in **the town.** Therefore, the Gemara’s initial interpretation of the *baraita* is accepted, leading to the conclusion that the distinction between a case where the owner is in the field and a case where he is in the town is due to the *halakha* that one’s courtyard can effect acquisition of property for him only if he is next to the courtyard, as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel.


###### Bava Metzia 11a:21
[Bava Metzia 11a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:21)

וְכֵן אָמַר עוּלָּא: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: וְהוּא שֶׁעוֹמֵד בְּצַד שָׂדֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ulla also says** that the acquisition mentioned in the mishna **is** effective specifically in a case **where** the owner **is standing next to his field. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana also says** that the acquisition **is** effective specifically in a case **where he is standing next to his field.**


###### Bava Metzia 11a:22
[Bava Metzia 11a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/11a:22)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְעוּלָּא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּזְקֵנִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִים בִּסְפִינָה. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: עִישּׂוּר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לָמוֹד נָתוּן לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla** from that which is taught in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 5:9): There was **an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and** other **Elders, who were traveling on a ship.** Since he remembered that he had not tithed the produce of his fields, **Rabban Gamliel said** to the others: **One-tenth** of my produce, **which I will measure out in the future** and separate from my produce, **is given to Yehoshua** ben Ḥananya, who is a Levite and is entitled to receive the first tithe,