## Bava Metzia Daf 21a

###### Bava Metzia 21a:1
[Bava Metzia 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:1)

דְּשָׁיְילִינַן לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי אִי פָּרוּעַ אִי לָא פָּרוּעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as we ask the witnesses whether** the loan was **repaid** or **whether** it was **not repaid.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:2
[Bava Metzia 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:2)

תָּא שְׁמַע: סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – כָּשֵׁר. מַאי עֵדִים? עֵדֵי קִיּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge from a *baraita*: **A *simpon* upon which witnesses** are signed is **valid.** Apparently, it is valid even if it is found in the possession of the creditor, as no distinction is made. The Gemara answers: To **what witnesses** is the *baraita* referring? It is referring to **witnesses of ratification.** The fact that the *simpon* was ratified by the court proves its validity.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:3
[Bava Metzia 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:3)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְשֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים – פָּסוּל. מַאי ״אֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים״? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא עִלָּוֵיהּ עֵדִים כְּלָל, צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר דְּפָסוּל?! אֶלָּא לָאו עֵדֵי קִיּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this too stands to reason, from** the fact **that** the *baraita* **teaches** in **the latter clause: And** a *simpon* **upon which witnesses** are **not** signed is **invalid. What** is meant by the expression: **Upon which witnesses** are **not** signed? **If we say** that it means **that there are no witnesses** signed **on it at all,** does it **need to be said that** it is **invalid? Rather, is it not** referring to a *simpon* on which witnesses are signed, just not **witnesses of ratification?**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:4
[Bava Metzia 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:4)

גּוּפָא. סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – יִתְקַיֵּים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. אֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים וְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ, אוֹ שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** *baraita* **itself** cited above: **A *simpon* upon which witnesses** are signed **is ratified by** means of **its signatories.** If **there are no witnesses** signed **on it, but** the *simpon* **emerges from the possession of a third party** serving as a trustee, **or** if **it emerges after the signing of** the **documents,** i.e., the *simpon* was written on the promissory note beneath the content of the note and the witnesses’ signatures, it is **valid.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:5
[Bava Metzia 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:5)

יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ, דְּהָא הֵימְנֵיהּ מַלְוֶה לְשָׁלִישׁ. יוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת נָמֵי, דְּאִי לָאו דִּפְרִיעַ לָא הֲוָה מַרַע לֵיהּ לִשְׁטָרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The reason that it is valid if it **emerges from the possession of a third party** is **that** the **creditor granted credibility to** the **third party** by placing the *simpon* in his possession. **So too,** the *simpon* is valid in a case where **it emerges after the signing of** the **documents, as, if not** for the fact **that** the debt **was repaid,** the creditor **would not have undermined his note** by allowing the *simpon* to be written on it.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:6
[Bava Metzia 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:6)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין **


###### Bava Metzia 21a:7
[Bava Metzia 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:7)

מַתְנִי׳ **אֵלּוּ** מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Bava Metzia 21a:8
[Bava Metzia 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:9
[Bava Metzia 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שִׁינּוּי – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. כֵּיצַד? מָצָא עִגּוּל וּבְתוֹכוֹ חֶרֶס, כִּכָּר וּבְתוֹכוֹ מָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:10
[Bava Metzia 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:10)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כְּלֵי אַנְפּוּרְיָא אֵין חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

**גְּמָ׳** מָצָא פֵּירוֹת מְפוּזָּרִין. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:12
[Bava Metzia 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:12)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דֶּרֶךְ נְפִילָה – אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי! וְאִי דֶּרֶךְ הִינּוּחַ – אֲפִילּוּ בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי נָמֵי לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:13
[Bava Metzia 21a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:13)

אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: בְּמַכְנַשְׁתָּא דְּבֵי דָרֵי עָסְקִינַן. קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ – לָא טָרַח אִינִישׁ וְלָא הָדַר אָתֵי וְשָׁקֵיל לְהוּ, אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ. בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי – טָרַח וְהָדַר אָתֵי וְשָׁקֵיל לְהוּ, וְלָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:14
[Bava Metzia 21a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:14)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: חֲצִי קַב בִּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, מַהוּ? קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ. חֲצִי קַב בִּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ – לָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ. אוֹ דִּלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי, וַחֲצִי קַב בִּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי – מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:15
[Bava Metzia 21a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:15)

קַבַּיִים בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, מַהוּ? קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן קַבַּיִים בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפִישׁא טִרְחַיְיהוּ טְפֵי – מַפְקַר לְהוּ. אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי, וְקַבַּיִים בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁיבִי – לָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:16
[Bava Metzia 21a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:16)

קַב שׁוּמְשְׁמִין בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַהוּ? קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת טַעְמָא מַאי – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי, וְשׁוּמְשְׁמִין כֵּיוָן דַּחֲשִׁיבִי – לָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ. אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שׁוּמְשְׁמִין, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ טְפֵי – מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Bava Metzia 21a:17
[Bava Metzia 21a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:17)

קַב תַּמְרֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, קַב רִמּוֹנֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, מַהוּ? קַב בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, טַעְמָא מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי. קַב תַּמְרֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, קַב רִמּוֹנֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲשִׁיבִי – מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:18
[Bava Metzia 21a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:18)

אוֹ דִלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דִּנְפִישׁא טִרְחַיְיהוּ, וְקַב תַּמְרֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וְקַב רִמּוֹנֵי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא נְפִישׁ טִרְחַיְיהוּ – לָא מַפְקַר לְהוּ. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Bava Metzia 21a:19
[Bava Metzia 21a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/21a:19)

אִיתְּמַר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:**