## Bava Metzia Daf 22a

###### Bava Metzia 22a:1
[Bava Metzia 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:1)

וְכֵן יַרְדֵּן שֶׁנָּטַל מִזֶּה וְנָתַן לָזֶה, מַה שֶּׁנָּטַל – נָטַל, וּמַה שֶּׁנָּתַן – נָתַן.

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


###### Bava Metzia 22a:2
[Bava Metzia 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא גַּזְלָן וְיַרְדֵּן, דְּקָא חָזֵי לְהוּ וּמִיָּאַשׁ. אֶלָּא גַּנָּב, מִי קָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ דְּמִיָּאַשׁ? תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב פָּפָּא בְּלִסְטִים מְזוּיָּן. אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ גַּזְלָן! תְּרֵי גַּוְונֵי גַּזְלָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 22a:3
[Bava Metzia 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שָׁטַף נָהָר קוֹרָיו, עֵצָיו, וַאֲבָנָיו, וּנְתָנוֹ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים. טַעְמָא דְּנִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, הָא סְתָמָא – לָא! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּשֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַצִּיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 22a:4
[Bava Metzia 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:4)

אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם הָיוּ הַבְּעָלִים מְרַדְּפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם – חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר. אִי בִּיכוֹלִין לְהַצִּיל, מַאי אִרְיָא מְרַדְּפִין? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין מְרַדְּפִין נָמֵי! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּיכוֹלִין לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. מְרַדְּפִין – לָא אִיָּיאוּשׁ, אֵין מְרַדְּפִין – אִיָּיאוֹשֵׁי מִיָּאַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Bava Metzia 22a:5
[Bava Metzia 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: כֵּיצַד אָמְרוּ הַתּוֹרֵם שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעַת תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה – הֲרֵי שֶׁיָּרַד לְתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ וְלִיקֵּט וְתָרַם שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, אִם חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, וְאִם לָאו – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 1:5): **When did** the Sages **say** that in the case where **one separates *teruma* without** the owner’s **consent, his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*?** It is in a case where **there was** someone **who entered another’s field and gathered** produce from it **and separated *teruma* without** the owner’s **permission. If** the owner is **concerned about** his actions and views it **as robbery, his *teruma* is not *teruma*, but if** he is **not** concerned, **his *teruma* is *teruma*.**


###### Bava Metzia 22a:6
[Bava Metzia 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:6)

וּמִנַּיִן הוּא יוֹדֵעַ אִם חוֹשֵׁשׁ מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל וְאִם לָאו? הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וּמְצָאוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת״. אִם נִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מֵהֶן – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. לִיקְּטוּ הַבְּעָלִים וְהוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And from where would he know whether** the owner is **concerned about** his actions and views it **as robbery or not?** If **the owner came and found him** separating *teruma* **and said to him:** You should have **gone to** take the produce of **better** quality and separate *teruma* from that, then **if** produce of **better** quality **than** the produce he had separated **is found, his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*,** since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated *teruma* from his produce. **But if not, his *teruma* is not *teruma*,** as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The *baraita* adds: If **the owners were gathering and adding** to the *teruma* he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, **either way,** whether or not better-quality produce was found, **his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*.**


###### Bava Metzia 22a:7
[Bava Metzia 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:7)

וְכִי נִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מֵהֶן תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, אַמַּאי? בְּעִידָּנָא דִּתְרַם הָא לָא הֲוָה יָדַע! תַּרְגְּמַהּ רָבָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּאַבָּיֵי: דְּשַׁוְּיֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the ruling of the *baraita*: **But why** is that the *halakha*, that **if** produce of **better** quality **than** the produce he had separated **is found his *teruma* is *teruma*? At the time that he separated the *teruma*, he did not know** that the owner would ultimately agree. The *baraita* states that the *teruma* is *teruma* from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. **Rava interpreted** the matter **in accordance with** the opinion **of Abaye:** This is a case **where** the owner **designated him** as **an agent.**


###### Bava Metzia 22a:8
[Bava Metzia 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּלָא שַׁוְּויֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ, מִי הָוְיָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה? וְהָא ״אַתֶּם״ ״גַּם אַתֶּם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא לְרַבּוֹת שְׁלוּחֲכֶם. מָה אַתֶּם לְדַעְתְּכֶם, אַף שְׁלוּחֲכֶם לְדַעְתְּכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that** the owner **did not designate him** as **an agent, would his *teruma* be *teruma*? But doesn’t the Merciful One state:** “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states **“you,”** the addition of the word “also” in the term **“you also”** serves **to include an agent.** Therefore, an agent separating *teruma* has the same *halakhot* as an owner separating *teruma*. **Just as** when **you,** the owner, separate *teruma*, it is **with your knowledge, so too** when **your agent** separates *teruma*, it must be **with your knowledge.** Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating *teruma* for another.


###### Bava Metzia 22a:9
[Bava Metzia 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:9)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּשַׁוְּיֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״זִיל תְּרוֹם״, וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״תְּרוֹם מֵהָנֵי״. וּסְתָמֵיהּ דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת כִּי תָּרֵים מִבֵּינוֹנִית (הוּא) תָּרֵים, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וּתְרַם מִיָּפוֹת, וּבָא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וּמְצָאוֹ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת״, אִם נִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מֵהֶן – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where** the owner **designated him** as **an agent and said to him: Go and separate *teruma*, but** he **did not say to him: Separate *teruma* from these** specific crops. **And** when **the owner’s** intent is **unspecified,** and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated **when** the agent **separates *teruma*,** it is **from** the crops of **intermediate quality** that **he separates *teruma*. And** in this case, the agent **went and separated *teruma* from higher-quality** produce, **and the owner** of the field **came and found him and said to him:** You should have **gone to** take the produce of **better** quality and separate *teruma* from that. **If** produce of **better** quality **than** the produce he had separated **is found, his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*. But if not, his *teruma* is not *teruma*.**


###### Bava Metzia 22a:10
[Bava Metzia 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:10)

אַמֵּימָר וּמָר זוּטְרָא וְרַב אָשֵׁי אִקְּלַעוּ לְבוּסְתָּנָא דְּמָרִי בַּר אִיסַק, אַיְיתִי אֲרִיסֵיהּ תַּמְרֵי וְרִימּוֹנֵי וּשְׁדָא קַמַּיְיהוּ. אַמֵּימָר וְרַב אָשֵׁי אָכְלִי, מָר זוּטְרָא לָא אֲכַל. אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא מָרִי בַּר אִיסַק, אַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ לַאֲרִיסֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא אַיְיתֵית לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן מֵהָנָךְ שַׁפִּירָתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara digresses with a related incident: **Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to** come to **the orchard [*levustana*] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate** the fruit, but **Mar Zutra did not eat** the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. **Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came** and **found them** eating his fruit **and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages** fruit **from those higher-quality** fruits?


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

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ אַמֵּימָר וְרַב אָשֵׁי לְמָר זוּטְרָא: הַשְׁתָּא אַמַּאי לָא אָכֵיל מָר? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם נִמְצְאוּ יָפוֹת מֵהֶן – תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, הָכִי אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא אָמְרוּ כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן תְּרוּמָה בִּלְבַד, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִצְוָה הוּא וְנִיחָא לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם כְּסִיפוּתָא הוּא דְּאָמַר הָכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate *teruma* from that; **if** produce of **better** quality **than** the produce he had separated **is found, his *teruma* is** considered ***teruma*.** Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra **said to them** that **this** is what **Rava said:** The Sages **said** that the statement: You should have **gone to** take the produce of **better** quality and separate *teruma*, indicates consent of the owner **only with regard to the matter of *teruma*, due to** the fact **that it is a mitzva and** the owner **is amenable** to having the mitzva fulfilled. **But here,** in this incident, it is **due to shame that he said this:** Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.


###### Bava Metzia 22a:12
[Bava Metzia 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/22a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עוֹדֵהוּ הַטַּל עֲלֵיהֶן וְשָׂמַח – הֲרֵי זֶה בְּכִי יֻתַּן. נִגְּבוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׂמַח –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof from a *baraita* with regard to despair that is not conscious. It is written: “And if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is ritually pure. But when water is placed upon the seed, and any part of their carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). Produce becomes susceptible to contracting ritual impurity only after coming into contact with one of seven liquids: Wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. It is taught in the *baraita*: If **the dew is still upon** the produce and has not yet dried, and if the owner **was glad** that the dew moistened the produce and kept it fresh, **that** produce falls into the category of: “But **when** water **is placed** upon the seed,” and the produce is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the produce **had dried** when the owner found it, then **even though he was glad** that the dew had moistened the produce,