These found objects are his - These which it goes on to list, are not [meant to be] exclusively these alone, but rather anything that has an identifying mark. But it took these: For Abbaye - who says abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment - to make us understand that even so, they are surely immediately the finder's, [as] since they are significant or weighty, [the owners] will certainly know [about their loss], as it is found in the gemara; and according to Rava, to make us understand - from the extraneous [inclusion] of all these that it goes on to list, or from the implication of one of them - that abandonment without awareness is [still considered] abandonment.

Gemara: What are the circumstances? If [the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a kav would require announcement]; if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder] - One can be precise [and ask]; if so, why does it originally inquire, "how much?" And one can say that this, "how much," is from the words of Rabbi Yitzchak. And it is as if it said, Rabbi Yitzchak said, "How much? One kav in four cubits." And for that reason, they raised the difficulty, "What are the circumstances." And there is [a case] like this later (Bava Metzia 30b) concerning one who found a donkey or a cow grazing on a path not being a lost object, and the gemara inquires, "And forever;" and Rav Yehuda [answers], three days," and we come back and raise the difficulty, "What are the circumstances," etc. And since it asks, "What are the circumstances," why did it originally inquire, "And forever?" Rather, it is Rav Yehudah that said this. And another [example is] in the chapter [entitled] Lo Yachpor (Bava Batra 22b) [when it says], "With what are we dealing here? [With a wall that is positioned] to the side. [And how much? Rav Yeiva said, 'etc.] The full width of the window, etc.' But did it not teach, four cubits etc.?" And And another [example] like these is in the first chapter of Chagigah 4a, "Slaves, from where do we derive it? Rav Huna said, 'The verse stated, etc.'" And it goes back and asks, "Why do I need a verse, etc.?"

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said, "We are dealing with the gathering [of grain] on the threshing floor - One can be precise [and ask], why did Rabbi Yitzchak establish [the mishnah] to be specifically [a case of] a kav in four cubits and in the gathering [of grain] on the threshing floor? Let him establish it about a found object in general and [it being found] in the way of being dropped, and even more [than a kav]. And there is someone that answers that it is necessary for him, because he holds like Abbaye - since the law is like him - who says that abandonment without awareness is not [considered] abandonment. And hence our mishnah is not about a found object in general, but rather specifically [a case of] the gathering on the threshing floor - for it is a loss with awareness. And you should know it from that which we raise a difficulty from [the mishnah] to Abbaye (Bava Metzia 21b), and we do not find a resolution besides [the mishnah being a case of] the gathering on the threshing floor. And if you will say, "If so, how did it ask, 'if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]" - one can say that the one that asks this held [like Rava. And Mar Ukava told him that it was specifically in the gathering on the threshing floor, and that is inevitable - since abandonment without] awareness is not [considered] abandonment. But this is not compelling in my eyes. For since we follow Abbaye, how could the gemara overtly raise a difficulty from the opinion of Rava - as the difficulty is [raised by] the gemara, so it [must be] stated according to the law (which is like Abbaye). And I can [answer] that it is saying it to [Rabbi Yitzchak], according to his explanation. As it thought that since he established [the mishnah] to be [in a case of] a kav in four cubits, it is implied that it is because they were scattered, and that he held like Rava. And because of this, they brought up a difficulty for him - [if it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]; as [if the case was in] the manner of being placed, even less [than a kav would require announcement]. And one can also say that Rabbi Yitzchak came to make us understand the law of gathering on the threshing floor, and to say that our mishnah is speaking about any lost object, and even a loss about which one is aware - which is the [case of] gathering on the threshing floor when there is no more than a kav in four cubits. However, in general, if [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder] - as since they were weighty, [the owner] would surely know [about their loss]. And that which we establish [the mishnah] later on according to Abbaye, to be about gathering [in the threshing floor] - that was before we knew the explanation of weightiness. But after we needed to answer about round cakes of figs (Bava Metzia 21b), that on account of their weightiness, [the owner] would know; we would not need to establish scattered grain only in gathering [in a threshing floor, but rather also in general. And that appears to be the opinion of the Rif, may his memory be blessed, who wrote this difficulty in his Halakhot (Rif Bava Metzia 12a) - "If [it was] in the manner of being dropped, even more [than a kav would belong to the finder]." And if it is not like this explanation, why did he write this? Is it not [otherwise] like the opinion of Rava, and we hold like Abbaye. And with this, the words of the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, are understood.

A half-kav in an area of two cubits, what is [the law] - It appears that it means two cubits by a length of four cubits, which is half of four by four cubits. For if it was two cubits by two cubits, it would only be a quarter. And likewise also, "two kav in an area of eight cubits" does not mean eight by eight, but rather eight by four.

One kav of sesame in four cubits, what is [the law], etc. One kav of dates, what is [the law], etc. - This is a wonder to me, why do I need all of these [questions]? Behold the main question of all of them is only whether the reason is because the exertion is great or because the [lost items] are not significant. And if you answered one of them, you have answered all of them. And does he need to go on like a peddler [to list all of the questions]? And one can say that not all of them were said in one study hall, but rather each and every one was inquired in its [own] study hall; and Rav Ashi (the editor of the Talmud) came and arranged them all like this. And there are many [cases] similar to this in the gemara. Or also (another answer), it is possible that there is a little bit of a reason that is in one that is not in the other. So even if you say that the reason is because they are not significant, whereas sesame is significant - nevertheless since there is excessive exertion, he would surely render it ownerless; or maybe the whole thing depends on significance, and since they are significant, he would not render them ownerless even if their exertion is excessive. And [with] a kav of dates or pomegranates - even though they are not significant, since there is only a little exertion, he would not render them ownerless; or perhaps the whole thing depends on significance, and since they are not significant, he would render them ownerless even if there is only a little exertion.