חוץ לחמשים אמה הרי הוא של מוצאו—Beyond fifty cubits, it belongs to its finder

OVERVIEW The משנה taught that if a chick was found within fifty אמות of the שובך, it belongs to the owner of the שובך, however if it is found beyond the fifty אמות it belongs to the finder. תוספות discusses this ruling.

דאזלינן בתר רובא דעלמא¹ – The reason it belongs to the finder, for we assume that this chick came from the majority of chicks in the world, but not necessarily from a neighboring שובך – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואפילו למאן דאמר² אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב – And even according to the one who maintains that in monetary issues we do not follow the majority, so why do we say here that it belongs to the finder because אזלינן בתר רובא דעלמא, when in דיני ממונות we are not הולכין אחר הרוב?!³ תוספות responds: היינו במקום⁴ שהוא מוחזק⁵ אבל הכא דליכא חזקה דממונא⁶ אזלינן בתר רובא – That is only where [one person] is in possession (only in that case does שמואל maintain אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב), however here where there is no one in possession of the money (the chick), we do follow the majority. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר בפרק אלו מציאות (בבא מציעא דף כד,א ושם) לרבנן דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר – And if you will say according to the רבנן in פרק אלו מציאות who argue with רשב"א – דאמרי אפילו בעיר שרובה כותים חייב להכריז בדבר שיש בו סימן – And maintain that even in a city where the majority is gentiles, one who finds an article is obligated to announce it, if it has an identifying sign; the question is **– ואמאי לא אזלינן בתר רובא⁷ כיון דליכא חזקה דממונא⁸ – But why do we not follow the majority (**who are נכרים), since there is no חזקה דממונא?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דתקנת חכמים היא כדי לקיים מצות השבת אבידה – And one can say that this is an enactment of the חכמים in order to fulfill the מצוה of returning lost objects – כיון דיכול להתברר על ידי הכרזה אם היא של ישראל⁹ – Since by announcing this אבידה it can be verified whether it belongs to a Jew – וישראל נמי לא מייאש¹⁰ דמסיק אדעתיה דלמא משכח ישראל ויכריז: And the Jewish owner is also not despairing on his lost object, for he assumes that perhaps another Jew will find it and announce it.

SUMMARY The finder of the ניפול may keep it since there is no מוחזק therefore הולכין אחר הרוב (even by ממונות). However, when there is a סימן there is a תקנת חכמים to be מכריז even when there is רוב that would permit you to keep it.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות discussed why the finder can keep it, if we maintain אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב. Seemingly תוספות was asking that it should belong to the קרוב.¹¹ However this is difficult to understand for if we do not follow the רוב, we certainly should not follow the קרוב,¹² since רוב is ‘stronger’ than קרוב; what did תוספות want that the ruling should be if we maintain אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב?!¹³
2. תוספות concludes that the ישראל is not מייאש for he assumed that a ישראל will find the אבידה and announce it.¹⁴ However since it is place of רוב נכרים, why do we assume this, presumably since the ישראל knows that it is רוב נכרים, he will assume that a נכרי will find it and keep it?!
3. Our משנה is discussing a ניפול which has no סימן.¹⁵ Why was it necessary for תוספות to explain that it belongs to the finder since הולכין אחר רובא דעלמא, when תוספות could have simply said it belongs to the finder since it has no סימן?!¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ When the ניפול is found within fifty אמות from a שובך we assume that it came from this שובך (it hopped this short distance). However, if it was found beyond fifty אמות from any שובך, [obviously someone brought it here, and we do not know who, therefore] there is no reason to return it to the בעל השובך, since the majority of chicks are from the entire world and not from this שובך, therefore we follow the majority and assume that it does not belong to this שובך. ² This refers to שמואל. See later צב,א. ³ Seemingly תוספות question is that we should give it to the closest שובך. See (however) ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read, במקום שהאחד מוחזק (instead of במקום שהוא מוחזק). ⁵ שמואל (seemingly) maintains that חזקה (being in possession of the money) is ‘stronger’ than the opposing רוב (which demands that the money be taken away from him). רוב is not sufficient proof that the money does not belong to the מוחזק. We need the proof of עדים (or something similar) to take away money from whoever is in possession of it. ⁶ When the person found it, the ניפול was in no one’s possession, we are not sure to whom this bird belongs, therefore since no one is a מוחזק, we follow the רוב, and the finder can keep it. ⁷ One may keep an article that a נכרי lost (even though one may not outright steal from a נכרי). ⁸ We ruled here that since there is no חזקת ממון by the ניפול, therefore the finder may keep it since there is a רובא דעלמא; here too the רובא דעלמא are נכרים (to whom we are not obligated to return an אבידה [even with a סימן]), and there is no חזקת ממון, so the finder should be able to keep it, why is he חייב להכריז?! ⁹ In our משנה where there is no סימן on this ניפול [see ‘Thinking it over’ # 3], we can only follow the ruling of רוב (since there is no חזקה) for we have no other guidance. However there by מציאה, granted that if we should follow only the רוב, the finder should keep it, however since there is a סימן, there is the possibility that we will be able to identify the owner, therefore even though one may argue that we should follow the רוב, the חכמים intervened and made a תקנה that we should announce, since there is (even (a )slight) possibility that the owner will be found. ¹⁰ תוספות needs to add that the owner was not מייאש (even though there are רוב כותים [see ‘Thinking it over # 2]), for otherwise if he was מייאש, there certainly would not be any purpose to be מכריז, since once he is מייאש, the article belongs to the finder. ¹¹ See footnote # 3. ¹² See רש"ש. ¹³ See נחלת משה. ¹⁴ See footnote # 10. ¹⁵ See footnote # 9. ¹⁶ See נחלת משה.

רוב וקרוב הלך אחר הרוב—Majority and closest; follow the majority

OVERVIEW רב חנינא ruled that when there is a conflict whether to follow the majority (רוב), or whether to follow that which is closest (קרוב); follow the רוב. Our תוספות discusses this ruling of ר"ח.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי קא משמע לן מתניתא היא (כתובות דף טו,א) – And if you will say; what is ר"ח teaching us; this ruling is already stated in a ברייתא. The ברייתא reads – ט' חנויות כולן מוכרות בשר שחוטה ואחת מוכרת בשר נבילה [וכולי]¹ – All the nine stores are selling slaughtered (כשר) meat and one store is selling meat from a carcass (non-כשר), etc. – ובנמצא הלך אחר הרוב² משמע אפילו נמצא קרוב לחנות המוכרת נבילה³ – But if the meat was found outside the stores, and we do not know from which store it came from, the ruling is to follow the majority; this rule is valid even if the meat was found closest to the store that is selling נבילה! תוספות answers: ותירץ רבינו יצחק בר מרדכי דאי ממתניתא הוה אמינא כגון דאין דלתות מדינה נעולות⁴ – And the ר"י בר מרדכי answered that if our only source would be from the ברייתא, I could say that the ברייתא is in a case where for instance the doors to the city were not locked shut – דאיכא תרי רובי⁵ – For in that situation there are two majorities, and only in such a case do we follow רוב over קרוב, but not if there is only one majority, therefore – קא משמע לן רבי חנינא דאפילו דלתות מדינה נעולות דליכא אלא חד רובא – ר"ח informs us that even if the doors of the city are locked, so there is only one רוב, nevertheless we still maintain that רוב וקרוב הלוך אחר הרוב. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ורבי זירא דפריך ליה בסמוך⁶ – And ר"ז who shortly challenged ר"ח from the law of עגלה ערופה – אף על גב דרבי זירא נמי אית ליה לקמן⁷ אפילו דלתות מדינה נעולות⁸ – Even though ר"ז also maintains later that even in a case where דלתי מדינה נעולות (so there is only one רוב), we still follow the רוב and not the קרוב – תוספות replies: היינו בתר דשני ליה⁹ דקיבלה מרבי חנינא¹⁰ – This which ר"ז maintains that even בחד רובא we follow the רוב, this was after ר"ח answered ר"ז, for ר"ז accepted from ר"ח his answer. תוספות presents a differing opinion: ואין נראה לרבינו יצחק בן אברהם¹¹ דאם כן מאי פריך ליה מקרא – And the ריצב"א does not see it that way, for according to the ר"י בר מרדכי, why did ר"ז challenge ר"ח from the פסוק of עגלה ערופה – תיקשי ליה אמתניתא דתשע חנויות¹² – ר"ז should have asked on the משנה of ט' חניות from the פסוק of עגלה ערופה?! תוספות anticipates and rejects a possible resolution to his question: ואפילו תוקמה כשאין דלתות מדינה נעולות¹³ – And even if you will establish the ברייתא of ט' חניות that it is in a case where the דלתות המדינה are not נעוליות, so there it is תרי רובי – תוספות rejects this answer: הא טעמא דבעינן תרי רובי אינו אלא מדרבנן¹⁴ – But the reason we require תרי רובי is only מדרבנן, however מן התורה one רוב is sufficient. We (sometimes) require תרי רובי – משום גזירה כדאמר בסוף פרק קמא דכתובות (דף טו,א) – On account of a concern, as the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת כתובות. תוספות offers a differing view: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דאי ממתניתין הוה אמינא בנמצא באמצע¹⁵ – And it seems to the ר"י that if we would derive the ruling from the ברייתא of ט' חניות, I would have said that it is in a case where the meat was found in the middle it was not closer to either of the stores – תוספות offers an alternate solution:¹⁶ ועוד נראה לרבינו יצחק דרבי חנינא אתא לאשמועינן – And additionally, it appears to the ר"י that ר"ח is coming to teach us – דאפילו בקורבא דמוכח¹⁷ דאזלינן בתר רובא¹⁸ – And even by a ‘closeness’ which is compelling, nevertheless we follow the רוב – תוספות supports his contention: וכן משמע בסמוך גבי חבית שצפה בנהר¹⁹ = And so it seems shortly regarding a barrel of wine which was found floating in the river – דבעי למימר דרב דאמר כנגד עיר שרובה ישראל מותרת לית ליה דרבי חנינא²⁰ – Where the גמרא wanted to say that רב, who maintains that if it was found in the river opposite a city where the majority were Jews, the wine is permitted, it is because רב disagrees with ר"ח regarding רוב וקרוב and רב maintains הלוך אחר קרוב. This concludes the citation from the גמרא – תוספות asks (to prove his point that there is a concept of קורבא דמוכח): והיכי מתוקמא דהא משמע דמותרת אפילו נמצאת סמוך לבית נכרי – But how is sרב' ruling justified by saying that he argues with ר"ח, since it seems from the גמרא that the wine is מותר even if it was found near a sנכרי' house – וזהו מטעם דאזיל בתר רוב העיר ישראל וכרבי חנינא²¹ – And this is because he agrees with ר"ח that we follow the majority of the inhabitants of the city who are Jewish, so how does the גמרא state that רב disagrees with ר"ח?! תוספות explains: אלא ודאי לגבי קורבא דביתו של נכרי הוי קורבא דלא מוכח – Rather it is certain that regarding the קורבא of the sנכרי' house, that קורבא is considered a קורבא דלא מוכח – כיון שדרים רוב ישראל באותה העיר²² – Since most of the inhabitants of the city are ישראל – ורב אזיל בתר רובא היכא דהקורבא לא מוכחא ודלא כרבי חנינא²³ – And רב also follows the רוב in a case where the קורבא is not compelling (and not like ר"ח) – אבל אותה עיר כנגד האי דקירא הוי קורבא דמוכח ולכך אזיל בתרה²⁴ – However, if we would compare that city, where the barrel was found, as opposed to the דקירא (which had a majority of נכרים); that city is a קורבא דמוכח and therefore רב rules to follow it (against the רוב) [and this is not like ר"ח] – תוספות continues: וכל ההלכה תתיישב כמו שאפרש²⁵ – And the entire הלכה of ר"ח will be understood (according to the second answer of the ר"י), as I will explain – ולהכי לא מייתי בכוליה גמרא דרבי חנינא – And therefore (since ר"ח is addressing a case of קורבא דמוכח), ר"ח is not cited in the entire ש"ס where רוב וקרוב is discussed – אלא לקמן²⁶ גבי חצבא דאישתכח בפרדיסא של ערלה – Except for two places, one is later in our גמרא regarding a barrel of wine which was found in a vineyard of ערלה – דקורבא דמוכח הוא שנמצא בפרדיסא דערלה גופיה²⁷ – Which is a case of קורבא דמוכח, since the barrel was found in the ערלה vineyard itself – תוספות cites the only other time in ש"ס that this ruling of ר"ח is cited: ובפרק קמא דביצה (דף י,ב) מייתי ליה נמי גבי הא דתנן – And the גמרא also cites ר"ח in the first פרק of מסכת ביצה, regrading this which the משנה taught there – זימן שחורים ומצא לבנים לבנים ומצא שחורים אסורים – He designated²⁸ the black doves from a dovecote for his יו"ט meal, but he found white doves instead,**** or he designated white doves and he found black doves, they are forbidden to be slaughtered on יו"ט – ומפרש בגמרא²⁹ כגון שזימן שחורים ולבנים³⁰ – And רבא in the גמרא there explained that the משנה is discussing a case where for instance he designated both black and white birds – ומצא שחורים במקום לבנים ולבנים במקום שחורים – And he found the black ones in the place (in the pigeonhole) of the white ones, and he found the white ones in the cubicle of the black ones – מהו דתימא אינהו נינהו ואיתהפוכי איתהפיך – We would have said (if not for the משנה) these are the same birds that he designated and they merely switched cubicles, and are מותר לשחוט – קא משמע לן דהנך אזול לעלמא והני אחריני נינהו ומעלמא אתו – The משנה therefore teaches us that these original birds went away elsewhere, and these current birds are other non-designated birds and they come from elsewhere – ומסיק עלה לימא מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא כולי³¹ – And on this the גמרא concludes let us say that this משנה, according to the interpretation of רבא is a support to ר"ח, etc. The reason the גמרא cites ר"ח there, is –

For there it is a קורבא דמוכח for the black and white birds were there yesterday, so it is evident that these are the same birds and they merely switched קנים.

SUMMARY The novelty of sר"ח' ruling (over the משנה of ט' חניות) is (a) that one רוב is sufficient, (b) there is no קרוב by ט' חניות, and (c) the ruling of הלוך אחר הרוב is even if it is a קורבא דמוכח (as in the case of the wine barrel found in a פרדס דערלה, or the case of the black and white birds).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks on the ריצב"א, why did ר' זירא not ask his question from עגלה ערופה (where we follow the קרוב) on the ברייתא of ט' חניות (where we follow the רוב).³³ תוספות explains that this is a valid question even if by ט' חניות we require ב' רובי, since ב' רובי is only required מדרבנן however מה"ת one רוב would suffice.³⁴ It seems from תוספות that if the requirement of תרי רובי is מה"ת, there would be no contradiction from ע"ע.³⁵ However it seems that by ע"ע there is also תרי רובי (and nevertheless we follow the קרוב); there is the רוב of a city (farther away) with a larger population, and רובא דעלמא (the murderer could have come from anywhere in the world). Why was it necessary for תוספות to say that it is a valid question since תרי רובי is מדרבנן, it would seemingly be a valid question even if תרי רובי is מה"ת?!³⁶

footnotes: ¹ The ruling is if the person went and bought meat in one of the ten stores and he does not remember in which store he bought the meat, the meat is forbidden since the ספק originated in the store, which is קבוע (it is fixed in its place), we rule that כל קבוע is like מחצה על מחצה so it is a ספק and a ספק איסור (דאורייתא) is אסור. ² The majority of stores sell בשר שחוטה; therefore, it is permitted to eat this found piece of meat. ³ This is a classic case of רוב (so it is כשר), or קרוב (so it is אסור) and the ruling is that we follow the רוב. Why do we need the ruling of ר"ח (who is an אמורא), when there is a clear ruling in a ברייתא that רוב וקרוב הלך אחר הרוב?! ⁴ If the doors are open, there is the possibility that this meat came from outside the city, where most of the meat is (also) כשר. [We are dealing with cases in ארץ ישראל, where most of the שחיטה was כשר.] ⁵ We say that whether the meat is from the city, we have the רוב of ט' חניות, or whether the meat is from outside the city we have the רוב that most of the meat is בשר שחוטה, therefore since there is תרי רובי, therefore it overpowers קרוב. However, we do not know what the ruling should be if there is only one רוב (like if דלתי מדינה נעולות), this is what ר"ח is teaching that even in cases where there is only חד רובא, nevertheless הלוך אחר הרוב (and not קרוב). ⁶ ר"ז asked how can ר"ח say הלוך אחר הרוב, when in the case of עגלה ערופה, the תורה clearly states that the closest city to the corpse is required to being the עגלה ערופה, but not the city which has the most people. This shows that we follow the קרוב and not the רוב. ⁷ כד,א. ⁸ Why is ר"ז challenging ר"ח, when even ר"ז agrees with ר"ח that (even by one רוב) we follow the רוב and not the קרוב? The question should be on ר"ז himself, not (only) on ר"ח! ⁹ ר"ח answered ר"ז (see footnote # 6) that the פסוק is discussing a case where there is no רוב. There is no other city (within reasonable distance) which had more people than the קרוב. Therefore, we follow the קרוב, since there is no רוב. However, when there is a רוב we follow the רוב, not the קרוב. ¹⁰ However, when he asked the question ר"ז assumed that the ruling by עגלה ערופה is even if there is another city with a רוב. Therefore, he challenged ר"ח. However, in the end he accepted and agreed with ר"ח. ¹¹ The ריצב"א does agree with the ריב"ם that the ברייתא of ט' חניות is a ‘classic’ case of רוב וקרוב. ¹² The same question he has on ר"ח from עגלה ערופה (that from there it is apparent that הלוך אחר קרוב), the same question should also apply to the ברייתא of ט' חניות where we follow the רוב and not the קרוב, which is in opposition to the פרשה of עגלה ערופה, where we follow the קרוב and not the רוב (in the הוה אמינא). [The advantage of asking the question on the ברייתא rather than on ר"ח, because regarding an אמורא we can somehow say that he was mistaken; however, it is much more difficult to say that concerning a ברייתא from תנאים.] ¹³ Seemingly this would answer the question; if there is only one רוב we follow the קרוב as by עגלה ערופה, however when there is תרי רובי (like by ט' חניות) we follow the רוב. However, תוספות rejects this resolution. ¹⁴ This means whenever רוב is effective, מה"ת we only require one רוב, and even in places where we require תרי רובי this is only a stringency מדרבנן, so for instance even if we rule regarding ט' חניות that תרי רובי are required (that דלתי המדינה אינם נעולות) that is only מדרבנן, however מה"ת the meat would be כשר even בחד רובי (where דלתי מדינה נעולות). We therefore have a contradiction between the ברייתא of ט' חניות, where we follow the רוב (even חד רובי מה"ת), and the פרשה of עגלה ערופה, where we follow the קרוב. Why did ר"ז not ask his question on the ברייתא of ט' חניות?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁵ There is no קרוב at all therefore we follow the רוב. This answers all the questions. It explains the חידוש of ר"ח that רוב is stronger even than קרוב, which we would not know from ט' חניות, since there is no קרוב there at all; it was נמצא באמצע, and obviously there is no challenge from עגלה ערופה, since there is no קרוב (by ט' חניות). ¹⁶ The previous answer may not be that satisfying for it requires us to establish the case of ט' חניות in a unique situation where the meat was found (exactly) in the middle (which is highly unusual). ¹⁷ A קורבא דמוכח is that not only is there a קורבא, but additionally there are other indications to support that it came from the קרוב. It is not clear (in this תוספות) whether עגלה ערופה is a קורבא דמוכח or not, but it has no bearing on the question of ר"ז on ר"ח for if ע"ע is not a קורבא דמוכח and nevertheless we follow it, the question on ר"ח is all the greater. ¹⁸ The case of ט' חניות is (seemingly) not a situation of קורבא דמוכח. Therefore, we need ר"ח to teach us that even by a קורבא דמוכח we follow the רוב. ¹⁹ כד,א. A barrel of wine was found floating in a river opposite a city whose majority were Jews. רב ruled that it is permitted to drink from this wine (presumably it is from this city), and שמואל maintained that it is אסור for perhaps it came upstream (from דקרא) where there was a preponderance of נכרים and it could be יין נסך. ²⁰ Presumably the גמרא meant that most of the wine (in the world) is from נכרים; however, this barrel since it was found near (קרוב) a Jewish city, so we follow the קרוב, but not the רוב, in opposition to ר"ח. ²¹ We are assuming that if the barrel was found in the river in the vicinity of a בית נכרי; the קרוב tells us that it belongs to the נכרי; the רוב tells us that it belongs to the ישראל (since רוב העיר are ישראל). Why does the גמרא assume that רב argues with ר"ח, when it seems that the only way to understand the ruling of רב is if he agrees with ר"ח?! ²² The fact that the barrel in the river was in front of the sנכרי' house gives us little indication that it belongs to the נכרי; it is more likely that it is from the Jews since they comprise a majority of the people in that city. This is not the issue which ר"ח was addressing; since it is a קרובא דלא מוכח everyone agrees that we follow the רוב. This is obvious. ²³ The רש"ש indicates that these words 'ודלא כרבי חנינא' belong on the next line, after the words ולכך אזיל בתרה. We could perhaps say that the words can be understood here to mean that רב, who follows רוב only when it is a קורבא דלא מוכח, is not in agreement with ר"ח, who always maintains הלוך אחר הרוב even by a קורבא דמוכח. ²⁴ When the question is regarding the city itself, obviously it makes more sense that it came from the majority of Jews than to say it came from the נכרי since the barrel is closest to his house; for this closeness is no proof at all (a floating barrel moves around a bit). All agree that in this type of case where a רוב opposes a קורבא דלא מוכח that we follow the רוב. However, regarding this barrel there is another issue. perhaps it came from faraway city upstream where the majority are נכרים. In this case the fact that it was found near a Jewish city is a קורבא דמוכח (that it is from this city) and that is where there is the מחלוקת between רב and ר"ח; where רב maintains that a קורבא דמוכח is stronger than רוב, and ר"ח maintains that הלוך אחר הרוב even against a קורבא דמוכח. ²⁵ See the following תוס' ד"ה מתיב וד"ה ניפול, etc. ²⁶ כד,א. In the גמרא there, רבינא ruled that it is permitted to drink the wine of this barrel, for we follow the רוב, and most wines are not from ערלה, rather than following the קרוב (that it was found in a ערלה vineyard). The גמרא assumed that רבינא agrees with ר"ח. We cite ר"ח here because this not a regular case of רוב וקרוב, rather it is a case of a רוב versus a קורבא דמוכח. ²⁷ There is a strong indication that the wine in the barrel came from this vineyard in which the barrel was found, and nevertheless רבינא ruled that it is מותר, for presumably he agrees with ר"ח that רוב is stronger then even a קורבא דמוכח. ²⁸ The rule is that birds that are in the house or courtyard are permitted to be slaughtered on יו"ט; they are not מוקצה for we assume that the birds will ultimately be נשחט. However, the birds in the שובך are מוקצה, unless one designates them specifically on ערב יו"ט that he intends to שחט them on יו"ט. ²⁹ The גמרא asks on the משנה that this ruling is obvious; these birds are not the ones he designated. ³⁰ A dovecote consists of many cubicles (pigeonholes) in each cubicle there is a set (קן) of two birds. The owner designated two separate קנים one (a) was white, and the other קן (b) was black. When he came back on יו"ט the white קן was in (b) and the black קן was in (a). The question here is whether these are the same two קנים and they merely switched their cubicles (and therefore are מותר לשחיטה), or perhaps these are two new different קנים who were never designated and are אסורים לשחוט. ³¹ The question regarding these new birds is one of רוב וקרוב. The קרוב tells us they are the same birds, for they are the closest to these cubicles; on the other hand, since the question is where did these birds come from (since the birds had to come from somewhere (even if we assume that they just switched, nevertheless these birds were not in the קן before), the רוב tells us that these birds came from the majority of birds which were not designated. ³² Nevertheless, according to ר"ח we follow the רוב even against a קורבא דמוכח. ³³ See footnote # 12. ³⁴ See footnote # 14. ³⁵ We follow the רוב by תרי רובי only (the case of ט' חניות); we follow קרוב by one רוב (the case of ע"ע). ³⁶ See מהרש"א. [Is there a difference between the תרי רובי of ט' חניות and the תרי רובי of ע"ע.]

מתיב רבי זירא והיה העיר הקרובה כולי מאי לאו דאיכא אחריתי דנפישא מינה—ר"ז asked; ‘and it shall be, the city which is closest, etc.’, is it not so that there is another which is bigger than it

OVERVIEW ר"ז challenged the ruling of ר' חנינא (that רוב וקרוב הלוך אחר הרוב) from the law of עגלה ערופה where follow the קרוב (even) against a רוב. Our תוספות resolves an apparent difficulty by drawing on his explanation in the previous תוספות that ר"ח said his ruling even if it is a קורבא דמוכח.¹

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: אמתניתא דתשע חנויות נמי הוה ליה לאקשויי² – ר"ז could have also asked his question on the ברייתא of ט' חניות from the ruling of ע"ע – אלא אמתניתא איכא לשנויי בדליכא³ – However, regarding the question on the ברייתא we can answer that by ע"ע there is no רוב; there is no greater city (in the vicinity) – ותו ליכא לאקשויי ניזיל בתר רובא דעלמא⁴ – But then we can no longer ask, ‘let us follow the majority in the world’ – דלגבי רובא דעלמא הוה קורבת זו העיר קורבא דמוכח⁵ – Because we can answer that regarding רובא דעלמא the קרוב of this city is a קורבא דמוכח and therefore⁶ we follow the קרוב – אבל לרבי חנינא דאפילו בקורבא דמוכח הלך אחר הרוב פריך שפיר – However according to ר"ח who maintains that we follow the רוב even against a קורבא דמוכח, there ר"ז properly asks why is it different from ע"ע –

For even if we answer that by ע"ע there is no larger city (in the vicinity), we can still ask, but let us follow רובא דעלמא why do we follow the קרוב?

SUMMARY עגלה ערופה does not contradict the ברייתא of ט' חניות for we can answer that there is no larger city, however it contradicts ר"ח who maintains that רוב is stronger than even a קורבא דמוכח.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות, why did not ר"ז initially ask from רובא דעלמא (instead of asking first, 'ואע"ג דאיכא אחרינא דנפישא מינה'),⁸ since that question is the reason why he asks on ר"ח, and not on the ברייתא of ט' חניות?

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוס' ד"ה רוב {TIE footnote # 17 & 25]. ² See previous תוס' ד"ה רוב [TIE footnote # 12]. Regarding ע"ע we follow the קרוב against the (presumable) רוב, and by ט' חניות we follow the רוב against the (presumable) קרוב. ³ This is the answer the גמרא gives initially on the question on ר"ח. ⁴ The murderer could have come from anywhere in the world; obviously that is a majority compared to the people of the nearest city. The question would be that just as by ע"ע we do not follow the majority, the same should apply by ט' חניות. This second question of תוספות (ניזיל בתר רובא דעלמא) is actually the second question on ר"ח. ⁵ It is much more likely that the murderer was from this closer city than from רובא דעלמא. ⁶ However by ט' חניות, even if the meat was found closer to the store which sells נבילה, that קרוב is not a קרובא דמוכח so therefore we follow the רוב. There is no contradiction between ט' חניות and ע"ע. When there is a קורבא דמוכח we follow קרוב (by ע"ע) and it is not a קורבא דמוכח we follow רוב (as by ט' חניות). ⁷ It seems that ר"ז was aware that his first question can be answered by saying 'בדליכא (there is no more populated city [in the area]), however his real question was from רובא דעלמא against a קורבא דמוכח, where ר"ח maintains we follow the רוב and from ע"ע it is evident that we follow the קרוב. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ See footnote # 7.

בדליכא—Where there is none

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the reason (according to ר"ח) that we follow the closest city, but not the city with a greater population, is because (the תורה is discussing a case where) there is no such city (in the vicinity). תוספות questions the legitimacy of contradicting ר"ח from עגלה ערופה.

תוספות asks: תימה דהכא משמע דטעמא דהעיר הקרובה מביאה עגלה ערופה¹ – It is astounding! From the גמרא here it seems that the reason the closest city brings an ע"ע is – משום דמתוך הקורבא מוכח שמשם בא ההורג – Because it is evident from its closeness that the murderer came from that city – ובסוטה (דף מה,ב) תניא מנין שאם נמצא סמוך לעיר שאין בה בית דין – However in מסכת סוטה the ברייתא teaches, ‘how do we know that if the corpse was found close to a city which has no בי"ד; in that case – שמניחין אותה שאין בה בית דין והולכין לעיר אחרת שיש בה בית דין² – We set aside that city which has no בי"ד (even though it is closest to the corpse) and we go to another close city which has a בי"ד’. This concludes the citation of the ברייתא. So תוספות asks – ואמאי³ והלא מתוך הקורבא נראה שמאותה שאין בה בית דין היה: But why do we set it aside; is it not obvious from its closeness that the murderer is from that city which has no בי"ד?! תוספות does not answer this question.⁴

SUMMARY If we follow קרוב by ע"ע because it is logical; why is the city required to have a בי"ד?!

THINKING IT OVER We should consider the מצוה of ע"ע.⁵ Are we intending to find the murderer in the closest city? Or we are looking to atone for the murder? What is the most proper and effective way for atonement? Who can bring about the atonement? Can these questions minimize the severity of תוספות dilemma?

footnotes: ¹ It is possible to assume that the rule of ע"ע is a גזירת הכתוב that we must go to the closest city and they must bring the ע"ע. However, if it is a גזיה"כ, why is there a discussion how the law of ע"ע can be reconciled with ר"ח. There is no connection between them. Normally we follow the רוב and by ע"ע we follow the קרוב for it is a גזיה"כ. The fact that the גמרא compares the two and needs to answer 'בדליכא'; this shows that the law of ע"ע to follow the קרוב is not a גזיה"כ, but rather it is the same logic as in all cases of רוב וקרוב. The תורה teaches us that קרוב is more likely than רוב. ² We derive it from the פסוק (in דברים [שופטים] כא,ג) which states ולקחו זקני העיר ההיא. The city must have זקנים – בי"ד. ³ תוספות is (obviously) not asking a question on the תורה! Rather since we see that it is not the closeness per se that determines who brings the ע’ע, for in this case a farther city brings it. Therefore, this proves that this whole ruling by ע"ע is merely a גזיה"כ; how can we question the ruling of ר"ח from ע"ע. See footnote # 1. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 4.

ביושבת בין ההרים—When it is situated between the mountains

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that according to ר' חנינא the rule of עגלה ערופה (that it is brought from the closest city [even though there is רובא דעלמא]) is only in a case where the closest city was יושבת בין ההרים, so it is extremely unlikely that someone from elsewhere was the murderer. We can infer from this that anytime we can assume that the murderer came from elsewhere, the closest city need not bring the ע"ע. This poses a problem which תוספות addresses.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי איצטריך קרא¹ בסוף פרק מרובה (בבא קמא דף פב,ב) – And if you will say; why is it that in the end of פרק מרובה we require a פסוק to teach us – דאין ירושלים מביאה עגלה ערופה² – That the city of ידרושלים does not bring an ע"ע if it was the closest city to a corpse whose murderer is unknown – תוספות anticipates a simple answer to his question: ואף על גב דכתיב (תהלים קכה³) ירושלים הרים סביב לה⁴ – And even though it is written, ‘ירושלים is surrounded by mountains, therefore it would be required (if not for the פסוק) to bring an ע"ע, so what is the question? תוספות responds: מכל מקום כל ישראל היו באין לרגל וגם בשאר ימות השנה להביא נדרים ונדבות⁵ – Nevertheless, all of ישראל would come there to be עולה רגל and also in the other days of the year people would come from all over to bring their vows and pledges for קרבנות – וגם אומות העולם היו באין שם בסחורה שקרויה רוכלת עמים⁶ – And also, the nations of the world would come there for trade, for it was called, ’a purveyor for the nations’. The question is why do we need a פסוק to exempt ירושלים from bringing an ע"ע, when it should be exempt because there is a רובא דעלמא?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר שהיו מקומות⁷ שלא היו רגילים לבא רק בני ירושלים⁸ – And one can say that there were places in ירושלים where it was unusual for others to come, only the people of ירושלים would be there – תוספות offers an alternate solution:

Or one may also say**** that the exemption of the פסוק was necessary during the days of חזקיה המלך where all the Jews where in ירושלים and the nations were not coming for trade.

SUMMARY There were places or times in ירושלים when it was isolated, therefore if not for a פסוק they would need to bring an ע"ע.

THINKING IT OVER Is the rule that the closest city brings the ע"ע because we assume that one of its citizens is the murderer, or because we assume that the murderer was in that city (not necessarily a citizen, but even a visitor)?

footnotes: ¹ The פסוק regarding ע"ע (in דברים [שופטים] כא,א) reads, כי ימצא חלל באדמה אשר ה"א נותן לך לרשתה; however ירושלים was never divided amongst the שבטים for the purpose of לרשתה. ² Seemingly there is no need for a פסוק; we would know that (based on the גמרא here [see ‘Overview’]) even without a פסוק. However, תוספות first digresses and explains his question. ³ פסוק ב'. ⁴ Our גמרא states that ביושבת בין ההרים is the case where that city must bring the ע"ע. This seems to be referring to ירושלים (as well). ⁵ Many people came to ירושלים (who were not inhabitants of ירושלים). In fact, the outsiders were more than the local citizenry. There is a רובא דעלמא against the קרוב of ירושלים. According to ר"ח who follows the רוב, we can assume that the murderer was not from ירושלים, but from the many visitors; why therefore should ירושלים be required to bring an ע"ע, so that we need a special פסוק to exempt it?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ This phrase רוכלת עמים is mentioned in יחזקאל כז,ב regarding צור. See רש"ש. ⁷ See שיטה מקובצת ב"ק פב,ב in the name of ה"ר ישעיה that this refers to the north side of ירושלים. ⁸ If the corpse would have been found near (or in) that area, if not for the פסוק, the בי"ד of that area would need to bring an ע"ע, because that area would be considered יושבת בין ההרים; an isolated area. ⁹ This perhaps may have been during the siege of סנחרב. See קובץ שיעורים ב"ק פב,ב.

ניפול הנמצא בתוך חמשים אמה כולי—A chick which was found within fifty cubits, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא challenged the ruling of ר' חנינא (that by רוב וקרוב הלוך אחר הרוב) from our משנה, which states that if a baby chick is found within fifty אמות of a dovecote (שובך), we return it to the בעל השובך, even if there is a more distant שובך which has more birds. This indicates that we follow the קרוב rather than the רוב. Our תוספות will explain why the גמרא did not challenge the ברייתא of ט' חניות from our משנה.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואמתניתא דתשע חנויות לא מצי למיפרך¹ – And the גמרא could not have asked that our משנה contradicts the ברייתא of ט' חניות – תוספות responds: דהכא הוי קורבא דמוכח² דהוי משובך זה דהוי תוך חמשים והנך דנפישי הוי חוץ לנ' – Because here (by ניפול) it is a קורבא דמוכח that this ניפול is from this שובך, which is within fifty אמות (from where the ניפול was found), for the other שובכים which are larger, are outside fifty אמות (of this ניפול) –

For previously אביי stated that these birds fill up their stomachs with food within a distance of fifty אמות.

SUMMARY The קורבא by שובך is a קורבא דמוכח (as opposed to ט' חניות).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks why does the גמרא challenge (only) ר"ח from our משנה, it could have (also) challenged the ברייתא of ט' חניות.⁵ Seemingly תוספות question is not understood. ר"ח is an אמורא; he cannot argue with a משנה, therefore the גמרא asks that the משנה contradicts ר"ח. However what question can there be from a משנה on a ברייתא; they are both from תנאים, who may disagree with each other! What is תוספות asking?!

footnotes: ¹ Our משנה of שובך rules that we follow the קרוב (see ‘Overview’), while from the ברייתא of ט' חניות it is apparent that we follow the רוב (but not the קרוב). See previously תוד"ה רוב [TIE footnote # 3]. Why did not the גמרא state this contradiction?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ² A קורבא דמוכח means that there is sufficient evidence from the closeness which indicates that it came from the קרוב. In the case of ט' חניות even if the meat was found closest to the store which sells בשר נבילה, that does not imply that it was bought from that store; it merely tells us that the owner of the meat lost it here when he was passing by. ³ On the עמוד א'. Therefore, if we see a bird within fifty אמות of one שובך, and more than fifty from another שובך, we assume that it came from the closer שובך, for since it has its fill within fifty אמות, why travel further. This is called a קורבא דמוכח (where we follow קרוב), as opposed to ט' חניות which is not a קורבא דמוכח (where we follow רוב). Therefore, the גמרא could not ask a question from our משנה to the ברייתא. However, the גמרא could ask on ר"ח according to the ועוד נראה לר"י in תוס' ד"ה רוב [TIE footnote # 17 and 25] that the novelty of ר"ח over the ברייתא of ט' חניות is that we follow the רוב even against a קרובא דמוכח. Therefore, there is a contradiction from our משנה! ⁴ It was necessary for תוספות to give this answer at this point, for as of yet we still do not know what רב עוקבא בר חמא will shortly teach us that a bird cannot hop more than fifty אמות (which makes it a much greater certainty, even more than קורבא דמוכח). ⁵ See footnote # 1.

בדליכא—Where there is none

OVERVIEW The גמרא answered that according to ר"ח (that רוב וקרוב הלוך אחר הרוב), we must interpret the משנה of ניפול that there was no other larger שובך nearby, therefore we follow the קרוב. Our תוספות responds to an anticipated question.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: לא מצי למיפרך דניזל בתר רובא דעלמא¹ – The גמרא could not have asked; but let us follow the majority of the world – תוספות responds:

For we will say [that 'בדליכא' means] that the משנה is in a case where there is no other שובך within thirty ריס (of this ניפול), and the גמרא stated previously that they only fly thirty ריס and no more; therefore, it could not have come מעלמא.****

SUMMARY When the גמרא answers בדליכא it means that there is no שובך within thirty ריס.

THINKING IT OVER If there is no שובך (even) within thirty ריס, what is the חידוש of the משנה that it belongs to the בעל השובך; it is obviously his! Where else did it come from?!

footnotes: ¹ Granted that there are no שובכים nearby, who individually are larger than the closest שובך. But let us look at all the שובכים (of the world), and we should follow that majority, and not return it to the closest שובך, but rather allow the finder to keep it, for we follow the רוב.

ואי דליכא אחריני ודאי מההוא נפל—And if there is no other, it certainly fell from that one

OVERVIEW The גמרא established the משנה (according to רב חנינא who maintains הלוך אחר הרוב) in a case where there was no other שובך (larger than the one within the fifty אמות).¹ The גמרא asks [if that is the case] how do we understand the סיפא, which states that if the ניפול was found outside the fifty אמות it belongs to the finder, but since there is no other שובך closer than this one, why should it belong to the finder it should belong to the closest בעל השובך?! Our תוספות explains how the משנה would be understood if there were other larger שובכים further away.

דבשלמא אי איכא דנפיש מיניה אתי שפיר דהוי של מוצאו²- For it would be understandable that it belongs to the finder if there is a larger שובך further away – כגון דהוי ההוא דנפיש של הפקר או של כותים³ – If for instance this larger שובך was הפקר or it belonged to Gentiles – אבל השתא דליכא ודאי מההוא נפל – But now that we are saying that there is no other שובך in the vicinity, so certainly it came from that closest**** שובך**** that is more than fifty אמות away; where else could it have come from? Why does the משנה rule that it belongs to the finder?! תוספות anticipates a possible solution: ולא מצי לשנויי כגון דליכא דנפיש אלא שוין⁴ – And we cannot answer that the משנה is discussing a case where there are no other שובכין which are more populace, rather all the surrounding שובכין are of equal size, and therefore it belongs to the finder – תוספות rejects this: דמכל מקום אמאי הוי של מוצאו כיון שקרוב לזה⁵ – For nevertheless why should it belong to the finder, since it is closest to this one – תוספות shows that the סיפא is discussing a case (even) where it is closest to one שובך:⁶ דהכי משמע דחוץ לחמשים אמה הרי הוא של מוצאו אף על פי שקרוב לזה מזה⁷ – For this is what the משנה is indicating when it states that if it was found ‘beyond the fifty אמות it belongs to the finder’, this means even if it is closer to one שובך than to the other. We have now established that the משנה of חוץ לנ' אמה is (even) in a case where it is closer to one שובך, and nevertheless it belongs to the finder. The question is, (even) if we were to establish the משנה where כולן שוות all the שובכים have the same amount birds, how can the ruling be that it belongs to the finder –

Since our משנה teaches that ‘if it was found between two שוכבין, it belongs to the closer one’, the reason is that when they are equal in size, we follow the קרוב, therefore this attempted answer that כולן שוות does not explain our משנה.****

SUMMARY We could possibly understand the משנה (that it belongs to the finder) if there was another larger שובך nearby which was הפקר. However, (even) if all the שוכבים are equal it should belong to the most קרוב.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות attempted to explain the rule of ה"ה של מוצאו where all the surrounding שוכבים were of equal size (and equidistant). However why should it belong to the finder, let it be divided by the owners of the various שובכין (like the משנה states, if they were equidistant the rule is יחלוקו)?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ See the previous תוס' ד"ה בדליכא that there was no שובך within שלשים ריס. ² תוספות is responding to an obvious question; It seems that the question on ר"ח is because he established the משנה in a case where there is no other larger שובך in the area. However, if we assume there is a larger שובך, there is still a question on ר"ח, since according to ר"ח we should go אחר הרוב, so why can the finder keep it; he should return it to the larger שובך?! The question on ר"ח seems to be in either case; regardless whether or not there is a larger שובך nearby. ³ One may keep a lost object of a כותי (and obviously of הפקר). ⁴ Therefore, it belongs to the finder; since no בעל השובך can prove that it belongs to him, for they are all the same size, so there is no רוב. See ‘Thinking it over’ ⁵ The נפול is closest to this שובך even though he is more than fifty אמות away from it. ⁶ Perhaps the משנה is in a case where all the שובכים are of equal size and equidistant from the ניפול. That is why it belongs to the finder. תוספות rejects this and proves that the ruling of הרי הוא של מוצאו is even if it is closer to one שובך ⁷ Otherwise, if the משנה maintains that if it is closer to one (חוץ מנ' אמה) it belongs to the שובך; the משנה should have made this distinction. However, since the משנה made a blanket statement that חוץ מנ' אמה it belongs to the finder this indicates that this rule applies in all cases even if it is closer to one שובך. ⁸ See נחלת משה.

ודאי מההוא נפל—It certainly fell from that one

OVERVIEW The גמרא challenged ר"ח (who established our משנה that there is no other שובך nearby) from the סיפא, which stated that if the bird was found outside the נ' אמה, it belongs to the finder. Why should it belong to the finder; it certainly belongs to the בעל השובך?! Our תוספות discusses the certainty of this assumption.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ודלמא מעוברי דרכים נפל¹ – And if you will say; but perhaps this bird fell from travelers and therefore he may keep it – כדאמרינן לקמן² גבי זיקי דחמרא דאישתכחן בי קופאי – As the גמרא states later regarding jugs of wine which were found in a Jewish vineyard – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהיכא דודאי נפל³ ולא ידעינן ממי תלינן בעוברי דרכים – And one can say that in a case where it certainly ‘fell’ [was lost] and we do not know from whom, we assume it to be from עוברי דרכים; since they are the רוב – אבל הכא דמצי למימר דמשובך⁴ בא לית לן למיתלי ולאחזוקי בנפילה – However here where we can assume that this bird came from this שובך, it is improper for us to assume that it was lost from a passerby –

Since people are careful not to drop their doves!

SUMMARY We assume that an item may be from travelers, when we know for sure that the item was lost. However, where there is no such assumption, we negate the possibility that travelers lose their belongings (doves).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks his question (that perhaps it was lost by the עוברי דרכים) on the סיפא of חוץ מנ' אמות. Why did not תוספות ask his question on the רישא, where the משנה states the תוך נ' it belongs to the בעל השובך, but why; perhaps it fell from עוברי דרכים, so the finder should be able to keep it?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ It is possible that a passerby lost this bird. We do not know who he is and there is no סימן on the bird, therefore the finder may keep it. ² כד,א. The jugs were found in a Jewish vineyard and רבא permitted the wine to be drunk. The גמרא asked that this seems to contradict ר"ח that we follow the רוב and the majority of wine is from נכרים. We see that even though it was in a כרם ישראל, nevertheless the גמרא felt that we should assume that the wine came from elsewhere; from עוברי דרכים. [The גמרא there answers that the רוב of those who pour wine from barrels into jugs were ישראלים, עיי"ש.] Similarly, here too we should assume that it may have been lost by the עוברי דרכים. ³ This jug of wine was [obviously] lost by someone, but we do not know who lost it. There is no reason to assume that the jug comes from the vineyard! ⁴ In contrast to the wine; here there is a reasonable assumption that a bird comes from a שובך, and it is unreasonable to assume (unless there is some indication) that it was lost by a passerby! ⁵ See מהרש"א.

ועל דא אפקוהו לרבי ירמיה מבי מדרשא—And for this they removed Rabi Yirmiyoh from the study hall

OVERVIEW רב עוקבא בר חמא stated that a pigeon that can only hop (מדדה), can hop only for a distance of fifty אמות. Therefore, a bird that is found within fifty אמות of the שובך belongs to the בעל השובך, while if it was outside the נ' אמה it belongs to the finder. ר' ירמיה asked what is the ruling if one leg of the bird was within fifty אמות and the other leg was outside the fifty אמות; to whom does it belong. The גמרא concluded that for asking this query, ר' ירמיה was removed from the בית המדרש. Our תוספות explains what the problem was with this query.

אין לפרש משום דבעי מילתא דלא שכיחא כלל – We cannot explain the reason they were upset with ר"י is because he posed a query regarding something which is not common at all; meaning – דהיכי איתרמי דרגלו אחת תוך חמשים ורגלו אחת חוץ לחמשים בצמצום¹ – For how is it possible that it so happened that one foot was within fifty אמות and the other foot was exactly outside the fifty אמות; this cannot be the problem – דהא אשכחנא דמתניתין נמי בכהאי גוונא איירי דקתני מחצה על מחצה יחלוקו² – For we find that our משנה is also discussing such an unusual scenario, for it states if the distance between the two שובכין was half by half (meaning exactly equidistant) the rule is they divide, so why was sר"י' query any more odd that the ruling in the משנה?! תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו תם דמשום הכי אפקוהו משום דמדדה אינו מדדה כלל יותר מחמשים אמה – And it appears to the ר"ת that it was for the following reason that they removed ר"י from the ביהמ"ד; it is because that a מדדה cannot be מדדה at all more than fifty אמות – אפילו רגלו אחת³ דכל מדות חכמים כן הוא: Even with one foot outside the fifty אמות, for this is how it is regarding all the measurements of the חכמים, that they are exact.

SUMMARY If one leg was outside the fifty אמות, it could not have been מדדה from that שובך.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains that it can’t be that by a מדדה that one foot should be outside the נ' אמות.⁴ However this may explain why the query of ר"י is not valid, but how does it explain why he was expelled from the ביהמ"ד?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ Since it is such an uncommon case, it is not worth discussing it. This seems to be the interpretation of רש"י בד"ה ועל. ² One may even argue that the case in the משנה (as תוספות understands it) is more unusual than the query of ר"י. In the case of the משנה they must be exactly equal with virtually no margin of error, however in the case of ר"י there is some ‘wiggle’ room; how much inside the נ' אמות and how much outside. See however פורת יוסף for a different understanding of מחצה על מחצה. ³ Therefore, if there is such a case where one leg was outside the fifty אמות, then it could not have been מדדה from that שובך, and we assume that it fell from travelers, so the finder may keep it. There was no need for ר"י to pose this query; he should have known that the limit of fifty אמות is exact. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See footnote # 1. ⁵ See קונטרס דברי סופרים (סי' ו' אות ד').

מצאו בין שני שובכין—He found it between two dovecotes

OVERVIEW The גמרא challenged ר' חנינא (who maintains רוב וקרוב הולכין אחר הרוב) from our משנה which states that if the bird was found between two שובכין (each within fifty אמות of the bird¹) it belongs to the closer שובך. Our תוספות clarifies this question and other questions as well.

תוספות states that we can infer that this ruling of the משנה that we follow the קרוב, is valid – ואף על גב דחד מינייהו נפיש² – Even though that one of these שובכין is larger than the other, and nevertheless we follow the קרוב; this contradicts the ruling of ר"ח that we follow the רוב. תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אומר רבינו יצחק דהך פירכא הוי מצי למיפרך אמתניתא דתשע חנויות³ – The ר"י states that the גמרא could have asked this question (that from our משנה it appears that we follow the קרוב against the רוב) on the ברייתא of nine stores – תוספות responds to an anticipated answer and rejects it:⁴ דהאי קורבא דלא מוכח הוא דאי הוי תוך חמשים לזה הוי נמי תוך חמשים לזה – For in our משנה it is also a קורבא דלא מוכח, for if it is within fifty אמות**** from one שובך it is also within fifty אמות from the other שובך – ואי הוי חוץ חמשים לזה הוי נמי חוץ חמשים לזה⁵ אפילו הכי אזלינן בתר קורבא – And if it is outside the fifty for one, it is also outside the fifty for the other so it is not a קורבא דמוכח, ⁶and nevertheless we follow the קרוב, why then by ט' חניות (which is also a קורבא דלא מוכח) do we follow the רוב?! תוספות responds: ומיהו מצינן למימר דעיקר לא פריך⁷ אלא משום דבעי למיפרך וניזל בתר רובא דעלמא⁸ – However we can say that essentially he did not want to ask on ר"ח that from our משנה we assume that we do not follow the רוב, rather he wanted to ask, ‘but let us follow the רוב of the world’; the birds at large vastly outnumber the birds of the שובך; we should follow that majority according to ר"ח. He should be allowed to keep it. תוספות asks: אבל קשיא לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דהיכי מצי למימר אף על גב דחד מינייהו נפיש – However, the רשב"א has a difficulty; for how could the גמרא assume that the ruling of the משנה that we give it to the closer שובך is even in a case where one שובך is larger than the other, for then how can we explain – הא קתני מחצה על מחצה שניהם יחלוקו ואי חד מינייהו נפיש ניזל בתר רובא⁹ – This which the משנה teaches if they were half and half apart (equidistant), the rule is that the two שובכין divide the bird, but if one was larger, we should follow the majority?! תוספות answers:

And the ר"י says; you are correct; the גמרא could have responded to this מקשן (who assumed that one was larger), saying and according to your reasoning that one שובך is larger, how will you explain the סיפא?! Obviously you cannot. Rather we must assume that both שובכין are of equal size.

SUMMARY The real intention of the מקשן was to (ultimately) ask וליזל בתר רובא דעלמא (even against a קורבא דמוכח), so therefore it did not ask on ט' חנויות (why we follow the רוב there) since there is no קורבא דמוכח there.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that our משנה of ב' שובכין which rules that we follow the קרוב (even by a קורבא דלא מוכח) contradicts the ברייתא of ט' חניות which follows the רוב (by a קורבא דלא מוכח).¹¹ Seemingly תוספות could have asked that the ruling of ב' שובכין contradicts our own משנה. Previously when the גמרא assumed that the ruling of תוך נ' belongs to the בעל השובך is even in a case where there is another larger שובך outside the נ' אמות (we rule that it belongs to the closer one because it is a קורבא דמוכח). We then need to understand that in the סיפא where it is חוץ לנ' it belongs to the finder because we assume that it came from הפקר, etc. the רובא דעלמא.¹² In this case the קרוב of the שובך outside נ' is a קורבא דלא מוכח that is why we follow the רוב. However, in the case of ב' שובכין we follow the קרוב (even though it is לא מוכח). This seems to be a contradiction in our משנה itself! Why did not תוס' ask this question?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה נמצא. See however later in this תוספות (footnote # 5). ² Seemingly our גמרא states this clearly (ואע"ג דחד מינייהו נפיש מחבריה); what is תוספות adding? Perhaps (בדוחק) we can say that תוספות had a different גירסא (where these words do not appear), or תוספות may be stating that this which the גמרא states ואע"ג וכו' is to be inferred from the משנה. ³ See פסחים ט,ב (and previously in תוס' ד"ה רוב). The case is where in this city nine stores sell בשר שחוטה (כשר) and one store sells בשר נבילה. The rule is if meat is found in this city, it is כשר, for we assume it came from the רוב stores, which sell כשר. This rule is valid even if the meat was found closer to the store which sells נבילה. The question that should have been asked is, in that ברייתא we follow the רוב against the קרוב, and in our משנה we follow the קרוב against the רוב. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See previously תוס' ד"ה רוב (TIE footnote # 17 & 18), where תוספות distinguishes between a קורבא דמוכח and a regular קורבא which is not מוכח. The ר"י there explained that ר"ח maintains הלוך אחר הרוב even if it is a קורבא דמוכח. Perhaps we can answer that the גמרא asks from our משנה on ר"ח because both rulings are by a קורבא דמוכח (our משנה can be considered a קורבא דמוכח [the ניפול comes from the closest שובך]), however the case of ט' חניות is a קורבא דלא מוכח, therefore (only) there do we follow the רוב. ⁵ According to תוספות the rule of מצאו בין ב' שובכין is applicable whether both שובכין where within fifty אמות of the bird or they were both outside the fifty אמות (See footnote # 1). However, if one is within fifty and one outside, it obviously belongs to the one within the fifty. ⁶ There is no clear indication (קורבא דמוכח) that there is a greater chance that it came from the שובך which is thirty אמות away, any more than it came from the שובך which is forty אמות away. ⁷ The מקשן suspected that his first question of ואע"ג דחד מינייהו נפיש מחבריה can be easily answered by saying ששניהם שווים. He only asked this question as an introduction to the next question of וליזל בתר רובא דעלמא. ⁸ ר"ח maintains that we follow the רוב even against a קורבא דמוכח (see footnote # 4). In the question of וליזל בתר רובא דעלמא, it is a case of a רוב against a קורבא דמוכח; it is fairly obvious that most probably these birds are from these two שובכין, and not from birds at large. We have a valid question on ר"ח; even if both שובכין are of equal size, we should follow רובא דעלמא, even though it is against a קורבא דמוכח, for this is the ruling of ר"ח. However, the גמרא could not ask this question on the ברייתא of ט' חניות (that just as there we follow the רוב, so here too we should follow the רובא דעלמא), because we cannot infer from that ברייתא that we follow a רוב over a קורבא דמוכח. The possible קרוב by ט' חניות is certainly not a קורבא דמוכח. In our משנה however the קרוב of the birds to the שובך as opposed to רובא דעלמא is certainly a קורבא דמוכח. There is no contradiction between our משנה, which follows a קורבא דמוכח and the ברייתא which follows the רוב by a קורבא דלא מוכח. Therefore, since we could not ask the follow up question (וליזל בתר רובא דעלמא), from ט' חניות, we did not bother to ask the initial question (of following the רוב) since we anticipated the answer of ששניהם שווים, so there is no רוב. ⁹ Everyone agrees that when there is no קרוב (such as the case of מחצה על מחצה) we certainly follow the רוב; why does the משנה say יחלוקו?! Obviously, we need to say that the סיפא (and therefore also the רישא) is in a case where all the שובכין are of equal size, so how can the גמרא assume that ואע"ג דחד מינייהו נפיש מחבריה?! ¹⁰ This 'וליטעמיך' is different than the usual 'וליטעמיך'. Here the actual answer and the 'וליטעמיך' say the same thing that the שובכין are of equal size. The difference is in the tone of the answer. The גמרא answered it in a ‘quiet’ way; we can say that the משנה is discussing where they are all equal, The גמרא could have taken a more ‘aggressive’ tone; saying how can you even assume they are not the same; how will you then explain the סיפא?! ¹¹ See footnote # 3. ¹² See beginning of תוס' ד"ה ואי. ¹³ See מהרש"א.

וליזיל בתר רובא דעלמא—And let us follow the majority of the world

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that if the bird was found between two שובכין (whether they were both within fifty אמות of the bird, or whether they were both outside the fifty אמות);¹ the rule is that it belongs to the closer שובך. The גמרא established the משנה that both שובכין were of equal size (therefore we follow the קרוב). The גמרא asked but let us follow the רובא דעלמא and assume that the birds came from elsewhere, so the finder should be allowed to keep it. תוספות discusses this question.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: הוי מצי לשנויי דאין כי אם שני שובכין תוך ל' ריס² – The גמרא could have answered that there are only these two שובכין within thirty ריס – אלא בעי לשנויי דומיא דרישא³ דיש שובכין הרבה – Rather the reason the גמרא did not give this answer is because it wanted to answer in a manner that this case of נמצא בין ב' שובכין should be similar to the רישא, where there are many שובכין – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דהשתא דמוקי לה בשביל של כרמים⁴ לא הוי דומיא דרישא – Even though that now when the גמרא establishes this case of נמצא בין ב' שובכין, by a ‘path in a vineyard’, the סיפא is not similar to the רישא – דהא רישא לא מיירי בשביל של כרמים⁵ – For the רישא is not discussing a שביל של כרמים, so why is the sגמרא' answer better than תוספות proposed answer (that there are no more שובכין within ל' ריס); in both answers it is not דומיא דרישא – תוספות responds: בהא לא קפיד במאי דלא הוי דומיא דרישא – Regarding this (that the סיפא is in a case of שביל של כרמים) the גמרא is not particular that it is not similar to the רישא (which is not in a case of שביל של כרמים); the reason the גמרא is not particular is – כיון שאין מזכיר במשנתינו שביל של כרמים בשום מקום⁶ – Since the משנה does not mention anywhere the concept of שביל של כרמים – תוספות offers an additional answer the גמרא could have given:

And additionally, the גמרא could have answered the reason we do not follow רובא דעלמא in the case of two שובכין is because when the משנה ruled that when it is closer to one שובך it belongs to that בעל השובך**,** it is in a case where the bird was found within fifty אמות, and it can only be מדדה so it cannot come מרובה דעלמא, only from one of these two שובכין and since they are of equal size, we follow the קרוב.

SUMMARY The גמרא could have answered that there was no other שובכין within thirty ריס, but that would make the סיפא different from the רישא. However, it could have established the רישא where it was found within נ' and it was מדדה.

THINKING IT OVER It seems from תוספות that we cannot establish the case of ב' שובכין where there are no other שובכין, because that would contradict the רישא (where there must be other שובכין).⁷ However it also seems that we cannot establish the רישא by a שביל של כרמים either,⁸ so why can we establish the סיפא by a שביל של כרמים?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוס' ד"ה מצאו (TIE footnote # 5). ² Generally these birds cannot fly more than thirty ריס, therefore they cannot have come מרובא דעלמא; they must be from one of these two שובכין, and since they are of equal size, we follow the קרוב. ³ The רישא here refers to the case where it was found חוץ לנ' אמה, where the rule is that it belongs to the finder. We must say that in this case there are other שובכין within ל' ריס, for if there are no שובכין except for this one, why does it belong to the finder, it should definitely belong to the בעל השובך (see רש"י ד"ה הכא at the very end). ⁴ See the גמרא on the top of כד,א. ⁵ The רישא of מצאו חוץ לנ' הרי הוא של מוצאו cannot be discussing a שביל של כרמים, for in that case why does it belong to the finder, it should be given to the closest שובך [see רש"י ד"ה הכא (that by a שביל של כרמים it can be מדדה more than נ' אמה]! ⁶ However, regarding the fact that there must be other שובכין in this area (even though the משנה does not state this [at all]), nevertheless since we cannot understand the משנה (of חוץ לנ' אמה) unless it is in a case where there are other שובכין (see footnote # 3), therefore it is considered as if the משנה clearly states that there are other שובכין (in the רישא), therefore we also want to establish the סיפא that there are other שובכין. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ See footnote # 7. ⁸ If the רישא is discussing a שביל של כרמים why is the rule that חוץ לנ' אמה the finder may keep it; for since there is a שביל של כרמים the bird can be מדדה outside the נ' אמה! ⁹ See נחלת משה.