דְּשָׁיְילִינַן לְהוּ לְסָהֲדִי אִי פָּרוּעַ אִי לָא פָּרוּעַ.

as we ask the witnesses whether the loan was repaid or whether it was not repaid.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין

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?

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

§ It was stated:

אִיתְּמַר: