Explanation: Only regarding Kerichos (small bundles of sheaves, the Tana) distinguishes between Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid, for according to the opinion that a Siman prone to be trampled is a Siman, and Makom is a Siman, here we discuss when there is no Siman;

Also Makom is not a Siman in Reshus ha'Rabim, because it gets kicked around. In Reshus ha'Yachid it is a Siman, and one must announce it. We discuss when it was found Derech Hinu'ach (it looks like it was placed down).

Bakers' loaves and rings of pressed figs, there is no Siman that they are his even in Reshus ha'Yachid. We discuss when they were found Derech Nefilah. Therefore, Makom is not a Siman.

Question: Why did the Gemara assume that loaves more than other items have a greater likelihood of being found Derech Hinu'ach than Derech Nefilah?

Answer: We discuss heavy Kerichos. It is not common for them to fall unknowingly. Rather, when he stops to rest, he puts it on the ground, and he forgot them there.

Explanation: Loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis have a Siman, for a Ba'al ha'Bayis normally makes a Siman on his loaves;

Therefore, one must announce it even in Reshus ha'Rabim, for a Siman prone to be trampled is a Siman.

Explanation: Bundles of coins and Peros, Makom is a Siman even in Reshus ha'Rabim, like it says below, because being kicked around does not apply to them.

Question: Kerichos in Reshus ha'Rabim discusses Derech Hinua'ach. Why may one take them? We say below (25b) that Safek Derech Hinua'ach, one may not take it, and all the more so Vadai Hinua'ach!

Answer: Only when he found them in a covert, guarded place, he may not take them if there is no Siman, and if there is a Siman, he takes them and announces;

And according to the opinion that a Siman prone to be trampled is not a Siman, and also Makom is not a Siman, we discuss Kerichos with a Siman. Therefore, in Reshus ha'Yachid he announces.

Explanation: Bakers' loaves and the other matters in our Mishnah have no Siman. Therefore, even in Reshus ha'Yachid they are his.

Explanation: Loaves of a Ba'al ha'Bayis, when they have a Siman, he is obligated to announce even in Reshus ha'Rabim. It is not prone to be trampled, for one may not pass by food. (Rather, he must pick it up.)

Our entire Mishnah discusses both Derech Nefilah and Derech Hinua'ach.

Question: If Kerichos are Derech Nefilah, if so, he does not know where they fell. In Reshus ha'Yachid, why must he announce them? The owner despaired, for he thinks that they fell in Reshus ha'Rabim!

Answer: Even though he does not know the place, he knows whether they fell in Reshus ha'Rabim or in Reshus ha'Yachid.

Explanation: We must say that R. Yitzchak himself asked "how much?" If the Gemara asked, what was the question? We should establish it Derech Nefilah, and even if there are more [than a Kav in Amos], like the Gemara asks after this!

Rather, it is from R. Yitzchak's words. R. Yitzchak did not want to establish it Derech Nefilah, and even more, because he holds like Abaye, that Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as is not Yi'ush;

Rather, he establishes it to discuss the time (or place) of gathering the Peros. He intentionally left them there.

Support #1: We find like this below (30b). The Gemara asked "[if a cow was grazing on the path, will we say that it is not an Aveidah] forever?! Rav Yehudah said ["until three days."]

We must say that Rav Yehudah said "forever?!" (The Gemara said that during the day, even more than three days, it is not an Aveidah. Why would it ask incredulously "forever"? It can establish it during the day, without any difficulty!)

Support #2: Also in Bava Basra (22b), regarding distancing from a window, it says "how much" [must one distance a wall]? Rav Yeiva said, the width of the window (then, it will not block light. The Gemara asked, even if it is higher, he can stand on the wall and look into the window!)

Note: We must say that Rav Yeiva asked "how much", for the Gemara thought that in any case it is forbidden because he can look into the window.

Question: A Kav in four Amos is the same as half a Kav in two Amos! What was the question?

Answer #1: Since there is only half a Kav, he will gather it, since it is not a toil to finish it;

However, a Kav in four Amos, there is a toil to gather everything, and he will not gather at all.

Note: Even though he could gather half a Kav in two Amos, and ignore the rest, people do not like to do half a job.

Answer #2: A Kav in four square Amos is the same [density] as half a Kav in two Amos wide by four Amos long;

Here we ask about half a Kav in two Amos by two Amos (which is twice as dense).

Implied question: Now he despairs!

Answer: This is a mere occurrence. From the beginning, he was not destined to despair.

Question #1: Since he already asked from our Mishnah of scattered coins, why does he ask further from this Beraisa?

Question #2: Why didn't R. Yitzchak teach his teaching regarding our Mishnah?

Answer #1: He holds that it is a stronger question from the Beraisa. It connotes that in every case, it is his, even though there is a Siman, for we establish the reason because many are found there.

Answer #2: Also, it connotes that when this one picked it up, the owner of the Aveidah was still in the Beis Midrash, and did not know that it fell from him.

Explanation: In Pe'ah (1:6), it is proven that only when he was Mafkir before the final Melachah, he is exempt from Ma'aser;

However, if he was Mafkir after final processing, so it was already obligated in Ma'aser, this does nothing.

Also here, we discuss before final Melachah. They did not yet dry, like is proven in Beitzah (34b), that figs destined to be spread out in the field, and to make dry figs from them, their Melachah is not finished for Ma'aser until they dry;

Even if the finder acquired them before they dried, they are exempt from Ma'aser, like we say in Bava Kama (28a) one who made his vineyard Hefker, and promptly harvested it in the morning, it is exempt from Ma'aser.

Distinction: Hekdesh is different. If he was Makdish before the final processing, and it was redeemed before final processing, it is obligated in Ma'aser, like is proven somewhat in Menachos (66b).

Explanation: This is fine for Abaye. [What is found near] a fig tree is permitted, since it is common that it drops [figs], from the beginning he despairs;

He thinks that the finder will take it, for he does not know that it fell from this tree. Rather, [the finder] thinks that it fell from travelers;

Regarding olive and carob trees, it is forbidden, for they do not normally drop [fruits].

Implied question: If he would know that they fell, he would despair, because travelers will take them, for they will assume that they fell from travelers!

Answer: Now that he does not know, for he thinks that they did not fall, it is forbidden, for this is Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as.

Explanation (cont.): However, according to Rava, who holds that [Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as] is Yi'ush, why is it forbidden?

Question: If it is proper to attribute to travelers, and not to the tree nearby, why is it forbidden regarding olives and carobs?

Answer: According to letter of the law, one should not attribute to travelers, rather, to the tree. However, the owner despairs, for he thinks that improper travelers will [rationalize and] rule [for themselves] to permit fruits that they find, and attribute them to travelers.

Question: If so, what was the question against Rava? We should say that olives and carobs are forbidden, for even after the owner knows that they fell, they do not despair;

This is because he knows that the finder will not take them, for he will attribute that they fell from the tree, like is true, that we may not attribute to travelers!

Answer: If they do not despair, why would fruits near a fig true be permitted?!

Disclaimer: In some texts, it says "olive trees are different for the olive proves about it." This answers what we asked;

I.e. because they are under the olive tree, the owner will think that the finder will not take them and rely on travelers;

However, a fig, when it falls, it is Nim'eses. I.e. it gets dirty and is repulsive to him, and he is Mafkir it.

However, in most texts it says "its appearance proves about it." Even though it falls, what is in a person's place is recognized to be his.

Explanation: Olives that fell resemble the olives on the tree. Therefore, even when it falls, the owner does not despair, for they know that the finder will not take them;

However, a fig is Nimeses (softens) when it falls. This is the Aruch's text, Nimeses without an Aleph. They do not resemble those on the tree.

Also if the text is Nim'eses (with an Aleph, i.e. becomes repulsive), because it gets dirty, it is unlike figs on the tree.