How does one understand R Yaakov's answer on Mem Alef umud Alef where he says that the mishna is a case of Gezeila and that's why it's not the same as the case of R Yishmael and R Akiva. The shita of Reb Yishmael that he is trying to answer up is also a case on Geneiva (as biotin on mem umud Beis?
Yosef, NY, USA
Shalom! First, a bit of analysis: Our Mishnah is speaking about a Pikadon. However, the principles governing the return of a Pikadon are similar to the principles of returning a stolen object. Therefore, we compare (or more correctly, extrapolate) what we know about Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva in the realm of stolen objects to what we assume to be their Shitah regarding returning a Pikadon. Because of this, we arrive at an apparent dead-end that the Reisha is like Rebbi Yishmael and the Seifa like Rebbi Akiva. However, such a problem occurs from time to time, and Rebbi Yochanan confirms that this is a case where we must attribute the Reisha to one Tana and the Seifa to a different Tana. This is a short summary of what Rebbi Yakov bar Aba came to comment about.
Rebbi Yakov bar Aba proposes a solution to the two-Tana problem, and says that if we explain "v'Tiltela" as an outright Gezeilah (and not an innocent movement/relocation), then we can attribute the entire Mishnah to one Tana. In this case, the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa is that in the Reisha since the owner did not specify a place, any place is considered "its place." In the Seifa, the owner specified a place and, therefore, since the barrel was not returned to its place, he is Chayav.
Understanding Rashi DH Tirgema Rebbi Yakov is key to understanding this point.
I hope this makes things clearer. Chag kaasher v'Sameach
ShimonBrodie