More Discussions for this daf
1. The Shevu'ah of Shenayim Ochzin 2. Picking up a Metzi'ah 3. Owning all of it
4. Sumchus or the Rabanan 5. Tosfos DH Yachloku 6. Questions in Rashi
7. Case of Mekach U'Memkar 8. Rashi According to Maskanas ha'Gemara 9. Shenayim Ochzin b'Talis
10. "It is all mine" 11. Arguing over a lost object that was found 12. Causing a Shevu'as Shav in our Mishnah
13. Teaching that Re'iyah is not Koneh 14. Two versions 15. Comparing 3/4 Talis oath with devolved oath
16. Acquiring through seeing 17. Terms of Chazakah and ownership 18. בבא מציעא ב. תד"ה בראיה - הבטה בהפקר

Chaim Semerenko asks:

Rashi - Shenayim Ochazin b'Talis.

Why does Rashi repeat that both of them are holding it twice?

- Acc. to Sefaria translation I got the answer. They translated here as follows: "Because both of them have a physical claim to it".

But still, couldn't Rashi just say: "Both of them have a physical claim to it and neither one of them has more power than the other"....

Rashi - u'Metzahah l'Yadeih Mashma.

1) Why is Rashi saying this to us? If we know that the words "you find it" are implying - coming to his hand. So, merely "seeing it", will not constitue the prohibition in the verse of "you shall not hide yourself" (by a jew). So, why would one have thought that the drasha in the verse for "not an idol worshipper" was only for "seeing" but not for "holding"?

2) What does it mean: "His lost property is prohibited"? - By an idol worshipper.


The Kollel replies:

1) Rashi is speaking about two different types of concepts. "Ochazin" is the physical concept of holding an item which is a prerequisite for the claim. "Muchzak" is a Halachic claim -- a person holding an item is the owner due to his holding it, but in this case Muchzak cannot work since neither person has more power than the other.

It is also possible that Rashi is referring to the two types of grasp mentioned in the Gemara -- Karkashta (7a), and both holding on to the whole garment (see 5b) -- which involve different types of division of the garment.

2) Rashi is quoting the context of the Gemara in which Rabanai stated his Derashah which refers to a lost item of a Nochri. The Gemara posited that one would have to give it back if it reached his hands since it is possible that the command of the Torah, "Lo Tir'eh," refers to seeing another person's Aveidah, and only in that case is a Nochri's Aveidah exempted (from Lo Tis'alem), but if one would actually take the Aveidah one would have to return it. This is the source of Rabanai's Derashah which refutes this understanding.

The words, "his lost property is prohibited," would mean that one could not benefit from the Nochri's Aveidah and it would be viewed as theft if the Torah did not permit taking it. This is borne out by the Gemara in Bava Kama 113b.

Yoel Domb