Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. In מסכת בבא מציעא דף כ"ב, like we will start on the last line on דף כ"א עמוד ב'. The Gemara here is in the middle of the sugya of ייאוש שלא מדעת. If a person found an object that the owner did not know yet that he lost it, but we assume that when he will find out that he lost it, he will definitely be meya'esh, he will give up hope, what is the din? Do we say that since at the moment he found it, he hasn't given up hope yet, so it is not considered ye'ush, and the person who found it is not allowed to keep it? Or do we say that since had the person known that he lost it, he would have definitely given up hope, so there is this subconscious ye'ush, so this should be considered ye'ush, and therefore, the person who found it is able to keep it? And the Gemara said before that it's a machloket between Abaye and Rava. Abaye says that since befo'al, actually, he was not meya'esh yet, so it is not considered ye'ush, and Rava says that since later on when he will find out he will be meya'esh, and had he known now that he lost it, he would have been meya'esh now too, therefore, we consider that this subconscious ye'ush is a ye'ush, and the person who found it is allowed to keep it. And the Gemara here is asking certain questions on Abaye and certain questions on Rava. The Gemara says תא שמע, come here, I will ask you a kashya. We learned in a ברייתא, הגנב שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, if a thief took something from one person, he stole something from one person and gave it to somebody else, וכן גזלן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, or a gazlan, a robber, that took something from one person and gave it to another, וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה, or the Yarden, which was a river, that took something from one person and overflowed and brought it to somebody else, and Rashi says it doesn't mean only the Yarden, but since the tanna who said this lived close to the Yarden, so he picked the example of the Yarden, but really it means any river, if a river takes from one and gives to the other, in all these cases, מה שנטל נטל, what he took is taken, ומה שנתן נתן, what he gave is given, and the person who received it is allowed to keep it. And the reason would be because the person who lost it is definitely meya'esh, and therefore the person who received it is allowed to keep it. But the question is, isn't it ייאוש שלא מדעת? And the Gemara explains why: בשלמא מילא גזלן וירדן, the case of the גזלן, the robber that stole from one and gave to another, or the ירדן, the river that took from one and gave to another, there, it is not ייאוש שלא מדעת, דקא חזי ליהו, because the person sees when it is taken from him, ומייאש, he is מייאש, because a גזלן is a person who takes, steals openly, so the person who it's stolen from sees him steal it, so he gives up hope. When the river comes and takes away, it makes noise and everyone knows about it, so the person knows already it was taken from him, so he is מייאש, so that is called ייאוש מדעת. He is consciously מייאש. אלא גנב, but the case of the thief, מי קא חזי ליה, does he see it, דמייאש, so he should be מייאש? Because the whole difference between a גנב and a גזלן is that a גנב takes things quietly, he steals when no one sees, but a גזלן steals openly. So by a גזלן we understand that it's ייאוש מדעת, but by a גנב, since he doesn't know that it was stolen from him, so how do we know that by the time the גנב gave the object to somebody else, the person already knew that it was stolen from him? And since it says in the Beraisa that the person who received it is allowed to keep it, obviously we hold that ייאוש שלא מדעת הוי ייאוש, and even if the person doesn't know yet that it was stolen from him, nevertheless, since when he will find out, he will be מייאש, therefore, the person who received it is allowed to keep it, so that shows ייאוש שלא מדעת הוי ייאוש. And the Gemara answers, תירגמה רב פפא, Rav Pappa explained it, בליסטים מזויין, that's talking by an armed robber, that even the גנב is also an armed robber and he comes openly. So the Gemara asks, אי הכי, if so, היינו גזלן, that is a גזלן! The Beraisa makes two cases out of it: a case of a גנב and a case of a גזלן. But if a גנב means that he comes armed, so then he is like a גזלן, so how could the Beraisa make it into two cases? And the Gemara answers, תרי גווני גזלן, there are two kinds of גזלן. There are two kinds of robbers. There's one robber that comes לכתחילה opened, and there's another robber that is similar to a גנב, because he comes hidden, but he comes also armed, and is ready to come into the open. So he could be referred to as a גנב, and nevertheless, we assume that when he stole, the person he stole from knows right away that it was stolen. Then the Gemara says תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you another question. We learn a Beraisa, שטף נהר, if The river overflowed and carried away someone's קורות, his beams, עצים, his wood, ואבנים, his stones, ונתנם בתוך שדה חבירו, and put it into the field of a friend, of someone else, הרי אלו שלו, so the other person in whose field it came into is allowed to keep it, מפני שנתיאשו הבעלים, because we are sure that the owner gave up hope. Since when the river overflows it is something that everyone knows about, so definitely the owner found out right away, knows that it was taken away from him, and therefore he definitely gave up hope, so the person who received it is allowed to keep it. So the Gemara says, ta'ama, the reason why you're allowed to keep it, דנתיאשו הבעלים, because it was something that the owner definitely gave up hope, as the baraita says, מפני שנתיאשו הבעלים. So that is the reason why he's allowed to keep it. הא סתמא, but if it would be סתם, if it would be something else, an object that the owner would not have realized that he lost it, לא, you wouldn't be able to keep it. Now the question is why? One thing is for sure, that after he will find out that he lost it, he will definitely give up hope, because no one expects to get something back that was taken away by the river. The only thing is that when it was taken away, the owner didn't know yet. So we say you're not allowed to keep it. So here we see that ייאוש שלא מדעת is not ye'ush, so it's a kashya on Rava. And the Gemara answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, here we're talking in a case כשיכול להציל, that he's able to save it. And that is the reason why if it would have been something else, we were medayek before, you wouldn't be able to keep, and we thought it was because it's ייאוש שלא מדעת, so now the Gemara is saying it's not because it's ייאוש שלא מדעת, because it's something that he could save, and therefore he's not מתיאש at all. Even after he finds out that he lost it, that the river took it away from him, nevertheless he's not מתיאש, because he feels he'll give a siman and he'll be able to get it back. So that is the reason why if it was another thing, the din is that you are not allowed to keep it because there is no ye'ush at all. But the Gemara says, i hachi, if so, if we're talking in a case here that he's able to save it, אימא סיפא, let's look into the סיפא of this baraita. It says there, אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם, the owner was chasing it, was trying to get it back, this refers to the קורות, עצים, ואבנים, if his beams or his wood or his stones were taken away by the river. So we said before that whoever finds it is able to keep it. So the baraita says if the owner was chasing it, you חייב להחזיר, you do have to give it back. Now the question is, אי ביכולין להציל, if the baraita is speaking in a case where the owner could save it, מאי איריא מרדפין, why is the baraita saying that if the owner was chasing it and trying to get it, then the din is that you must return it? אפילו אין מרדפין נמי, even if they weren't chasing it, you should also not be able to keep it, you should have to return it. In other words, the kashya of the Gemara is that if the baraita is speaking in a case where you're able to save it, then why is the din by the beams or the wood or the stones that got lost to the river, that that you do not have to return? Maybe the person did not give up hope, and he will never give up hope? Just like we said that if it wasn't wood or a beam or a stone, then the din is that you're taka not allowed to keep it because we're talking ביכולין להציל, he could save it, and therefore he's not mitya'esh, why is the din by קורות, עצים, ואבנים that you are allowed to keep it? Why don't we say there too that he's not mitya'esh since he's able to save it? Why does the Braisa say that only if the owner chased it, then the din is that you must return it? Even if he didn't chase it, the din should be that by קורות, עצים, ואבנים also, you should have to return it. If the Braisa is speaking in a case of ביכולין להציל, that he could save it, and therefore he doesn't give up hope, so why do we assume that he gave up hope when the נהר overflowed and took away קורות, עצים, ואבנים? And the Gemara answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, we're talking here in a case ביכולין להציל על ידי הדחק, that you're able to save it through difficulty. So there we say: מרדפין, if he chases it, לא איאש, then we assume he wasn't mitya'esh. We see he's trying to save it, so we understand that he is not mitya'esh. אין מרדפין, if he doesn't chase it, then איושי איאש, we assume he's mitya'esh. But that is only if the river overflowed and took away his beams or his wood or his stones, then we say, since he knows about it right away and he could have chased it if he wanted to, and since he didn't, then we assume he was mitya'esh. But if he didn't know about it, if it overflowed something that the owner didn't know about it when it happened, he found out about it later, so here, we have no re'aya that he is mitya'esh, maybe he is not mitya'esh. From the fact that he didn't chase it, we cannot prove anything because he didn't know about it to chase it. So here we say that maybe he will not be meya'esh at all, even when he'll find out he won't be meya'esh, and that is the reason why you can't keep it. So the reason is not because it is יאוש שלא מדעת, the reason is because we are not sure בכלל that he is going to be meya'esh at all. Then the Gemara continues, תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you another kushya. We learn in the ברייתא, כיצד אמרו התורם שלא מדעת תרומתו תרומה? What is the case when the Chachamim said that if someone takes off terumah for somebody else without the other person knowing that the terumah is terumah? The din is that every year must take off terumah from the crop. Terumah is the part you take off and you give it to the Kohen. So the Braisa said that we know there's a din that if someone takes off terumah for somebody else from somebody else's crop without the other person knowing about it, so that the terumah that this first person took off for him is תרומה. In which case is it תרומה? So the beraita says the case would be הרי שירד לתוך שדה חבירו, someone went into his friend's field וליקט, and he picked, ותרם, and he took off תרומה שלא ברשות, without permission. So אם חושש משום גזל, if the owner would suspect him that he stole, אין תרומתו תרומה. So then the תרומה that he took off would not be תרומה. ואם לאו, but if not, if the owner would not suspect that he stole from him, תרומתו תרומה, the תרומה is תרומה. So this is the case where we say that if someone takes off תרומה for somebody else without permission, the תרומה is תרומה as long as it's a case where the owner does not suspect that his friend stole. ומניין הוא יודע, how does he know אם חושש משום גזל ואם לאו, whether the owner of the field suspects that he stole or not? So the way to tell is הרי שבא בעל הבית, when the owner comes back ומצאו, and he finds him, and he finds out that he took off תרומה for him ואמר לו, and he says to him, כלך אצל יפות, go to the better ones. Why didn't you take off תרומה from the better quality fruit? So אם נמצאו יפות מהן, if he finds better ones, תרומתו תרומה, then the תרומה is תרומה. Then we assume that he takeh meant it seriously, and the תרומה is תרומה. ואם לאו, if you don't find any better ones, so then it proves that when he said, "Why didn't you take off from the better ones?" that he said it sarcastically. He meant to say, "Who gave you permission to take off the תרומה?" So then the דין would be אין תרומתו תרומה, his תרומה is not תרומה. ליקטו הבעלים והוסיפו עליהן, if the owner came and he collected some more and he added to the תרומה that he already took off, then בין כך ובין כך תרומתו תרומה. This way and that way, the תרומה is תרומה, whether he finds better ones or he doesn't find better ones, but the fact that the owner added some to his תרומה, that shows that he is happy with what he did, and therefore, the תרומה is תרומה. Now the Gemara asks: וכי נמצאו יפות מהן, even if he would find better ones, we said תרומתו תרומה, אמאי, why? בעידנא דתרם, at the time when he took off תרומה, הא לא הוה ידע, the owner yet didn't know that he is taking off terumah for him, so how can it be terumah? And the only reason we could say why it is terumah is because later on when he shows that he is happy with what he did, so therefore it works retroactive, that at the time when he took off the terumah for him, even though he didn't know yet, but since later on he will find out and agree, the terumah that he took off before is terumah. So that shows that what happens later in the mind of the person helps for the time before. So the same should be by ye'ush, that since later when he finds out that he lost it, he is meya'esh, so that should help that at the time when he lost it, even though he didn't know yet, but since later he will be meya'esh, it's as if he was meya'esh before. Just like here we say that since later on he says that he's happy with the terumah, we say that it's as if at the beginning he also said he is happy. So, too, by ye'ush, that since later on he's meya'esh, we say that at the beginning it is as if he was meya'esh then. So that proves that יאוש שלא מדעת is ye'ush. So it's a kushya on Abaye and a re'ayah to Rava. The Gemara says תרגמה רבא אליבא דאביי, רבא answered this kushya for Abaye. That what? דשוויה שליח, that this beraita is speaking in a case where he made him into a shaliach. It's not the pshat that he found out later that he is taking off terumah and it helps retroactive for the time he took off the terumah. It is speaking in a case where he lechatchilah made him into a shaliach. He told him, "Please take off terumah for me." איי, according to that, so then why do we have to go through the whole process of finding out whether the owner is really happy about it or not? He's definitely happy. He asked him to do it. So the Gemara will explain it in a moment, but Before the Gemara gets to explain pshat in the beraita, the Gemara wants to prove that we must say that the mish- the beraita is speaking in a case where he made him into a shaliach. הכא נמי מסתברא. The sechel, the logic, also tells us that we must say that this beraita is only if he made him into a shaliach, because דאי סלקא דעתך, if you're gonna think דלא שוייה שליח, that he didn't make him and didn't appoint him to a שליח, מי הוי תרומתו תרומה? Is the terumah terumah anyway, even if he finds out later? But if he took it off when he wasn't a shaliach, the terumah should not be terumah at all for a different reason. והא אתם, גם אתם אמר רחמנא, the Torah says by תרומה, גם אתם, that you also should take off terumah. So the word גם is an extra word, it could have said אתם, and it says גם אתם. So from here we learn out לרבות שלוחכם, that comes to include that not only yourself you are able to take off terumah, you're also able to appoint a shaliach, an agent, to take off for you. But from the same pasuk we also learn out the qualifications of the shaliach. That what? That מה אתם לדעתכם, just like when you take off yourself, you know about it, אף שלוחכם לדעתכם. So too, when your shaliach, your agent, takes off for you, it has to be for your דעת, you have to know about it. And if a shaliach will take off without the owner knowing about it, then the terumah is not terumah. So according to this, the whole baraisa is not understood. How can the baraisa tell us that in the case of the baraisa, the terumah is terumah even if we find out later that the owner is happy, but when he took off the terumah, the owner didn't know about it, and we know a shaliach has to be לדעתו? The only time the terumah that a shaliach takes off is valid is if it was done with the knowledge of the owner. So therefore we must say that the baraisa is in a case where the owner did appoint him as a shaliach. But the question is, if the baraisa is in the case where he made him into a shaliach, why do we have to go through this whole process of finding out whether the owner is happy about it or not, whether the owner suspects him of stealing or not? He made him into a shaliach. אלא הכא במאי עסקינן, we're talking here in a case כגון דשוייה שליח, he made him into a שליח, ואמר ליה, and he says to him, זיל תרום, go and take off terumah. ולא אמר ליה, but he didn't tell him, תרום מהני, take off from these. He didn't tell him from which quality of fruit he should take the terumah off. וסתמא דבעל הבית, and usually, סתם, when the owner himself takes off, כי תרים, בבינונית תרים, when he takes off, he takes off in the medium kind. But ואזל איהו, but he went, the שליח went, ותרם, and he took off מן יפות, from the good ones. ובא בעל הבית, the owner came, ומצאו, and he found him, ואמר ליה, and he says to him, כלך אצל יפות, go to the better ones. So in this case, אם נמצאו יפות מהן, if you find better ones, תרומתו תרומה, the תרומה is תרומה, because then it shows that the owner is happy that he took off from the better kind. ואם לאו, but if he didn't find any better ones, אין תרומתו תרומה, then the terumah is not terumah, because then we understand that he only said it sarcastically, and he didn't really mean that he's he's happy by the fact that he took off from the better kind, and therefore the terumah is not terumah, even if he made him into a shaliach. Because if he would have taken off as the owner would have taken off, then definitely it would have been terumah, but since he took off from a different kind than the owner would have done, that's where we have to see whether the owner is happy, then the terumah is terumah, or the owner is not happy, and then the terumah is not terumah. But lechora, one might ask, why does it prove that if he is happy later, after he comes back and he says, go to the better ones, and you find better ones, he is now happy that he took off the better ones, but how does that show that lechatchilah he would also have been happy if when he took off the better ones? Just like we said in the Gemara before, that if you lose an object that has a siman, even Rava agrees that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, that even if you hear later that he is mitya'esh from the object which has a siman, nevertheless even Rava says that you cannot keep it, because by the time you found it, he didn't know about it yet, and he wasn't mitya'esh yet. And even if he was mitya'esh later, that doesn't prove that he would have been mitya'esh lechatchilah. Only if you find something which has no siman, that's when we assume lechatchilah that you probably would have been mitya'esh. But something that has a siman, so even if he is mitya'esh later, it doesn't prove that that's what he would have done before. So too here, even though later when he comes and he says that I am happy that you took off from the good ones, how does that prove that lechatchilah he would have had that in mind too? And Tosafot answers that here, since it is a mitzvah, we do say that. That after we see that he is happy with the good ones, we do say that mistama that's what he had in mind l'chatchilah. In the case before, by the case of the aveidah, by יאוש שלא מדעת, we're not talking about a mitzvah, so there we can't say The fact that he was mitya'esh later doesn't prove that that's what he would have

done before. But here, since it's a mitzvah, we're talking about taking off terumah, we do assume that if he shows later that he is happy that he took off from the good ones, mistama he would have had that in mind before also. Then Tosafos asks another kushya. The Gemara says that the case is that the owner usually takes off from the medium kind, the shaliach took off from the better kind. So then we have to see: if the owner shows that he is happy, then we say that the terumah is terumah. If the owner says go to the better ones and there are no better ones, that shows that he asked that he said it sarcastically, so then we say that the terumah that he took off is not terumah. So Tosafos asks, the Gemara says in Kesubos that usually a person takes off אחד מחמשים. We know that by terumah there are three possibilities, three ways of taking off: if a person is a stingy person, then he takes off one out of 60; a person is a very generous person, he takes off one out of 40; a person that's medium takes off one out of 50. And that's what usually a baal habayit does. And nevertheless, the din is that if someone makes a shaliach to take off terumah for him and the shaliach took off one out of 40 or one out of 50, so then even if the owner comes later and he says you didn't take off the way I would have taken off, the terumah is still terumah, because he's able to tell him בהכי אומדתיך, I estimated you, I judged you that you would take off this much, and therefore the din is terumah is terumah. So why don't we say the same thing here, that even if the owner would come and show that he is not happy that he took off from the better ones, why can't he say, but I judged you that you would have taken off from the better ones, and therefore the terumah should be terumah? And Tosafos says we can't compare the two. In the case of the shiur, some people take off one out of 40, some one out of 50, and some one out of 60. So even if he didn't do exactly as the owner would do, nevertheless he could say, since some people do take off one out of 40, some do take off one out of 60, so even if I didn't do as you would have done, it was still a shiur that people do and therefore the terumah is terumah, because I judged you that you would take off that way. But in the case of the quality of the peirot, it is usual that the person takes off the medium kind, and it is unusual that he should take off from the better kind, and therefore he cannot say I judged you that you would take off from the better kind because that is not usual. So therefore here, only if the owner shows that he is happy with that, then we say the terumah is terumah, but if the owner wouldn't show that, then the terumah would not be terumah. Then the

Gemara continues, אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי, these three אמוראים, אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי איקלעו לבוסתנא דמרי בר איסרק, they happened to enter the orchard of Mari bar Isarek. אתא אריסיה, so his worker, his factor, brought תמרי ורמוני, he brought dates and pomegranates for them, ושדי קמייהו, and he put it in front of them. אמימר ורב אשי אכל, Amemar and Rav Ashi ate, מר זוטרא לא אכל, Mar Zutra did not eat. The reason why he didn't eat, because the owner didn't know that he was giving it to them, so he considered that as gezelah, that this worker is stealing it from the owner, because he has no right to give it to them. If they would know for sure that he is giving his own, then they would all eat from it. Or if they would be sure that later on when the אריס is going to take his share, because an אריס is a person that his salary is a share in the crop, so when it will come to the time to divide the crop and he will take his share, he will tell the owner, you know that you should deduct a little bit from my share because I gave to those rabbanan that came, I gave them some of the fruit and I want it to be taken off from my share, then they would all eat, because then it wouldn't be gezelah. But the reason Amemar didn't eat, because he suspected that maybe he wouldn't do it, and therefore it means that he is giving them the fruit from his owner. That he has no right to do; that would be considered gezelah. The other חכמים, Amemar and Rav Ashi that did eat, because they didn't suspect it, they assumed that he will deduct it from his share, and therefore it is not considered gezelah. And Tosafot explains that we cannot say that the reason they ate because they relied on the fact that later on when Mari bar Isarek, the owner will come, he will agree to it, and therefore they're allowed to eat now, because as we know יאוש שלא מדעת is not יאוש, we do not say that what happens later works retroactive, and therefore they couldn't rely on that. So the only reason we could say that they ate, because they didn't suspect that he wouldn't deduct it from his share. They assumed that he will deduct it from his share, and therefore they're eating his, and he's allowed to give his. But Mar Zutra suspected that he will not deduct it from his share, and therefore he didn't eat because he assumed he's giving his owner's, and that he has no right to do. אתי מרי בר איסרק, מרי בר איסרק came, the owner came, אשכחינהו אשכחינהו, he found them, ואמר ליה לאריסיה, so he said to his worker, אמאי לא אייתית להו לרבנן מהנך שפירתא? Why didn't you give to the rabbanan from these nicer ones? אמרו ליה אמימר ורב אשי למר זוטרא, so now when this happened, Amemar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra, השתא אמאי לא אכיל מר? Now, why don't you eat? והתניא, didn't we learn, אם נמצאו יפות מהן, תרומתו תרומה, didn't we learn concerning terumah, that if the shaliach took off from the better quality, and the owner comes and says, why didn't you take terumah even from the better ones, and if we do find better ones, the terumah is terumah, because that shows that he really meant it. So here too, since he comes and he says, why don't you give them from the better ones, and there were better ones there, that shows that he agrees to what he did. So then why don't you eat from it? אמר להו, so Mar Zutra said to them, הכי אמר רבא, this is what Rava said, לא אמרו כל היכא דאמר יפות אלא בענין תרומה בלבד. The only time the chachamim said that if the owner says why don't you take from the better ones, and we do find better ones, the terumah is terumah, this was only said concerning terumah, that by terumah this will help, משום דמצוה הוא, because to take off תרומה is a מצוה, וניחא ליה, and he's really happy. So when he shows he says something that shows that he really is happy with what his shaliach did, then we assume he really meant it, because it's a mitzvah and we assume a person wants to do the mitzvah. אבל הכא, but here, משום כסופא הוא דאמר הכי. It is because of embarrassment he said it. Maybe he really doesn't mean it. Maybe he really is not happy that he gave us the fruit. He is just embarrassed in front of us, that's why he said it, and therefore we cannot rely on what he said. Then the

Gemara continues, תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you another kashya. We learned, עודהו הטל עליהם, if the dew is still on them, ושמח, and he was happy, הרי זה בכי יותן. This refers to the din of being מכשיר לקבל טומאה. The din is that food cannot become tamei even when it touches something which would make it tamei. For instance, it touches a dead body, it touches a שרץ, or anything similar. It will not become tamei unless first it became מוכשר to be מקבל טומאה. מוכשר means it became ready to be מקבל טומאה. What makes food ready to be מקבל טומאה? If the food got wet first. But then there's another din, that even if it got wet, it doesn't become מוכשר לקבל טומאה unless the owner is happy that the fruit got wet. If he is unhappy with the fact that it got wet, that is not מכשיר the food to be מקבל טומאה. So let's say dew fell on food and the owner came and he saw the dew on it, and he was happy, he was happy while it was on it, הרי זה בכי יותן, that is considered כי יותן. The pasuk that tells us that the only time food could become tamei if it was מוכשר starts with the words וכי יתן מים על זרע. If water will be given on a seed, then if it touches tumah it becomes tamei. So that's what it says here. That if he was happy that it got wet with the dew, but he was happy while it was still wet, that is considered בכי יותן and it becomes מוכשר לקבל טומאה. That if it touches something which is tamei, it'll become tamei. But נגבו, if it was dried up already, so אף על פי ששמח, even if he was happy, אינן בכי יותן, it's not considered בכי יותן and it doesn't become מוכשר לקבל טומאה. The only time it becomes מוכשר if you are happy while it's wet. And the Gemara explains, Taima mai? What is the reason? Lav, isn't it, mishum d'lo amrinan, that we don't say, כיון דאיגליא מילתא דהשתא ניחא ליה, מעיקרא נמי ניחא ליה? That since he reveals his mind that now he is happy, so that shows that he would have been happy before too. We do not say that. If we would use this logic, then even if he was happy when it was dry, it still should become מוכשר, because we would say that since he is happy now, that shows that he would have been happy before too, when it was wet. So it is as if he was happy then, and it should become מוכשר. Since we say that if he was happy when it was dry, it is not מוכשר לקבל טומאה, that shows that we do not use this logic. So the same should be by ye'ush, that we should not use the logic that since he is mitya'esh later, that shows that he would have been mitya'esh before too, and it's as if he was mitya'esh before. That's a re'aya to Abaye, that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, and a kashya on Rava that says that יאוש שלא מדעת הוי יאוש. And the Gemara answers, no, it's no re'aya. Shani hatam, there it's different. Concerning the din of הכשר it's different, d'ktiv, because the Torah says, כי יתן. We read it כי יותן, when it will be given. But the way it's written in the Torah is י' ת' ן' without a ו' after the י', so then it says really, כי יתן, if he will give. עד שינתן, till he will give. That you actually have to put the water on on. And therefore, if you are happy when it's dry, you didn't put the water on yourself, and therefore, it is not מוכשר לקבל טומאה. But the Gemara means that even if you didn't put it on yourself, but it was put on, it also becomes מוכשר. So, heichi timtzei, how is it possible? What is the din? Do you have to put it on yourself, or does it become מוכשר even if it was put on by itself? The answer is, בעינן כי יותן דומיא דכי יתן. We need that it should, even when it was put on by itself, it should be as if you put it on. And that's how we'll make the compromise that both will be true. What does that mean, that it could be put on by itself, but it's as if you put it on? That מה יתן לדעת, just like when you put it on, it is with your da'at, with your knowledge, אף כי יותן נמי לדעת. So too, when it's put on, it has to be with your da'at. And that is the reason why if it was wet and you were happy, so then while it was on, it was with your da'at, that's why it is machshir. But if you were happy after it was dry already, so then when it was on, it wasn't with your da'at, that's why it's not machshir. But not because we do not use the logic that because you were happy later, it doesn't help for before. Then the Gemara says, Ta shema, come here, I'll ask you another kashya. דאמר רבי יוחנן

משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק, רבי יוחנן said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: minayin, how do we know, לאבידה ששטפה נהר, if a river swept away an object and it was lost, שהיא מותרת, that you're allowed to keep it, anybody who finds it is allowed to keep it? D'ketiv, because the pasuk says, the pasuk that tells us that you're supposed to return a lost article, it says, וכן תעשה לחמורו, so too you should do to his donkey, וכן תעשה לשמלתו, so too you should do to his garment, וכן תעשה לכל אבדת אחיך, so too you should do to any lost object of your friend, אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה, that will be lost from him, and you will find it. So then the Torah says, you must return it. So from the last few words where it says that you must return an object that was lost from him and you find it, that only מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם, only if an object is lost from him, but is found by others, it is in a place where people could find it, that's when the din is that you must return it to him. יצתה זו, that comes to exclude זו, this one, שאבודה ממנו, the case where it was swept away by the river, so this is lost from him, ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם, and it's not found by others. It's lost from him and from everybody. In a case like that, you do not have to return it. So from here we see that if someone's article was swept away by the river, anybody who finds it is able to keep it, because when it was swept away by the river, at that point, it was lost from everybody. So the Torah tells us that in a case like that, you do not have to return it. So here in the pasuk, we have two dinim. The pasuk tells us when you do have to return, and the pasuk tells us when you do not have to return, when you're not allowed to keep it, and when you are allowed to keep it. So we say, ואיסורא דומיא דהיתירא, that the issur, the time you're not allowed to keep it, is similar to the time you are allowed to keep it, since it's learned out from one pasuk. In the same pasuk it tells us that if it's only lost from him, you are not allowed to keep it. If it is lost from him and from everybody, you are allowed to keep it. So we say that the Torah tells us that these two dinim are equal, and the issura is דומיא דהיתירא. In the same case that you are allowed to keep, in a similar case, if it is under different conditions, you're not allowed to keep. But they're both in the same case, meaning like this: מה היתירא, just like the case that you are allowed to keep it, is בין דאית בה סימן בין דלית בה סימן שרי, whether it has a siman or it doesn't have a siman, you're allowed, because in the case where the river overflowed and swept away your article, you're allowed to keep it even if it has a siman, because it is not because it has no siman that you're allowed to keep it. It is a din of the Torah that since it was lost from everybody, you're allowed to keep it even if it has a siman. So too, אף איסורא, the case that you're not allowed to keep, is בין דאית בה סימן בין דלית בה סימן אסורא, whether it has a siman or it doesn't have a siman, it is forbidden. The truth is that if it has no siman, you're allowed to keep it. But he means that there is a case where it has no siman and nevertheless you shouldn't be able to keep. Now how is that possible? The only time it's possible is if when you found it, the owner didn't know about it yet. So even if it has no siman, but since the owner wasn't meya'esh yet, you're not allowed to keep it. That's what we learned out from this limud. So just like the heter is whether there is a siman or there is no siman, so too the issur that you're not allowed to keep it is also in a case whether it has a siman or not, that even if it has no siman, you're not allowed to keep it. And Tosafot explains it in even more detail, that when we say that the Torah is matir the case where the river swept away your aveidah, we cannot say that the chiddush of the Torah is in a case where you are actually meya'esh, because for that that you don't need a pasuk. So we must say that what is the Torah trying to tell us? In a case where the person didn't know it was lost from him. So even if later on when he will find out that he lost it, he will not be meya'esh because it has a siman, nevertheless the Torah tells us that you're allowed to keep it. So it comes out that the chiddush in the case of the heter is that even if you will later not be meya'esh, nevertheless you're allowed to keep it. So when we use the same logic by the issur, we say we have to say the same thing, that even in a case where it has no siman, and when you will find out later you will be meya'esh, nevertheless you're not allowed to keep it, because now he wasn't meya'esh. So from here we see that even if he will be meya'esh later, but since at the time it was lost he wasn't meya'esh yet, you're not allowed to keep, so that shows that ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש. Only if you are meya'esh now you're allowed to keep it. But being that you were not meya'esh now, even if we know for sure that had you known you would have been meya'esh, and later on when you find out you are takeh actually meya'esh, nevertheless you're not allowed not allowed to keep it. And the

Gemara says תיופתא דרבא תיופתא. This is really a kashya on Rava. And the Gemara says והלכתא כוותיה דאביי, and therefore the halacha is by like Abaye, and the halacha is like אביי ביעל קג״ם. Not only here, but in יעל קג״ם. יעל קג״ם is an abbreviation of six halachot, that in these six halachot that there is a machloket between Abaye veRava, the halacha is like Abaye. Usually whenever there is a machloket between Abaye veRava the halacha is like Rava, but in these six halachot the halacha is like Abaye. And as Rashi says, what is the siman, the abbreviation of these six halachot? The י׳ is ייאוש שלא מדעת, the ע׳ is עדים זוממין למפרע הוא נפסל, the ל׳ is לחי העומד מאיליו, the ק׳ is קידושין שלא נמסרו לביאה, the ג׳ is גילוי דעתיה בגיטא, and the מ׳ is מומר אוכל נבילות להכעיס, whether he is פסול לעניין עדות. Then the Gemara continues, אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי, Rav Acha the son of Rava said to רב אשי, וכי מאחר דאיתותב רבא, now that we asked a kashya on Rava and the halacha is not like Rava, הני תמרי דזיקא, these dates that have been shaken down from the tree by the wind, היכי אכלינן להו, how are we allowed to eat it? Since when it fell down, the owner doesn't know yet that it fell down, so when we find it, we are not sure that he was meya'esh already. And since the halacha is that ייאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי ייאוש, so how are we allowed to take it and eat it? אמר ליה, so he said to him, כיוון דאיכא שקצים ורמשים דקא אכלי להו, since there are worms and creeping crawlers that would eat it anyway, מעיקרא מיאש מייאש מינייהו. So lechatchilah he is meya'esh from them, because he knows that the worms could eat them up. In other words, since he knows for sure that they're going to fall down, so before he even knows that they fell, lechatchilah he knows that if they will fall, he is meya'esh because he knows the שקצים ורמשים might eat it, so he gives up the hope, and therefore we are allowed to take. Then the

Gemara asks, יתמי דלאו בני מחילה נינהו מאי, if the field belongs to יתומים, belongs to children who inherited the field from their father, and the din is that a יתום is not able to be mochel, not able to give up something that belongs to him if he is a child, so how can we eat from this fruit? Maybe the field that this fruit comes from belongs to a יתום, and his ye'ush doesn't help. So how can we eat from there? Let's suspect that it's from a יתום. אמר ליה, so he said to him, באגא בארעא דיתמי לא מחזקינן. A valley, a area with a lot of fields, we are not machzik that it belongs to a יתום. There is no reason for us to suspect that the field belongs to a יתום. The din is that we go בתר רובא, we go after the majority, and the majority of fields do not belong to יתומים. Therefore, when we pass by a field and we see the dates on the floor, there is no reason for us to suspect that that field belongs to a יתום who is not able to be mochel, not able to give up ownership over something. We assume it belongs to an adult. And since we said before that he knows it's going to fall and he knows that the worms could eat it up, he is lechatchilah meya'esh. Therefore, we are able to take it. Then he asked him, מוחזק ועומד מאי, what is if it's a field that we know belongs to יתומים? Are we allowed to take there? כרכשתא מאי, if it's a field that's surrounded with a brick wall, that the שקצים ורמשים, the worms, will not enter, what is the din there? The whole reason we said why he is מייאש לכתחילה is because he knows when it will fall the worms will eat it, but where the

worms do not enter, are we allowed to take from there since there maybe he is not meya'esh? אמר ליה, he said to him, אסורן, they are really asur. In a case like this, we are not allowed to take. But Rashi asks a kashya on this Gemara. Gemara started off by saying that now that the halachah is not like Rava, how are we allowed to take those dates that we find under a tree? Because since we say יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, we shouldn't be able to take it. Rashi asks a kashya, the Gemara said earlier that when fruit fall off a tree, the appearance of the fruit shows from which tree it came from, so we know who the owner is. And therefore the person is not meya'esh. So why did the Gemara ask the kashya, how are we allowed to eat these dates that fall off through the wind, only after we paskened like Abaye, that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, even according to Rava we shouldn't be able to take it. Because even according to Rava, since the owner does not give up hope at all, so we're not allowed to take it. And as we said before, the reason he doesn't give up hope is because the appearance of the fruit tells us who the owner is. It is

only by תאנים the Gemara said, by figs, that עם נפילתן נמאסות, that when it falls it gets filthy and then the person is meya'esh. But by other fruits we do not say that. So these dates we shouldn't be able to eat even according to Rava. So why does the Gemara make the kashya only after the halacha is like Abaye? And Rashi says that the truth is the Gemara could have asked the kashya before, too, before we paskened like Abaye. But the Gemara is asking the kashya even stronger. That not only if you are not meya'esh you're not allowed to take it, even if he is meya'esh later, you're not allowed to take it because the halacha is like Abaye that יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש. So it's only to make the kashya stronger, but be'emet the kashya is also according to Rava. But Tosafos says that the kashya is only according to Abaye, not according to Rava. Because according to Rava we could say that when you find the dates under the tree or right next to the tree, there takeh we could say you shouldn't be able to eat it because the person didn't give up hope. Because the person feels that it has a siman and he will get it back. But

what about those dates that the wind blew away very far? There בפשטות we do not say חזותו מוכיח עליו, that the appearance shows where it came from. Since it went away far, people will not be able to understand from those fruits which tree it came from. So here we should say that you should be able to take it. And even though the owner does not know whether it fell down under the tree or it was blown away far, maybe the owner thinks that it'll fall down under the tree and he hopes that he will get it back. But nevertheless, when he will find out that it went away far, he will give up hope. And according to Rava that יאוש שלא מדעת הוי יאוש, so we assume now, too, that it is as if he was meya'esh. And therefore, you should be able to take it. But according to Abaye who holds יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, so even if after the owner will find out that the wind blew them away far he will be meya'esh, but before he finds out, he assumes that it'll fall down under the tree. So at this point he is not meya'esh yet. And that's why the Gemara's kashya is, according to Abaye you shouldn't be able to take it now. And the Gemara's teirutz is that you are allowed to take him, and not only those that blew away far, you're even allowed to take those that are under the tree, because of the worms that will eat it, so the owner gives up hope even for those that fell under the tree. And Tosafos says even more, that even the next step in the Gemara's kashya is also only according to Abaye, not according to Rava. And after the Gemara answered that because there are worms there the person is מייאש לכתחילה, the

Gemara asks, but aren't there yesomim that cannot be מוחל, they cannot be meya'esh? So Tosafos says that this kashya of the yesomim is also only a kashya according to Abaye, not according to Rava. Because according to Rava, since when these yesomim, these children, will grow up, they will be meya'esh, so we say it's as if they were meya'esh now. So therefore you're able to take the fruit even if it's a field of yesomim. But according to Abaye who holds יאוש שלא מדעת לא הוי יאוש, we do not say that since they're meya'esh later it's as if you were meya'esh now. We have to judge it the way it's now. So by yesomim, too, we have to judge it the way it's now. That's what the Gemara asks: yesomim, the way they are now, cannot be meya'esh, their mechilah doesn't help. And that's where the Gemara answered that according to Abaye, too, we do not have to suspect on every field, maybe it belongs to yesomim. But if it actually belongs to yesomim, we know that, then the Gemara says according to Abaye you are not allowed to eat from that fruit. But according to Rava you would be able to, because we say that the ye'ush that they're going to have when they grow up helps retroactive for the time when they were yesomim ketanim. Then the Gemara continues, we

learn in the משנה, כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, that if you find small sheaves in a public place, they belong to the finder. אמר רבה, said רבה, ואפילו בדבר שיש בו סימן, even if these כריכות had a siman, nevertheless the person who finds it is allowed to keep it. אלמא, the Gemara says, we see here קסבר קסבר רבה that Rabba holds, סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן. A siman that will be stepped on is not a siman. Because otherwise, why does Rabba say that if you find these כריכות in the street, they belong to the finder, even if they have a siman? We know the rule that if something has a siman, the owner doesn't give up hope, so therefore the finder is not allowed to keep it. Obviously Rabba holds that since it fell in the street and people will step on it, so the owner definitely gave up hope. He thinks that the people will step on it, and they will ruin the identification siman, and therefore he gives up hope even if it has a siman. So Rabba must hold that סימן העשוי לידרס, a siman that will be stepped on, is not considered a siman. ורבא אמר, but Rava says, לא שנו אלא בדבר שאין בו סימן. He argues on Rabba. He says when the Mishnah says that these small sheaves that you find in the street belong to the finder, that is only if it did not have a siman. אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן, but if it was something that had a סימן, חייב להכריז, he must announce it. The finder is not allowed to keep it. So the Gemara says, אלמא, we see, קסבר רבא, Rava holds, סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן. That a siman even if it's going to be stepped on, it's still a siman. The owner doesn't give up hope because he hopes that the siman will not be ruined and he'll still be able to identify it, and therefore even if it's a סימן העשוי לידרס, it is still considered a siman and the person who find it is not allowed to keep it. Then the Gemara says, איכא דמתני לה להא שמעתא באנפי נפשה. Others learned this machloket between Rabba and Rava as a din in itself. The way we had it before is that they didn't actually argue outright whether סימן העשוי לידרס is a siman or not. They argued pshat in the Mishnah, whether when the Mishnah says that you find a כריכות in רשות הרבים you are allowed to keep, whether is it only without a siman or also with a siman. We came to the conclusion from that argument that they probably also argue whether סימן העשוי לידרס is a siman or not. But others learned that there was an outright machloket between Rabba and Rava concerning this din. We learned סימן העשוי לידרס, a siman that would be stepped on, רבה אמר לא הוי סימן, Rabba said it is not considered a סימן, ורבא אמר הוי סימן, and Rava says הוי סימן, it is a siman. This was an outright machloket directly concerning this din of סימן העשוי לידרס. Then the Gemara says, תנן, we learned in our משנה, כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו. That if you find these small sheaves in the רשות הרבים, in the public place, they belong to you. But if it was ברשות היחיד, if you find it in the private place, נוטל ומכריז, you must take it and announce it. For instance, as Rashi says, if you found it in a planted field where not too many people go, so then you must take it and announce it, you must give it back. But the

Gemara asks, היכי דמי? What is this talking about? Under, in which case? אי דלית בהו סימן, if it has no סימן, ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז? Why is the din that if you find it in the private place, in the רשות היחיד, you must announce it? What are you going to announce? How will the person be able to identify it since it has no siman? So why should the din be that if you find the same כריכות without a siman in the רשות היחיד, you're not allowed to keep it? אלא לאו, so therefore you must say, דאית בהו סימן, that it has a siman, and therefore if you find it in the רשות היחיד, you must announce it, and the person who lost it will identify it through the siman. וקתני, and still we learned, that ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, that if you find it in the street, in the public place, it belongs to the finder. Even if it has a siman. אלמא, we see, סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן, that if it's a siman that's going to be stepped on, it's not considered a siman. Because otherwise, why is the din that if you find it in the public place, you could keep it? It must be talking in a case with a siman. So there is no other reason why you should be able to keep it in the רשות הרבים other than saying because it is a siman that will be stepped on and is not considered a siman. So תיובתא דרבא, it's a kashya on Rava. The Gemara says, אמר לך רבא, Rava will answer you, לעולם דלית בהו סימן. באמת this Mishnah is speaking in a case where it has no siman, and that is the reason why if you find it in the רשות הרבים, you do not have to return it, because it has no siman. ודקא אמרת, and that you said, you asked, ברשות היחיד מאי מכריז, if you find it in the רשות היחיד, what will you announce? What kind of identification will the person be able to give that we say that you have to announce it? So he says, מכריז מקום. You announce the place. And as Rashi learns that all you say is, you announce that you found an object in this and this place, and let the person who lost it come and tell you what the object was. And if he tells you the right object, then you give it to him. But the Gemara says, ורבה אמר, but Rabba says, מקום לא הוי סימן, that if someone will just announce the place, And the person will tell him what the object was, that is not considered a siman. In other words, the Gemara is explaining, why did Rabba have to say that סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן? He was forced to say it, it seems, because otherwise he doesn't understand peshat in the Mishnah. If we're going to say that סימן העשוי לידרס is a siman, why is the din in the Mishnah that if you find these כריכות ברשות הרבים, you do not have to announce it? So we must say that סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן. But לכאורה, why didn't he say like Rava, that באמת it's talking without a siman, and that's why you do not have to announce it ברשות הרבים, and the reason you do have to announce it ברשות היחיד is because the מקום, the place, is a siman? But Rabba, since he holds that מקום is not a siman, so therefore he cannot explain the Mishnah like Rava, so he is left with a kashya: Why is it that ברשות היחיד you do have to announce, and ברשות הרבים you don't have to announce? And the only explanation that Rabba found was that it's talking in a case where it has a siman, and that's why ברשות היחיד you announce it, but ברשות הרבים you do not have to announce it because it's a סימן העשוי לידרס, that siman is going to be stepped on, and therefore it is not a siman. In the רשות היחיד, since not too many people walk there, so the siman will not be rubbed out, therefore you have to announce it. The person knows he lost it in the רשות היחיד, so he doesn't give up hope. He knows that the siman will not be rubbed out. But if he lost it in the רשות הרבים, then he suspects the siman will be rubbed out, and therefore he definitely gives up hope, and therefore the din is that ברשות הרבים you're allowed to keep it. And then the

Gemara continues, when we said that Rabbah holds that makom is not a siman, we learned actually an outright machloket between Rabbah and Rava. דאיתמר, because we learned: makom, the place, רבה אמר לא הוי סימן - Rabbah said it's not a סימן, ורבא אמר הוי סימן - and Rava says it is considered a siman. Then the Gemara continues: תא שמע, come hear, I'll ask you a kashya. We learned: כריכות ברשות הרבים, if you find these small bundles in the רשות הרבים, הרי אלו שלו, they belong to you, to the finder; ברשות היחיד, if you find them in the רשות היחיד, in the private place, נוטל ומכריז, you must take it and announce it; והאלומות, but if you find the big bundles, בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד נוטל ומכריז, whether you find it in the public place or in the private place, you must take it and announce it. And the kashya is: רבה היכי מתרץ לה, how will Rabbah explain it, ורבא היכי מתרץ לה, how will Rava explain it? This that we learned, that if they are big bundles, then you must announce it even in the רשות הרבים, is not understood not according to Rabbah, not according to Rava. Because Rabbah said before, why do you not have to announce the כריכות ברשות הרבים? Because the siman will be stepped on, and a סימן העשוי לידרס is not a siman, so the same din should apply to the אלומות too! That even if it has a siman, still, if it was ברשות הרבים where people will step on it, you shouldn't have to announce it, because there will be no siman left, because it's a סימן העשוי לידרס. So why does it say that אלומות you do have to announce in the רשות הרבים? And the same kashya is also on Rava. According to Rava who said that the reason you do not have to announce the כריכות ברשות הרבים is because it is speaking in a case where it had no siman, so obviously the אלומות also had no siman! And since it was in the street, there is no מקום, no place, to call it a siman. So why is the din that the אלומות, the big bundles that you find in the street, you do have to announce, since it has no siman and since there is no מקום to be a siman because it was in the street? So then why should you have to announce those אלומות? The Gemara answers: רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן. Rabbah will explain it that it's talking, the reason why you have to announce the אלומות in the רשות הרבים, because it has a siman; ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום, and Rava will say the reason you have to announce the אלומות ברשות הרבים because you will be able to announce the מקום as a siman. It doesn't have its own siman, but the place will be a siman. And the Gemara explains what they mean. רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן, רבה explains, according to his own opinion, that the reason why you have to announce the אלומות ברשות הרבים is because it has a siman. So what is the difference between the כריכות and the אלומות? Why by the כריכות we said that even if it has a siman, you still could keep it because the siman will be wiped out, people will step on it, why don't we say the same thing by the אלומות? So he says, because כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, the small bundles, if you find them in the street, you are allowed to keep them משום דמידרסא, because people will step on it. Since they're small, people will step on it and they will erase, wipe out, identification. ברשות היחיד, if it happened in the private place, if you found it in the private place, נוטל ומכריז, you take it and you announce it, דלא מידרסא, since not too many people walk there, it will not be stepped on. But והאלומות, the big bundles, בין ברשות הרבים ובין ברשות היחיד whether it's in the public place or in the private place, נוטל ומכריז, you take it and announce it. Why? כיון דגביהן, since they are big, they are high, לא מדרסא, it will not be stepped on. So when a person loses a big bundle with a siman, even if he loses it in the street, he still doesn't give up hope, because he assumes that since it's big, people will not step on it. Therefore, the siman will remain, and he will be able to claim it later. And that is the difference between אלומות and כריכות. ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה, Rava explains it according to his own reasoning, that the reason you have to announce the אלומות ברשות הרבים is because you announce the makom. The siman will be the makom. It doesn't have its own siman, but the place will be a siman. So what is the difference between the כריכות and the אלומות? Why by the כריכות we say, since it's in the street, it has no siman, not even makom, but the אלומות we say that even if it's in the street, still it will have the siman of makom? So he explains, כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו, the small bundles, if you find them in the street, they belong to you, דמנשתפא, it'll be kicked around. The people or the animals that walk in the street will kick it around. So the person who lost it doesn't assume that he will be able to give the place as a siman, because he doesn't assume it'll be found in the same place where he lost it. But if it fell ברשות היחיד, חייב להכריז, you have to announce it, דלא מנשתפא, since not too many people walk there, it will not be kicked around, and therefore the person who lost it assumes that it will be found in the same place he lost it. So he feels he'll be able to give the siman of the makom, and he will get it back, and therefore he is not מתייאש. But באלומות, the big bundles, בין ברשות הרבים בין ברשות היחיד, whether it's in the private place or in the public place, נוטל ומכריז, you take it and announce it, because כיון דיקירי, since they are heavy, לא מנשתפי, they are not kicked around, and therefore, even if it fell in the רשות הרבים, the person is not מתייאש, because he feels it'll be found in the same place where he lost it, so he will be able to give the place as a siman. It is important to note that concerning makom being a siman, there is a machloket between Rashi and Tosafot. We said before that according to Rashi, what is the peshat that מקום is a siman? A person will announce the place he found an object, and the one that lost the object will come and say what the object is, and then the finder will give it back to him. But Tosafot argues and they say that that's not what he announces. The finder announces the object he found, and then the owner of the object will come and say where he lost it, and on that siman, the finder will give it back to him.