Q&A: The Law of Swept Away by the Sea
The Law of Swept Away by the Sea
Question
Hello Rabbi!
1. I noticed that in the Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur prayers we say “a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt.”
What is the connection between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and the Exodus from Egypt?
2. Is there a rationale, aside from a scriptural decree, for why in the case of something swept away by the sea it belongs to the finder even if the person who lost it announces that he has not given up hope?
Answer
- Good question. All the festivals have an aspect of commemorating the Exodus from Egypt. Our calendar, which determines them, begins with Nisan, when we left there. You could ask the same question about Shavuot.
2. That is definitely a matter of logic. The object is lost to him and to everyone, and therefore the lapse of ownership does not depend on his giving up hope. A person can very much want to own the moon, but it is not in his domain or under his control, and therefore it is not his. You can ask what the rationale is, in general, that giving up hope terminates ownership. In the case of something swept away by the sea, it is much clearer.
By the way, neither something swept away by the sea nor giving up hope can be scriptural decrees, because they are not learned from the text. Clearly these are rabbinic logical determinations.
Discussion on Answer
You wrote above: “By the way, neither something swept away by the sea nor giving up hope can be scriptural decrees, because they are not learned from the text. Clearly these are rabbinic logical determinations.”
But in the Talmud in Bava Metzia (21b) it says: “In the case of something swept away by the sea and by a river overflow, even though it has an identifying mark, the Merciful One permitted it, as we will explain later.” (I think this was derived from the verse “that was lost from him” — excluding something that was lost from him and from the whole world…) ???
You are right. More than that: in Rashi on Bava Kamma 66 it implies that this is also the source for the law of giving up hope as well (unlike those medieval authorities (Rishonim) who hold that the permission regarding something swept away by the sea is not based on giving up hope). Maimonides also learns like Rashi in chapter 11 of the Laws of Theft. However, in Or Sameach there he explained that the verse only exempts one from returning it, but does not teach that one may acquire it. In any case, it seems that even the source from “that was lost from him” is an exposition based on the rabbis’ logical reasoning, since without that reasoning they would not have known to exclude specifically something swept away by the sea.
On question 1, it seems that this is just for uniform wording in the festival prayers, and it only needs to have some connection.
On question 2, it seems to me that the questioner took this from one of the medieval authorities (Rishonim) — that’s how I remember it — Rabbeinu Hananel or Rashba. But clearly it’s a logical rationale.