Q&A: Despair
Despair
Question
Hello and blessings!
An additional source for this law appears in the Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Metzia, chapter 2, halakhah 1):
“From where do we know owner’s despair from the Torah? Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: [Deuteronomy 22:3] ‘So shall you do with his donkey,’ etc. That which is lost to him but available to you—you are obligated to announce; but that which is not lost to him and available to you—you are not obligated to announce. This excludes owner’s despair, which is lost from him and from every person.”
The Jerusalem Talmud defined an object over which the owner has despaired as something lost from him and from every person, and seemingly this requires clarification: how can the object be defined as lost from every person? After all, an ordinary lost object, even if it is lost to its owner, can still be found by other people—except for something swept away by the sea. If so, why does the Jerusalem Talmud define it as lost from every person?
Answer
I see two possibilities:
- We learn from here that in the case of something swept away by the sea, one is not obligated to announce it. Why? Because the owner has despaired. If so, then in any case of despair—even if the owner simply gave up hope—one is not obligated to announce it.
- Perhaps the word “not” relates to everything that follows it and does not negate only “lost to him.” In other words, it should be read like this: one is obligated to announce that which is lost to him and available to you. Anything else—that is, anything that is not “lost to him and available to you”—does not require announcement. From this it follows in particular that in the case of something swept away by the sea, one is not obligated to announce it.
In the context of what was written, that the law of something swept away by the sea derives from the law of despair—this is not unequivocal in the Talmudic discussion.