For the source text click/tap here: Bava Metzia 11
To download, click/tap here: PDF
The Mishna on our daf, as well as the Mishna that preceded it (10a) focus on how a person might take possession of an object that he finds by taking hold of it himself or by claiming it as being on his property.
The case in our Mishna describes how a person who sees people running after an ownerless animal to claim it can say “my field has effected acquisition of the animal on my behalf” – assuming, of course, that the animal is on his property.
The Gemara asks: And from where do you say that in the case of an unsecured courtyard, if the owner is standing next to his field, yes, it effects acquisition of ownerless items on his behalf, but if he is not, it does not effect acquisition of items on his behalf?
As it is taught in a baraita: There is a case where a landowner was standing in the town and saying: I know that my laborers forgot a sheaf that I have in the field, which I had intended for the laborers to bring in, but since I remember it, it shall not be considered a forgotten sheaf, which must be left for the poor. Then, the landowner himself forgot about the sheaf. In this case, one might have thought that it is not considered a forgotten sheaf. To counter this, the verse states:
“When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19). It is derived from here that the phrase: “And have forgotten”applies “in the field,” but not in the town.
We explore memory and forgetting with respect to trauma and cultural violence.