Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 19, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 23

Different tannaitic sources including our mishna and the next mishna are brought by the amoraim to try to establish general principles regarding what can be considered an identifyingsiman聽by which a lost item needs to be returned to its owner. The amoraim also debate various categories such as location, number of items, if it can be trampled, etc.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚诪讚专住讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讚诇讗 诪讚专住讗 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讘讬讛谉 诇讗 诪讚专住讗

that they are trampled. Even if there had been a distinguishing mark on the bundles it would have been destroyed when it was trampled. If he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes the sheaves and proclaims his find, as due to the absence of pedestrian traffic they are not trampled and the distinguishing mark remains intact. And with regard to the sheaves, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. Since they protrude high above the ground, they are not trampled.

讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讚诪讬谞砖转驻讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讚诇讗 诪讬谞砖转驻讗 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讻讬讜谉 讚讬拽讬专讬 诇讗 诪讬谞砖转驻讗

And Rava explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles whose location is their distinguishing mark: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him due to the fact that they are kicked and they consequently roll to a different location than where they were placed. If he finds them in a secluded area, he is obligated to proclaim his find. Due to the absence of pedestrian traffic they are not kicked and do not roll, and they therefore remain in the location where they were placed. And with regard to the sheaves, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. Since they are heavy, they do not roll when kicked.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讚诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 专驻转讗 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讗诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found baker鈥檚 loaves, these belong to him. The Gemara infers: But if one finds loaves of a homeowner, he is obligated to proclaim his find. What is the reason? When one finds loaves of a homeowner he is obligated to proclaim his find because there is a distinguishing mark on the loaves. As each person shapes his loaves in a unique manner, it is known that the loaves of a person belong to that person. And there is no difference if the loaves were found in a public area, and there is no difference if the loaves were found in a secluded area; the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. Apparently, the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabba.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞讻专讬诐 谞讻专讬诐 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讻砖驻讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讘讬诐 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讘讬诐

Rabba could have said to you: There, this is the reason that one must return the loaves of a homeowner found in a public area. It is due to the fact that one does not pass by food with-out picking it up. Therefore, it can be assumed that it will not be trampled. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there gentiles who do not treat food with deference and who will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: Gentiles are concerned that the loaves were placed in a public area for reasons of sorcery. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there beasts and dogs that will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a place where beasts and dogs are not commonly found.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讻讬爪讚 诪爪讗 注讬讙讜诇 讜讘转讜讻讜 讞专住 讻讻专 讜讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rabba and Rava is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it, or a loaf of bread with coins inside it, he must proclaim his find. One may conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that even in that case those items belong to him.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

In explaining the tannaitic dispute, the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that one passes by food without picking it up. Accordingly, what is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled that they disagree? As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that its legal status is not that of a distinguishing mark, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that its legal status is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽讗 住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉

There are those who say, in explaining the tannaitic dispute, that the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark. What, then, is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of whether one passes by food without picking it up that they disagree. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one passes by food without picking it up, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one does not pass by food without picking it up.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇诇讗 讚讗讘讬讚转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讜讜讬 诇讛 诇讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 诪讬讗砖 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is the principle of a lost item: Once the owner of a lost item says: Woe is me for the monetary loss, this indicates that he has despaired of its recovery.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讬 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗讬 讚专讱 讛谞讞讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讜讘讬谉 讚专讱 讛谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one finds bundles of grain in a public area, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a secluded area in a manner indicating that they had fallen, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And both this ruling and that ruling are in the case of an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. But in the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, it is no different if the bundles were found in a public area and it is no different if the bundles were found in a secluded area; whether the bundles were found in a manner indicating that they had fallen or whether they were found in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讜诪讞专讜讝讜转 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 拽砖专 住讬诪谉 讘拽讟专讗 讚爪讬讬讚讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 诪拽讟专讬 讜诇讛讜讬 诪谞讬谉 住讬诪谉 讘诪谞讬谞讗 讚砖讜讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that strings of fish are among the list of found items that one may keep. The Gemara asks: Why not let the knot with which the fish are tied serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to the fisherman鈥檚 knot with which everyone ties his fish, which is not distinctive. The Gemara asks: But why not let the number of fish tied on the string serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a number of fish that is equal to that on all strings of fish in that area.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 [诪谞讬谉] 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讻住祝 讜讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 讙住讟专讜谉 砖诇 讗讘专 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗讜转 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讻讜讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜诪讚诪砖拽诇 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诪讚讛 讜诪谞讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In items that have no other distinguishing mark, is their number a distinguishing mark or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: If one found silver vessels, copper vessels, fragments of lead, and any metal vessels, that person who found them shall not return the item to its owner until the owner provides a distinguishing sign or until the owner accurately provides its weight. And from the fact that weight serves as a distinguishing mark, measure and number also serve as a distinguishing mark.

讜讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 诪砖拽诇讗 住讬诪谉 讘诪砖拽诇讗 讚砖讜讬谉 讜转讛讜讬 讞转讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 住讬诪谉 讗讜 讚讚驻拽讗 讗讜 讚讗讟诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 讞转讬讻讜转 讚讙讬诐 讜讚讙 谞砖讜讱 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

The mishna teaches that cuts of meat are among the list of found items that one may keep. The Gemara asks: Why not let the weight of the cut serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a weight that is equal, i.e., all cuts of meat in that area are of that weight. The Gemara asks: But why not let the cut of meat itself serve as a distinguishing mark, as it came, for example, either from the neck or from the thigh of the animal? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one found cuts of fish, or a fish that was bitten, he is obligated to proclaim his find, and if he found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him? Apparently, the distinguishing mark in the cuts of fish is the part of the fish from which they were cut.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讗讬讻讗 住讬诪谞讗 讘驻住拽讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞转讬讱 诇讬讛 讗转诇转讗 拽专谞转讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚讙 谞砖讜讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? It is in a case where there is a distinguishing mark in the shape of the cut, as in that case of Rabba bar Rav Huna who would cut the meat with three corners, forming a triangle. The distinguishing mark is not the part of the fish from where it had been cut. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the case of cuts of fish is taught juxtaposed to and similar to a fish that was bitten, in which case the bite is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that it is the shape of the cut that is a distinguishing mark, not the place from where it was cut.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘专砖讜诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讘驻转讜讞 讗讬 讘驻转讜讞 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘诪爪讬祝

The Master said in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25a): With regard to jugs of wine or jugs of oil, if one finds any of these he is obligated to proclaim his finding. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case of sealed jugs. Each person seals his jugs and barrels in a unique manner. Therefore, the seal constitutes a distinguishing mark. The Gemara asks: One may conclude by inference that the baraita is referring to a case of open barrels, and if it is referring to a case of open barrels, it is a deliberate loss. Since the wine in open barrels will spoil, it is obvious that one need not return it to the owner. Rav Hoshaya says: The baraita is referring to a case where one covers the barrel with the lid but does not seal it.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘专砖讜诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 讗砖讻讞 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱

Abaye said: You can even say that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to jugs and barrels that are sealed, and it is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, where one is required to return the jugs, it is referring to a case where one found the jugs before the storehouses of wine were opened. At that point, the distinguishing mark of the seal proves that the jug belongs to its owner. There, in the baraita, where one is not required to return the barrels, it is referring to a case where one found the barrels after the storehouses of wine were opened. Since the storekeepers sold their barrels to the public, the seal would no longer serve as an indicator of the identity of the owner. This is just as in that case where Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba found a barrel of wine after the storehouses were opened. He came before Abaye to ascertain what he should do with the barrel. Abaye said to him: Go take the barrel for yourself.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪爪讗 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诇讻专讜讝 诪拽讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗

Rav Beivai raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: Is the location where the lost item was found a distinguishing mark, or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Na岣an said to him that you learned it in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. And if it enters your mind that location is a distinguishing mark, let the finder proclaim what he found, and have the location serve as a distinguishing mark. Rav Zevid said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the case of a barrel that was found on the bank of the river. Since it is the place where ships dock and merchandise belonging to many people is loaded and unloaded, the bank of a river cannot serve as a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转专诪讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗转专诪讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讱 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转专诪讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讗转专诪讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讱 讛讗讬 诪拽讜诐

Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that in the case of a lost item, the location of the bank of a river is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location on the bank of a river: Just as it happened that you lost an item there, it also happened that another person lost an item there. Some say a slightly different version of that which Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that location is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location: Just as it happened that you placed an item in that place, it also happened that another placed an item in that place.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗砖讻讞 讻讜驻专讗 讘讬 诪注爪专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪讞住诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻诇讜讙 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讚讞讬 讘讬讛 讞诇驻讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found pitch near the winepress. He came before Rav to ascertain what he should do with the pitch. Rav said to him: Go take the pitch for yourself. Rav saw that the man was hesitating, uncertain that he was entitled to the pitch. Rav, in an attempt to allay his qualms, said to him: Go divide it with 岣yya my son, as Rav would certainly not want his son to take a share of a stolen item. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav holds that location is not a distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba said: That is not Rav鈥檚 reasoning. Rather, it is due to the despair of its owner that the Sages touched upon this matter and permitted the finder to keep such a found item. As, Rav saw that grass was growing through the pitch, indicating that it had been there for an extended period.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗谞驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讻讬 诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讻讬 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it? He can describe the mark after even a short glance and claim his item. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels, then when the eye of the one who purchases them has sufficiently seen them, what of it?

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 注讘讬讚讬 专讘谞谉 讚诪砖谞讜 讘诪诇讬讬讛讜 讘诪住讻转 讜讘驻讜专讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 23

讚诪讚专住讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讚诇讗 诪讚专住讗 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讻讬讜谉 讚讙讘讬讛谉 诇讗 诪讚专住讗

that they are trampled. Even if there had been a distinguishing mark on the bundles it would have been destroyed when it was trampled. If he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes the sheaves and proclaims his find, as due to the absence of pedestrian traffic they are not trampled and the distinguishing mark remains intact. And with regard to the sheaves, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. Since they protrude high above the ground, they are not trampled.

讜专讘讗 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讚诪讬谞砖转驻讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讚诇讗 诪讬谞砖转驻讗 讜讛讗诇讜诪讜转 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讻讬讜谉 讚讬拽讬专讬 诇讗 诪讬谞砖转驻讗

And Rava explains, according to his line of reasoning, that the baraita is referring to bundles whose location is their distinguishing mark: If one finds bundles of grain in a public area, these belong to him due to the fact that they are kicked and they consequently roll to a different location than where they were placed. If he finds them in a secluded area, he is obligated to proclaim his find. Due to the absence of pedestrian traffic they are not kicked and do not roll, and they therefore remain in the location where they were placed. And with regard to the sheaves, whether he finds them in a public area or whether he finds them in a secluded area, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. Since they are heavy, they do not roll when kicked.

转讗 砖诪注 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 谞讞转讜诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讚诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 专驻转讗 讚讗讬谞讬砖 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讗诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: If one found baker鈥檚 loaves, these belong to him. The Gemara infers: But if one finds loaves of a homeowner, he is obligated to proclaim his find. What is the reason? When one finds loaves of a homeowner he is obligated to proclaim his find because there is a distinguishing mark on the loaves. As each person shapes his loaves in a unique manner, it is known that the loaves of a person belong to that person. And there is no difference if the loaves were found in a public area, and there is no difference if the loaves were found in a secluded area; the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. Apparently, the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabba.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞讻专讬诐 谞讻专讬诐 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讻砖驻讬诐 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讘讬诐 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讻诇讘讬诐

Rabba could have said to you: There, this is the reason that one must return the loaves of a homeowner found in a public area. It is due to the fact that one does not pass by food with-out picking it up. Therefore, it can be assumed that it will not be trampled. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there gentiles who do not treat food with deference and who will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: Gentiles are concerned that the loaves were placed in a public area for reasons of sorcery. The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there beasts and dogs that will trample the loaves? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a place where beasts and dogs are not commonly found.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讬谞讜讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讻讬爪讚 诪爪讗 注讬讙讜诇 讜讘转讜讻讜 讞专住 讻讻专 讜讘转讜讻讜 诪注讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between Rabba and Rava is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m in the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one finds any lost item in which there is an alteration, he is obligated to proclaim his find. How so? If he found a round cake of pressed figs with an earthenware shard inside it, or a loaf of bread with coins inside it, he must proclaim his find. One may conclude by inference that the first tanna of the mishna holds that even in that case those items belong to him.

住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

In explaining the tannaitic dispute, the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that one passes by food without picking it up. Accordingly, what is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled that they disagree? As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that its legal status is not that of a distinguishing mark, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that its legal status is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽讗 住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪注讘讬专讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉

There are those who say, in explaining the tannaitic dispute, that the Sages assumed that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own without having been placed there intentionally is that of a distinguishing mark, and everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark. What, then, is the basis of their dispute? Is it not with regard to the matter of whether one passes by food without picking it up that they disagree. As one Sage, the first tanna, holds that one passes by food without picking it up, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one does not pass by food without picking it up.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 住讘专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up, then in the case of loaves of a homeowner that were found in a public area, where the loaves would be trampled and their distinguishing mark destroyed, why does he proclaim his find?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讘专讬 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that everyone holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is that of a distinguishing mark and that one passes by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讱 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 住讬诪谉 讛注砖讜讬 诇讬讚专住 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜讗讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 注诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 住讬诪谉 讛讘讗 诪讗讬诇讬讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

And Rabba could have said to you that everyone agrees that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not that of a distinguishing mark and that one does not pass by food without picking it up. And here, it is with regard to the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own that they disagree. The first tanna holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is not that of a distinguishing mark, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the legal status of a distinguishing mark that could come to mark an item on its own is that of a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讻诇诇讗 讚讗讘讬讚转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讜讜讬 诇讛 诇讞住专讜谉 讻讬住 诪讬讗砖 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava that this is the principle of a lost item: Once the owner of a lost item says: Woe is me for the monetary loss, this indicates that he has despaired of its recovery.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讬 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗讬 讚专讱 讛谞讞讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讗讘诇 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛 讜讘讬谉 讚专讱 讛谞讞讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is that if one finds bundles of grain in a public area, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a secluded area in a manner indicating that they had fallen, those bundles belong to him. If he finds the bundles in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, the finder takes them and proclaims his find. And both this ruling and that ruling are in the case of an item in which there is no distinguishing mark. But in the case of an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, it is no different if the bundles were found in a public area and it is no different if the bundles were found in a secluded area; whether the bundles were found in a manner indicating that they had fallen or whether they were found in a manner indicating that they had been placed there, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讜诪讞专讜讝讜转 砖诇 讚讙讬诐 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 拽砖专 住讬诪谉 讘拽讟专讗 讚爪讬讬讚讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 诪拽讟专讬 讜诇讛讜讬 诪谞讬谉 住讬诪谉 讘诪谞讬谞讗 讚砖讜讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches that strings of fish are among the list of found items that one may keep. The Gemara asks: Why not let the knot with which the fish are tied serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to the fisherman鈥檚 knot with which everyone ties his fish, which is not distinctive. The Gemara asks: But why not let the number of fish tied on the string serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a number of fish that is equal to that on all strings of fish in that area.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 砖砖转 [诪谞讬谉] 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 转谞讬转讜讛 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讻住祝 讜讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 讙住讟专讜谉 砖诇 讗讘专 讜讻诇 讻诇讬 诪转讻讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 注讚 砖讬转谉 讗讜转 讗讜 注讚 砖讬讻讜讬谉 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讜诪讚诪砖拽诇 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诪讚讛 讜诪谞讬谉 谞诪讬 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉

The Sages raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In items that have no other distinguishing mark, is their number a distinguishing mark or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Sheshet said to them: You learned it in a baraita: If one found silver vessels, copper vessels, fragments of lead, and any metal vessels, that person who found them shall not return the item to its owner until the owner provides a distinguishing sign or until the owner accurately provides its weight. And from the fact that weight serves as a distinguishing mark, measure and number also serve as a distinguishing mark.

讜讞转讬讻讜转 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 诪砖拽诇讗 住讬诪谉 讘诪砖拽诇讗 讚砖讜讬谉 讜转讛讜讬 讞转讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 住讬诪谉 讗讜 讚讚驻拽讗 讗讜 讚讗讟诪讗 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 讞转讬讻讜转 讚讙讬诐 讜讚讙 谞砖讜讱 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

The mishna teaches that cuts of meat are among the list of found items that one may keep. The Gemara asks: Why not let the weight of the cut serve as a distinguishing mark? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a weight that is equal, i.e., all cuts of meat in that area are of that weight. The Gemara asks: But why not let the cut of meat itself serve as a distinguishing mark, as it came, for example, either from the neck or from the thigh of the animal? Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one found cuts of fish, or a fish that was bitten, he is obligated to proclaim his find, and if he found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him? Apparently, the distinguishing mark in the cuts of fish is the part of the fish from which they were cut.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讗讬讻讗 住讬诪谞讗 讘驻住拽讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讞转讬讱 诇讬讛 讗转诇转讗 拽专谞转讗 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讚讙 谞砖讜讱 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here in the baraita? It is in a case where there is a distinguishing mark in the shape of the cut, as in that case of Rabba bar Rav Huna who would cut the meat with three corners, forming a triangle. The distinguishing mark is not the part of the fish from where it had been cut. The language of the baraita is also precise, as the case of cuts of fish is taught juxtaposed to and similar to a fish that was bitten, in which case the bite is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that it is the shape of the cut that is a distinguishing mark, not the place from where it was cut.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘专砖讜诐 诪讻诇诇 讚讘专讬讬转讗 讘驻转讜讞 讗讬 讘驻转讜讞 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 讘诪爪讬祝

The Master said in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25a): With regard to jugs of wine or jugs of oil, if one finds any of these he is obligated to proclaim his finding. Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The mishna is referring to a case of sealed jugs. Each person seals his jugs and barrels in a unique manner. Therefore, the seal constitutes a distinguishing mark. The Gemara asks: One may conclude by inference that the baraita is referring to a case of open barrels, and if it is referring to a case of open barrels, it is a deliberate loss. Since the wine in open barrels will spoil, it is obvious that one need not return it to the owner. Rav Hoshaya says: The baraita is referring to a case where one covers the barrel with the lid but does not seal it.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘专砖讜诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 拽讜讚诐 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讻讗谉 诇讗讞专 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讘讗 讗砖讻讞 讞讘讬转讗 讚讞诪专讗 诇讗讞专 砖谞驻转讞讜 讛讗讜爪专讜转 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱

Abaye said: You can even say that both this mishna and that baraita are referring to jugs and barrels that are sealed, and it is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, where one is required to return the jugs, it is referring to a case where one found the jugs before the storehouses of wine were opened. At that point, the distinguishing mark of the seal proves that the jug belongs to its owner. There, in the baraita, where one is not required to return the barrels, it is referring to a case where one found the barrels after the storehouses of wine were opened. Since the storekeepers sold their barrels to the public, the seal would no longer serve as an indicator of the identity of the owner. This is just as in that case where Rav Ya鈥檃kov bar Abba found a barrel of wine after the storehouses were opened. He came before Abaye to ascertain what he should do with the barrel. Abaye said to him: Go take the barrel for yourself.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 诪爪讗 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜砖诇 砖诪谉 讜砖诇 转讘讜讗讛 讜砖诇 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜砖诇 讝讬转讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 诇讻专讜讝 诪拽讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗

Rav Beivai raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: Is the location where the lost item was found a distinguishing mark, or is it not a distinguishing mark? Rav Na岣an said to him that you learned it in the baraita: If one found barrels of wine, or of oil, or of grain, or of dried figs, or of olives, these belong to him. And if it enters your mind that location is a distinguishing mark, let the finder proclaim what he found, and have the location serve as a distinguishing mark. Rav Zevid said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with the case of a barrel that was found on the bank of the river. Since it is the place where ships dock and merchandise belonging to many people is loaded and unloaded, the bank of a river cannot serve as a distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转专诪讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗转专诪讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讱 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讗转专诪讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讛讗讬 诪拽讜诐 讗转专诪讬 谞诪讬 诇讞讘专讱 讛讗讬 诪拽讜诐

Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that in the case of a lost item, the location of the bank of a river is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location on the bank of a river: Just as it happened that you lost an item there, it also happened that another person lost an item there. Some say a slightly different version of that which Rav Mari said: What is the reason that the Sages said that location is not a distinguishing mark? It is because we say to one seeking to reclaim his item by providing its location: Just as it happened that you placed an item in that place, it also happened that another placed an item in that place.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗砖讻讞 讻讜驻专讗 讘讬 诪注爪专转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 讞讝讬讬讛 讚讛讜讛 拽讗 诪讞住诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻诇讜讙 诇讬讛 诇讞讬讬讗 讘专讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 拽讗 住讘专 专讘 诪拽讜诐 诇讗 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诪砖讜诐 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 谞讙注讜 讘讛 讚讞讝讗 讚拽讚讞讬 讘讬讛 讞诇驻讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found pitch near the winepress. He came before Rav to ascertain what he should do with the pitch. Rav said to him: Go take the pitch for yourself. Rav saw that the man was hesitating, uncertain that he was entitled to the pitch. Rav, in an attempt to allay his qualms, said to him: Go divide it with 岣yya my son, as Rav would certainly not want his son to take a share of a stolen item. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rav holds that location is not a distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba said: That is not Rav鈥檚 reasoning. Rather, it is due to the despair of its owner that the Sages touched upon this matter and permitted the finder to keep such a found item. As, Rav saw that grass was growing through the pitch, indicating that it had been there for an extended period.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗谞驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讻讬 诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 讻讬 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one finds any anpurya vessels he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are anpurya vessels? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They are new vessels, as the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them to be able to recognize them. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there is a distinguishing mark on the vessels, when the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen them, what of it? He can describe the mark after even a short glance and claim his item. If there is no distinguishing mark on the vessels, then when the eye of the one who purchases them has sufficiently seen them, what of it?

诇注讜诇诐 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 住讬诪谉 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讙讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 注讘讬讚讬 专讘谞谉 讚诪砖谞讜 讘诪诇讬讬讛讜 讘诪住讻转 讜讘驻讜专讬讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is a vessel in which there is no distinguishing mark, and the practical difference is with regard to returning the vessel to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition. When the eye of a Torah scholar has sufficiently seen them he is certain about them, and we return a lost item to him on the basis of his description of the vessel. When the eye of a Torah scholar has not sufficiently seen them, he is not certain about them, and we do not return a lost item to him, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to these three matters alone, it is normal for Sages to amend their statements and deviate from the truth: With regard to a tractate, if he is asked whether he studied a particular tractate, he may humbly say that he did not, even if he did. And with regard to a bed, if he is asked whether he slept in a particular bed, he may say that he did not, to avoid shame in case some unseemly residue is found on the bed.

Scroll To Top