Shmuel listed three areas in which we can assume Torah scholars may be dishonest. Why? Can we assume they are honest in all other areas? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if something is lost in a public place, we can assume the owner despaired (has given up hope of ever getting the item back) and the finder can take the item. The Gemara questions whether he meant this only in a place where the majority of the people are Gentiles or even in a place where the majority are Jews. If he included also a place where the majority are Jews, do the rabbis agree, or do they disagree with him about both, or only in a case where the majority are Jews? Do we hold like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and if so, in both cases or only in the case where the majority are Gentiles? The Gemara tries to answer these questions by bringing various tannaitic sources and cases from the amoraim but most attempts to answer the questions are inconclusive.
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Metzia
Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v’Yehuda Tzvi.
רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על־כלנה
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Metzia 24
וּבְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵידְתָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. אִי יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְשַׁנֵּי אֶלָּא בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת – מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מְשַׁנֵּי בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
מָר זוּטְרָא חֲסִידָא אִגְּנִיב לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא מֵאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. חַזְיֵאּ לְהָהוּא בַּר בֵּי רַב דְּמָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ וְנָגֵיב בִּגְלִימָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר: הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּלָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ אַמָּמוֹנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי.
The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.
תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּכֵלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, כְּגוֹן בַּדֵּי מְחָטִין, וְצִינּוֹרִיּוֹת, וּמַחְרוֹזוֹת שֶׁל קַרְדּוּמּוֹת. כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵימָתַי מוּתָּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּצָאָן אֶחָד אֶחָד, אֲבָל מְצָאָן שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.
It is taught in a baraita: Although Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that one does not need to proclaim his finding of anpurya vessels, he concedes that the finder is obligated to proclaim his find of new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has sufficiently seen. And these are new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen and concerning which the finder is not obligated to proclaim his find: for example, branches [badei] upon which needles or utensils for spinning are hanging, or strings of axes. When is it permitted for the one who finds all those items that the tanna mentioned in the baraita to keep them? It is when he found them one at a time. But if he found them two at a time, the finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
מַאי ״בַּדֵּי״? שׂוֹכֵי. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּדֵּי״? דָּבָר דְּתָלוּ בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, ״בַּד״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ. כִּי הַהוּא דִּתְנַן הָתָם: עָלֶה אֶחָד בְּבַד אֶחָד.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term badei? It means branches. And why did the tanna call them branches? It is because the item upon which one hangs another item [davar detalu bei midei], he calls it a branch, like that which we learned there (Sukka 44b): One leaf on one branch.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּצִּיל מִן הָאֲרִי וּמִן הַדּוֹב וּמִן הַנָּמֵר וּמִן הַבַּרְדְּלָס וּמִן זוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם וּמִשְּׁלוּלִיתוֹ שֶׁל נָהָר, הַמּוֹצֵא בִּסְרַטְיָא וּפְלַטְיָא גְּדוֹלָה, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן.
§ The baraita continues: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: In the case of one who rescues a lost item from a lion, or from a bear, or from a leopard, or from a cheetah [bardelas], or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river; and in the case of one who finds a lost item in a main thoroughfare [seratya] or a large plaza [pelatya], or in any place where the multitudes are found, these items belong to him due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if one finds a lost item in any place where multitudes are found, the item belongs to him, did he refer only to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering the item, because he relies on the Jews to return his item? Or perhaps, even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also says that the item belongs to the one who found it.
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also said that the item belongs to the one who found it, do the Rabbis disagree with him or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם פְּלִיגִי אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him, in a place where there is a majority of Jews, they certainly disagree. In a place where there is a majority of gentiles, do the Rabbis disagree, or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, דַּוְקָא בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל?
And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, does this halakha apply specifically in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, or is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹצֵא מָעוֹת בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues [bevatei khenesiyyot] and study halls or in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him, due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a lost item belongs to the finder even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, as synagogues and study halls are places frequented exclusively by Jews.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּמְפוּזָּרִין. אִי בִּמְפוּזָּרִין מַאי אִרְיָא מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין הָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם!
The Gemara rejects the proof. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the coins are scattered and there is no distinguishing mark on them. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the coins are scattered, why did the baraita establish the case specifically in a place where the multitudes are found? Even in a place where the multitudes are not found, the coins belong to the finder.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בִּצְרוּרִין, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ גּוֹיִם. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת נָמֵי דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ נָכְרִים.
Rather, actually the baraita is referring to a case where the coins are bound, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the coins were found in the houses of assembly [bevatei khenesiyyot] of gentiles, not in synagogues. That resolves the matter of synagogues; but with regard to study halls, which are exclusive to Jews, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to our study halls in which gentile guards or custodians are sitting. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the batei khenesiyyot in the baraita can be explained as referring to our synagogues, in which gentiles are sitting.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָצָא בָּהּ אֲבֵידָה, אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם, אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא!
Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Makhshirin 2:8): In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside, if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Resolve from this mishna that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that the item belongs to the finder, it is referring specifically to a place where there is a majority of gentiles, but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, no, it does not belong to the finder.
מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם.
The Gemara rejects this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara suggests: In any case, resolve the dilemma from the mishna that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in a place where there is a majority of gentiles.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטָמוּן. אִי בְּטָמוּן, מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ?! וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא כְּלִי בָּאַשְׁפָּה, מְכוּסֶּה – לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, מְגוּלֶּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: Rather, actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and he stated his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. And with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the found item is concealed. The Gemara asks: If the item is concealed, what is the reason the item is with the finder? Clearly it was placed there and the owner will return to retrieve it. And didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if the vessel is concealed he may not touch it, but if it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.
The Gemara answers: It can be explained as Rav Pappa says elsewhere, that it is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed vessels he should proclaim his find, because otherwise the vessels will be cleared with the rest of the garbage dump. Here too, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed items, his course of action is determined by the identity of the majority of the residents of the city. If they are Jews, he must proclaim his find, and if not, he need not proclaim his find. No proof can be cited to resolve the dilemma.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, מִי קָתָנֵי ״הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ״? ״אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז״ קָתָנֵי. וְיַנִּיחַ, וְיֵיתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָהֵיב בֵּיהּ סִימָנָא וְשָׁקֵיל.
And if you wish, say instead that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is it taught in the mishna that the items are his? It is taught that he is not obligated to proclaim his find. He may not keep them, but he shall place the items in his possession and a Jew will come and provide a distinguishing mark to describe the items and take them.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מָצָא חָבִית יַיִן בְּעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה וַאֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן – מוּתֶּרֶת בִּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמוֹצְאָהּ.
Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Asi says: If one found a barrel of wine in a city whose population has a majority of gentiles, keeping the barrel is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items because it presumably belonged to a gentile, and deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, as it is presumed to be wine of a gentile. If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, drinking the wine is permitted for its finder, as it proved to be the wine of a Jew. Nevertheless, it belongs to the finder, because the owner despaired of recovering a barrel misplaced in a public area.
כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי קָאָמַר, וְרַב אַסִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from it that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated his opinion, it was only with regard to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering his lost item. The Gemara rejects the proof: Actually, I will say to you that even with regard to a place where there is a majority of Jews, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar also stated his opinion, and Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of gentiles, and disagrees with him in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of Jews.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲסִירָא בַּהֲנָאָה מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְקַנְקַנָּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies: And once it was established that deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, then with regard to the fact that it is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items, for what matter is that halakha relevant? Rav Ashi said: It is relevant with regard to deriving benefit from its container, which is permitted.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַשְׁכַּח אַרְבָּעָה זוּזֵי דְּצַיְירִי בִּסְדִינָא וּשְׁדוּ בִּנְהַר בֵּירָן, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַכְרֵיז. וְהָא זוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם הוּא! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בֵּירָן, כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְּקִיל לָא מִיָּאַשׁ. וְהָא רוּבָּא גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בֵּירָן, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ – אֵימוֹר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל נְפַל, וְכֵיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ – לָא מִיָּאַשׁ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found four dinars that were bound in a cloth and cast into the Biran River. He came before Rav Yehuda and asked how to proceed. Rav Yehuda said: Go proclaim your finding. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a case of an item lost in the tide of the sea that should therefore belong to the finder? The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different. Since it contains obstacles, the owner does not despair of recovering the lost item. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a place where the majority of the population is gentiles? Conclude from it that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles. The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different, as Jews dammed it and Jews dredge it. Since Jews dammed it, say that the coins fell from a Jew, and since Jews dredge it, the owner of the coins does not despair of recovering them.
רַב יְהוּדָה הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשׁוּקָא דְּבֵי דַיְסָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר. תַּרְתֵּי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. כִּי הָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַשְׁכַּח הָנָךְ חֲמָרֵי בְּמַדְבְּרָא וְאַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was moving along behind Mar Shmuel in the market where pounded grain was sold. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: If one found a purse [arnakei] here, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rav Yehuda asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The finder is obligated to return it. Rav Yehuda asked: These are two contradictory rulings. Shmuel said to him: By law, it belongs to him. When I said the finder is obligated to return it if he learns the identity of the owner, that was beyond the letter of the law. This is like that incident where Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the desert and returned them to their owner after the passage of twelve months of the year, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.
רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא דְגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְרַבָּנַן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ! נַעֲשָׂה כְּצוֹוֵחַ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם.
The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Naḥman in the tanner’s market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn’t the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Naḥman said to him: He becomes as one who screams to no avail about his house that collapsed or about his ship that sank in the sea.
הָהוּא דַּיּוֹ דְּשָׁקֵיל בִּשְׂרָא בְּשׁוּקָא וְשַׁדְיֵהּ בְּצִנְיָיתָא דְּבֵי בַּר מָרִיּוֹן. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. וְהָא רוּבָּא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! שָׁאנֵי דַּיּוֹ, דִּכְזוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם דָּמֵי. וְהָא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן – אָסוּר! בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain kite that took meat in the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon. The one who found the meat came before Abaye to ask how to proceed. Abaye said to him: Go take it for yourself. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the marketplace of kosher meat a place where there is a majority of Jews? Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. The Gemara answers: A kite is different, as an item taken by a kite is similar to a lost item swept away in the tide of the sea. The Gemara raises another issue: But doesn’t Rav say: Meat that was obscured from sight and unsupervised for a period of time is forbidden, as its source is unknown? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the finder stands and sees the meat from the moment that it was taken by the kite until it was cast among the trees.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מָצָא גְּדִי שָׁחוּט בֵּין טְבֶרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי וְהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָבְדוּ לוֹ גְּדָיָיו וְתַרְנְגוֹלָיו, הָלַךְ וּמְצָאָן שְׁחוּטִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַתִּיר.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina found a slaughtered young goat between Tiberias and Tzippori and the Sages permitted it to him. Rabbi Ami said: The Sages permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and they permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of the slaughter of kosher animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.
אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בַּבַּיִת. מִדְּהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה, רוּבָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר רָבָא: רוֹב גּוֹיִם וְרוֹב טַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where he found the slaughtered animals in a garbage dump, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was unfit. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the Sages permitted the meat to him in terms of the halakhot of slaughter, apparently, this place is one where there is a majority of Jews. Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. Rava said: It is a place where there is a majority of gentiles but the majority of slaughterers are Jews.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי אַשְׁכַּח פַּרְגִּיּוֹת שְׁחוּטוֹת בֵּין טְבֶרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַשְׁכַּח קִיבּוּרָא דְאִזְלֵי בֵּי אָזְלוֹיֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found slaughtered fledglings between Tiberias and Tzippori. He came before Rabbi Asi to ask how to proceed, and some say he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask how to proceed, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself, because he found it in a place frequented by the multitudes.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז: מָצָא פֵּירוֹת בִּכְלִי, אוֹ כְּלִי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. מָעוֹת בְּכִיס, אוֹ כִּיס כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. צִבּוּרֵי פֵירוֹת, צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת,
MISHNA: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: If one found produce inside a vessel, or a vessel by itself; coins inside a pouch, or a pouch by itself; piles of produce; piles of coins,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Richmond, CA, United States
Minnesota, United States
Bava Metzia 24
וּבְאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא: לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵידְתָּא בִּטְבִיעוּת עֵינָא. אִי יָדְעִינַן בֵּיהּ דְּלָא מְשַׁנֵּי אֶלָּא בְּהָנֵי תְּלָת – מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְאִי מְשַׁנֵּי בְּמִילֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא מַהְדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ.
And he can lie with regard to a host [ushpiza], as one may say that he was not well received by a certain host to prevent everyone from taking advantage of the host’s hospitality. What is the practical difference that emerges from this statement with regard to matters in which Torah scholars deviate from the truth? Mar Zutra says: The practical difference is with regard to returning a lost item on the basis of visual recognition. If we know about him that he alters his statements only with regard to these three matters, we return the lost item to him, but if he alters his statements with regard to other matters, we do not return the lost item to him.
מָר זוּטְרָא חֲסִידָא אִגְּנִיב לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא מֵאוּשְׁפִּיזָא. חַזְיֵאּ לְהָהוּא בַּר בֵּי רַב דְּמָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ וְנָגֵיב בִּגְלִימָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. אֲמַר: הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּלָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ אַמָּמוֹנָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ. כַּפְתֵיהּ וְאוֹדִי.
The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra Ḥasida. Mar Zutra saw a certain student of Torah who washed his hands and dried them on the cloak of another. Mar Zutra said: This is the one who does not care about the property of another. He bound that student, and the student then confessed that he stole the goblet.
תַּנְיָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּכֵלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן כֵּלִים חֲדָשִׁים שֶׁלֹּא שְׂבָעָתַן הָעַיִן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, כְּגוֹן בַּדֵּי מְחָטִין, וְצִינּוֹרִיּוֹת, וּמַחְרוֹזוֹת שֶׁל קַרְדּוּמּוֹת. כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵימָתַי מוּתָּרִים? בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּצָאָן אֶחָד אֶחָד, אֲבָל מְצָאָן שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז.
It is taught in a baraita: Although Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that one does not need to proclaim his finding of anpurya vessels, he concedes that the finder is obligated to proclaim his find of new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has sufficiently seen. And these are new vessels that the eye of its purchaser has not yet sufficiently seen and concerning which the finder is not obligated to proclaim his find: for example, branches [badei] upon which needles or utensils for spinning are hanging, or strings of axes. When is it permitted for the one who finds all those items that the tanna mentioned in the baraita to keep them? It is when he found them one at a time. But if he found them two at a time, the finder is obligated to proclaim his find.
מַאי ״בַּדֵּי״? שׂוֹכֵי. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לֵיהּ ״בַּדֵּי״? דָּבָר דְּתָלוּ בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי, ״בַּד״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ. כִּי הַהוּא דִּתְנַן הָתָם: עָלֶה אֶחָד בְּבַד אֶחָד.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of the term badei? It means branches. And why did the tanna call them branches? It is because the item upon which one hangs another item [davar detalu bei midei], he calls it a branch, like that which we learned there (Sukka 44b): One leaf on one branch.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּצִּיל מִן הָאֲרִי וּמִן הַדּוֹב וּמִן הַנָּמֵר וּמִן הַבַּרְדְּלָס וּמִן זוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם וּמִשְּׁלוּלִיתוֹ שֶׁל נָהָר, הַמּוֹצֵא בִּסְרַטְיָא וּפְלַטְיָא גְּדוֹלָה, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן.
§ The baraita continues: And likewise, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: In the case of one who rescues a lost item from a lion, or from a bear, or from a leopard, or from a cheetah [bardelas], or from the tide of the sea, or from the flooding of a river; and in the case of one who finds a lost item in a main thoroughfare [seratya] or a large plaza [pelatya], or in any place where the multitudes are found, these items belong to him due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if one finds a lost item in any place where multitudes are found, the item belongs to him, did he refer only to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering the item, because he relies on the Jews to return his item? Or perhaps, even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also says that the item belongs to the one who found it.
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי אָמַר, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, he also said that the item belongs to the one who found it, do the Rabbis disagree with him or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל וַדַּאי פְּלִיגִי, בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם פְּלִיגִי אוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him, in a place where there is a majority of Jews, they certainly disagree. In a place where there is a majority of gentiles, do the Rabbis disagree, or do they not disagree?
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ?
And if you say that the Rabbis disagree with him even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, דַּוְקָא בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל?
And if you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, does this halakha apply specifically in a place where there is a majority of gentiles, or is the halakha in accordance with his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמּוֹצֵא מָעוֹת בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבְבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: In the case of one who finds coins in synagogues [bevatei khenesiyyot] and study halls or in any place where the multitudes are found, these coins belong to him, due to the fact that the owner despairs of their recovery. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that a lost item belongs to the finder even in a place where there is a majority of Jews, as synagogues and study halls are places frequented exclusively by Jews.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בִּמְפוּזָּרִין. אִי בִּמְפוּזָּרִין מַאי אִרְיָא מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם? אֲפִילּוּ אֵין הָרַבִּים מְצוּיִין שָׁם!
The Gemara rejects the proof. With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the coins are scattered and there is no distinguishing mark on them. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the coins are scattered, why did the baraita establish the case specifically in a place where the multitudes are found? Even in a place where the multitudes are not found, the coins belong to the finder.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם בִּצְרוּרִין, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּבָתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בָּתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ גּוֹיִם. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת נָמֵי דִּידַן דְּיָתְבִי בְּהוּ נָכְרִים.
Rather, actually the baraita is referring to a case where the coins are bound, and with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the coins were found in the houses of assembly [bevatei khenesiyyot] of gentiles, not in synagogues. That resolves the matter of synagogues; but with regard to study halls, which are exclusive to Jews, what can be said? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to our study halls in which gentile guards or custodians are sitting. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the batei khenesiyyot in the baraita can be explained as referring to our synagogues, in which gentiles are sitting.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מָצָא בָּהּ אֲבֵידָה, אִם רוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז, אִם רוֹב גּוֹיִם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם, אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא!
Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Makhshirin 2:8): In a case when one found a lost item in a city where both Jews and gentiles reside, if the city has a majority of Jews he is obligated to proclaim his find. If there is a majority of gentiles he is not obligated to proclaim his find. Who is the one about whom you heard that he follows the multitudes, i.e., that he attaches significance to the loss of an item in a place where the multitudes are present? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Resolve from this mishna that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that the item belongs to the finder, it is referring specifically to a place where there is a majority of gentiles, but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, no, it does not belong to the finder.
מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם.
The Gemara rejects this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara suggests: In any case, resolve the dilemma from the mishna that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in a place where there is a majority of gentiles.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? בְּטָמוּן. אִי בְּטָמוּן, מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ?! וְהָתְנַן: מָצָא כְּלִי בָּאַשְׁפָּה, מְכוּסֶּה – לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, מְגוּלֶּה – נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: Rather, actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and he stated his opinion even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. And with what are we dealing here? This is a case where the found item is concealed. The Gemara asks: If the item is concealed, what is the reason the item is with the finder? Clearly it was placed there and the owner will return to retrieve it. And didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if the vessel is concealed he may not touch it, but if it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.
כִּדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי בְּאַשְׁפָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְפַנּוֹת, וְנִמְלַךְ עָלֶיהָ לְפַנּוֹתָהּ.
The Gemara answers: It can be explained as Rav Pappa says elsewhere, that it is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed vessels he should proclaim his find, because otherwise the vessels will be cleared with the rest of the garbage dump. Here too, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared, and the owner of the land reconsidered and decided to clear it. If one finds concealed items, his course of action is determined by the identity of the majority of the residents of the city. If they are Jews, he must proclaim his find, and if not, he need not proclaim his find. No proof can be cited to resolve the dilemma.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, מִי קָתָנֵי ״הֵן שֶׁלּוֹ״? ״אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז״ קָתָנֵי. וְיַנִּיחַ, וְיֵיתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָהֵיב בֵּיהּ סִימָנָא וְשָׁקֵיל.
And if you wish, say instead that actually the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Is it taught in the mishna that the items are his? It is taught that he is not obligated to proclaim his find. He may not keep them, but he shall place the items in his possession and a Jew will come and provide a distinguishing mark to describe the items and take them.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב אַסִּי: מָצָא חָבִית יַיִן בְּעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם – מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה וַאֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן – מוּתֶּרֶת בִּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמוֹצְאָהּ.
Come and hear a proof from that which Rav Asi says: If one found a barrel of wine in a city whose population has a majority of gentiles, keeping the barrel is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items because it presumably belonged to a gentile, and deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, as it is presumed to be wine of a gentile. If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, drinking the wine is permitted for its finder, as it proved to be the wine of a Jew. Nevertheless, it belongs to the finder, because the owner despaired of recovering a barrel misplaced in a public area.
כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר – בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם אֲבָל בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא. לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי קָאָמַר, וְרַב אַסִּי סָבַר לַהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara explains the proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Asi? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Conclude from it that when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated his opinion, it was only with regard to a place where there is a majority of gentiles; but in a place where there is a majority of Jews, the owner does not despair of recovering his lost item. The Gemara rejects the proof: Actually, I will say to you that even with regard to a place where there is a majority of Jews, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar also stated his opinion, and Rav Asi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of gentiles, and disagrees with him in one case, that of a place where there is a majority of Jews.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר דַּאֲסִירָא בַּהֲנָאָה מוּתֶּרֶת מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְקַנְקַנָּהּ.
The Gemara clarifies: And once it was established that deriving benefit from the wine is prohibited, then with regard to the fact that it is permitted in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items, for what matter is that halakha relevant? Rav Ashi said: It is relevant with regard to deriving benefit from its container, which is permitted.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַשְׁכַּח אַרְבָּעָה זוּזֵי דְּצַיְירִי בִּסְדִינָא וּשְׁדוּ בִּנְהַר בֵּירָן, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַכְרֵיז. וְהָא זוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם הוּא! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בֵּירָן, כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְּקִיל לָא מִיָּאַשׁ. וְהָא רוּבָּא גּוֹיִם נִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב גּוֹיִם! שָׁאנֵי נְהַר בֵּירָן, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל סָכְרוּ לֵיהּ – אֵימוֹר מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל נְפַל, וְכֵיוָן דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּרוּ לֵיהּ – לָא מִיָּאַשׁ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who found four dinars that were bound in a cloth and cast into the Biran River. He came before Rav Yehuda and asked how to proceed. Rav Yehuda said: Go proclaim your finding. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a case of an item lost in the tide of the sea that should therefore belong to the finder? The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different. Since it contains obstacles, the owner does not despair of recovering the lost item. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it a place where the majority of the population is gentiles? Conclude from it that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of gentiles. The Gemara answers: The Biran River is different, as Jews dammed it and Jews dredge it. Since Jews dammed it, say that the coins fell from a Jew, and since Jews dredge it, the owner of the coins does not despair of recovering them.
רַב יְהוּדָה הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשׁוּקָא דְּבֵי דַיְסָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר. תַּרְתֵּי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין. כִּי הָא דַּאֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אַשְׁכַּח הָנָךְ חֲמָרֵי בְּמַדְבְּרָא וְאַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְמָרַיְיהוּ לְבָתַר תְּרֵיסַר יַרְחֵי שַׁתָּא, לִפְנִים מִשּׁוּרַת הַדִּין.
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was moving along behind Mar Shmuel in the market where pounded grain was sold. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: If one found a purse [arnakei] here, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rav Yehuda asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The finder is obligated to return it. Rav Yehuda asked: These are two contradictory rulings. Shmuel said to him: By law, it belongs to him. When I said the finder is obligated to return it if he learns the identity of the owner, that was beyond the letter of the law. This is like that incident where Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the desert and returned them to their owner after the passage of twelve months of the year, as he acted beyond the letter of the law.
רָבָא הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא דְגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְרַבָּנַן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָצָא כָּאן אַרְנָקִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַן בָּהּ סִימָן, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וַהֲלֹא עוֹמֵד וְצוֹוֵחַ! נַעֲשָׂה כְּצוֹוֵחַ עַל בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנָּפַל וְעַל סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁטָּבְעָה בַּיָּם.
The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Naḥman in the tanner’s market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked him: If a Jew came and provided a distinguishing mark to describe it, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn’t the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Naḥman said to him: He becomes as one who screams to no avail about his house that collapsed or about his ship that sank in the sea.
הָהוּא דַּיּוֹ דְּשָׁקֵיל בִּשְׂרָא בְּשׁוּקָא וְשַׁדְיֵהּ בְּצִנְיָיתָא דְּבֵי בַּר מָרִיּוֹן. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. וְהָא רוּבָּא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! שָׁאנֵי דַּיּוֹ, דִּכְזוֹטוֹ שֶׁל יָם דָּמֵי. וְהָא אָמַר רַב: בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּם מִן הָעַיִן – אָסוּר! בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.
The Gemara relates: There was a certain kite that took meat in the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon. The one who found the meat came before Abaye to ask how to proceed. Abaye said to him: Go take it for yourself. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the marketplace of kosher meat a place where there is a majority of Jews? Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. The Gemara answers: A kite is different, as an item taken by a kite is similar to a lost item swept away in the tide of the sea. The Gemara raises another issue: But doesn’t Rav say: Meat that was obscured from sight and unsupervised for a period of time is forbidden, as its source is unknown? The Gemara answers: This is a case where the finder stands and sees the meat from the moment that it was taken by the kite until it was cast among the trees.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא מָצָא גְּדִי שָׁחוּט בֵּין טְבֶרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי וְהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם מְצִיאָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָבְדוּ לוֹ גְּדָיָיו וְתַרְנְגוֹלָיו, הָלַךְ וּמְצָאָן שְׁחוּטִין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר, וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַתִּיר.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina found a slaughtered young goat between Tiberias and Tzippori and the Sages permitted it to him. Rabbi Ami said: The Sages permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of finding lost items in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, and they permitted it to him in terms of the halakhot of the slaughter of kosher animals, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one’s young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.
אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בְּאַשְׁפָּה, וְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי כְּשֶׁמְּצָאָן בַּבַּיִת. מִדְּהִתִּירוּהוּ לוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁחִיטָה, רוּבָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ, שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אֲפִילּוּ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל! אָמַר רָבָא: רוֹב גּוֹיִם וְרוֹב טַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct in a case where he found the slaughtered animals in a garbage dump, as the concern is that they were thrown away because the slaughter was unfit. And the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, appears correct in a case where he found them in the house. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the Sages permitted the meat to him in terms of the halakhot of slaughter, apparently, this place is one where there is a majority of Jews. Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a place where there is a majority of Jews. Rava said: It is a place where there is a majority of gentiles but the majority of slaughterers are Jews.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי אַשְׁכַּח פַּרְגִּיּוֹת שְׁחוּטוֹת בֵּין טְבֶרְיָא לְצִיפּוֹרִי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא. וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ. רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אַשְׁכַּח קִיבּוּרָא דְאִזְלֵי בֵּי אָזְלוֹיֵי, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל שְׁקוֹל לְנַפְשָׁךְ.
The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found slaughtered fledglings between Tiberias and Tzippori. He came before Rabbi Asi to ask how to proceed, and some say he came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to ask how to proceed, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself, because he found it in a place frequented by the multitudes.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ חַיָּיב לְהַכְרִיז: מָצָא פֵּירוֹת בִּכְלִי, אוֹ כְּלִי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. מָעוֹת בְּכִיס, אוֹ כִּיס כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא. צִבּוּרֵי פֵירוֹת, צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת,
MISHNA: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: If one found produce inside a vessel, or a vessel by itself; coins inside a pouch, or a pouch by itself; piles of produce; piles of coins,
