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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 20, 2016 | 讬状讞 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 24

Certain exceptions are brought – one relating to a talmid chacham who is not known to be dishonest. 聽He can get a lost item back by merely identifying it by sight. 聽Another exception is that even though in a situation where the owner definitely despaired, if he realizes you found it, while there is no need to return it to him by the letter of the law, there are those who returned the items anyway – lifnim meshurat hadin – because it was the right thing to do. 聽Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if something is lost in a public place, we can assume the owner despaired. 聽 The gemara questions whether this is only in a place where the majority of the people are non Jews or even in a place where the majority of Jews. 聽And if he meant also Jews, do the rabbis disagree with him about both or only in a case where the majority are Jews. 聽And do we hold like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar and if so, in both cases or only in the case where the majority are non Jews. 聽The gemara tries to answer these questions by bringing various tannaitic sources and cases from the amoraim but are unable to find conclusive answers.

Study Guide Bava Metzia 24

讜讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讚转讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 诪砖谞讬 讗诇讗 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖谞讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讗讙谞讬讘 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 诪讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讚诪砖讬 讬讚讬讛 讜谞讙讬讘 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讗诪诪讜谞讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讻驻转讬讛 讜讗讜讚讬

The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra 岣sida. 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.

转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讻讙讜谉 讘讚讬 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讜诪讞专讜讝讜转 砖诇 拽专讚讜诪讜转 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬诪转讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪爪讗谉 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诪爪讗谉 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

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.

诪讗讬 讘讚讬 砖讜讻讬 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬 讚讘专 讚转诇讜 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讘讚 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 讛转诐 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讘讘讚 讗讞讚

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.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讜诪谉 讛讚讜讘 讜诪谉 讛谞诪专 讜诪谉 讛讘专讚诇住 讜诪谉 讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讜诪砖诇讜诇讬转讜 砖诇 谞讛专 讛诪讜爪讗 讘住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉

搂 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 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专

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.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

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?

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讚讜拽讗 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜爪讗 诪注讜转 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪驻讜讝专讬谉 讗讬 讘诪驻讜讝专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘爪专讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讚讬讚谉 讚讬转讘讬 讘讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚讬转讘讬 讘讛讜 谞讻专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪爪讗 讘讛 讗讘讬讚讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诐 专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

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.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟诪讜谉 讗讬 讘讟诪讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 诪讙讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

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鈥檛 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讜转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讜转讛

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛谉 砖诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 拽转谞讬 讜讬谞讬讞 讜讬讬转讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讛讬讘 讘讬讛 住讬诪谞讗 讜砖拽讬诇

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪爪讗 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 谞讻专讬诐 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜转专转 讘砖转讬讛 诇诪讜爪讗讛

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.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讜专讘 讗住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗住讬专讗 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇拽谞拽谞讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗砖讻讞 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讚爪讬讬专讬 讘住讚讬谞讗 讜砖讚讜 讘谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讻专讬讝 讜讛讗 讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转拽讬诇 诇讗 诪讬讗砖 讜讛讗 专讜讘讗 谞讻专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 住讻专讜 诇讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 讻专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 住讻专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 诪讬砖专讗诇 谞驻诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讗砖

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讘讬 讚讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讗 讻讗谉 讗专谞拽讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 转专转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讻讞 讛谞讱 讞诪专讬 讘诪讚讘专讗 讜讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 诇讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讙诇讚讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讗 讻讗谉 讗专谞拽讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讗 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞 谞注砖讛 讻爪讜讜讞 注诇 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇 讜注诇 住驻讬谞转讜 砖讟讘注讛 讘讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Na岣an in the tanner鈥檚 market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn鈥檛 the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讬讜 讚砖拽讬诇 讘砖专讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讜砖讚讬讛 讘爪谞讬讬转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 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 讜讛讗 专讜讘讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞讬 讚讬讜 讚讻讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 砖谞转注诇诐 诪谉 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪爪讗 讙讚讬 砖讞讜讟 讘讬谉 讟讘专讬讗 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讻专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讗讘讚讜 诇讜 讙讚讬讬讜 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬讜 讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪转讬专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one鈥檚 young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖诪爪讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻砖诪爪讗谉 讘讘讬转 诪讚讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讜专讜讘 讟讘讞讬 讬砖专讗诇

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 岣nanya, 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.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗砖讻讞 驻专讙讬讜转 砖讞讜讟讜转 讘讬谉 讟讘专讬讗 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗砖讻讞 拽讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讝诇讜讬讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱

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 Yo岣nan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 诪爪讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬 讗讜 讻诇讬 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 讗讜 讻讬住 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转 爪讘讜专讬 诪注讜转

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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 24

讜讘讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讚转讗 讘讟讘讬注讜转 注讬谞讗 讗讬 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讚诇讗 诪砖谞讬 讗诇讗 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诪砖谞讬 讘诪讬诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讞住讬讚讗 讗讙谞讬讘 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 诪讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讘专 讘讬 专讘 讚诪砖讬 讬讚讬讛 讜谞讙讬讘 讘讙诇讬诪讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 讗诪诪讜谞讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 讻驻转讬讛 讜讗讜讚讬

The Gemara relates: A silver goblet was stolen from the host of Mar Zutra 岣sida. 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.

转谞讬讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讻诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇讗 砖讘注转谉 讛注讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讻讙讜谉 讘讚讬 诪讞讟讬谉 讜爪讬谞讜专讬讜转 讜诪讞专讜讝讜转 砖诇 拽专讚讜诪讜转 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 讗讬诪转讬 诪讜转专讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖诪爪讗谉 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 诪爪讗谉 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

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.

诪讗讬 讘讚讬 砖讜讻讬 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讘讚讬 讚讘专 讚转诇讜 讘讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讘讚 拽专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 讛转诐 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讘讘讚 讗讞讚

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.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛诪爪讬诇 诪谉 讛讗专讬 讜诪谉 讛讚讜讘 讜诪谉 讛谞诪专 讜诪谉 讛讘专讚诇住 讜诪谉 讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讜诪砖诇讜诇讬转讜 砖诇 谞讛专 讛诪讜爪讗 讘住专讟讬讗 讜驻诇讟讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉

搂 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 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专

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.

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讜讚讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

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?

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜

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?

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转讜 讚讜拽讗 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜爪讗 诪注讜转 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讘注诇讬诐 诪转讬讗砖讬谉 诪讛谉 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬

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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪驻讜讝专讬谉 讗讬 讘诪驻讜讝专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 诪拽讜诐 砖讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讬谉 讛专讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘爪专讜专讬谉 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讚讬讚谉 讚讬转讘讬 讘讛讜 谞讻专讬诐 讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讬讚谉 讚讬转讘讬 讘讛讜 谞讻专讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪爪讗 讘讛 讗讘讬讚讛 讗诐 专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗诐 专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讘转专 专讜讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

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.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讟诪讜谉 讗讬 讘讟诪讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讙讘讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讘讗砖驻讛 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 诪讙讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

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鈥檛 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讜转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讜谞诪诇讱 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讜转讛

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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讛谉 砖诇讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 拽转谞讬 讜讬谞讬讞 讜讬讬转讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬讛讬讘 讘讬讛 住讬诪谞讗 讜砖拽讬诇

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 诪爪讗 讞讘讬转 讬讬谉 讘注讬专 砖专讜讘讛 谞讻专讬诐 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 讜讗住讜专讛 讘讛谞讗讛 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讜转专转 讘砖转讬讛 诇诪讜爪讗讛

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.

讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讜专讘 讗住讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

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.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗住讬专讗 讘讛谞讗讛 诪讜转专转 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇拽谞拽谞讛

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗砖讻讞 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讚爪讬讬专讬 讘住讚讬谞讗 讜砖讚讜 讘谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讻专讬讝 讜讛讗 讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转拽讬诇 诇讗 诪讬讗砖 讜讛讗 专讜讘讗 谞讻专讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛专 讘讬专谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 住讻专讜 诇讬讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 讻专讜 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 住讻专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讜专 诪讬砖专讗诇 谞驻诇 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬砖专讗诇 讻专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讗砖

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讘讬 讚讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讗 讻讗谉 讗专谞拽讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 转专转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗砖讻讞 讛谞讱 讞诪专讬 讘诪讚讘专讗 讜讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 诇讘转专 转专讬住专 讬专讞讬 砖转讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讙诇讚讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪讗 讻讗谉 讗专谞拽讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞转谉 讘讛 住讬诪谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讗 注讜诪讚 讜爪讜讜讞 谞注砖讛 讻爪讜讜讞 注诇 讘讬转讜 砖谞驻诇 讜注诇 住驻讬谞转讜 砖讟讘注讛 讘讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rava was moving along behind Rav Na岣an in the tanner鈥檚 market, and some say in the marketplace frequented by the Sages. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: If one found a purse here, what is the halakha? Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an said to him that in this case as well, the halakha is as the mishna states: These belong to him. Rava asked: But isn鈥檛 the owner justifiably standing and screaming that the purse belongs to him? Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讬讜 讚砖拽讬诇 讘砖专讗 讘砖讜拽讗 讜砖讚讬讛 讘爪谞讬讬转讗 讚讘讬 讘专 诪专讬讜谉 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 讜讛讗 专讜讘讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗谞讬 讚讬讜 讚讻讝讜讟讜 砖诇 讬诐 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖专 砖谞转注诇诐 诪谉 讛注讬谉 讗住讜专 讘注讜诪讚 讜专讜讗讛讜

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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪爪讗 讙讚讬 砖讞讜讟 讘讬谉 讟讘专讬讗 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讬讗讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 讻专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讗讘讚讜 诇讜 讙讚讬讬讜 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬讜 讛诇讱 讜诪爪讗谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜住专 讜专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪转讬专

The Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita: In a case where one鈥檚 young goats and roosters were lost, and the owner went and found them slaughtered, Rabbi Yehuda deems the meat forbidden, and Rabbi 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, deems it permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻砖诪爪讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 讜讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讗 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻砖诪爪讗谉 讘讘讬转 诪讚讛转讬专讜讛讜 诇讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讞讬讟讛 专讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬谞讛讜 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专讜讘 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讘 谞讻专讬诐 讜专讜讘 讟讘讞讬 讬砖专讗诇

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 岣nanya, 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.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗砖讻讞 驻专讙讬讜转 砖讞讜讟讜转 讘讬谉 讟讘专讬讗 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗砖讻讞 拽讬讘讜专讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬讛 讗讝诇讜讬讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱

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 Yo岣nan, and some say he came to the study hall. And they said to him: Go take it for yourself. Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 found a skein of thread from which a net was woven. He came before Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 诪爪讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬 讗讜 讻诇讬 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 讗讜 讻讬住 讻诪讜转 砖讛讜讗 爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转 爪讘讜专讬 诪注讜转

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,

Scroll To Top