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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 21, 2016 | 讬状讟 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Metzia 25

The mishna lists various items that one needs to announce if he finds聽them. 聽The gemara proceeds to explain some of the cases and in what way they need to be found, .i.e fruits in a basket but not next to the basket, money in a particular formation. 聽Some contradictory sources are brought and explanations are given. 聽The next mishna describes cases where an item without identifiable signs is left in a semi protected area and it is unclear if it was left there on 聽purpose and the owner is planning to return for it or if it is left by accident. 聽In that case, one is unable to pick it up as the owner will have no way to retrieve his item since it has no signs.


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

砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讜转 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讛诇拽讜讞讬谉 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

three coins stacked one atop another; bundles of grain in a secluded area; loaves of a homeowner, as each shapes his loaves in his own unique manner; wool fleeces that are taken from the house of a craftsman, as each craftsman processes the wool in his own unique manner; jugs of wine; or jugs of oil. If one finds any of these, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬 讜诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 讛讗 讻诇讬 讜诇驻谞讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讻讬住 讜诇驻谞讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讜诇驻谞讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讻讬住 讜诇驻谞讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪拽爪转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜诪拽爪转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪拽爪转谉 讘讻讬住 讜诪拽爪转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason one is obligated to proclaim his find is that he found produce inside the vessel or coins inside the pouch; but if he found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. The Gemara comments: We learn from this mishna by inference that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If one found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. If some of the produce is in the vessel and some of the produce is on the ground, or if some of the coins are inside the pouch and some of them are on the ground, one is obligated to proclaim his find.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讘爪讚 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讘讗 讘注诇 住讬诪谉 讜谞讟诇 讗转 砖诇讜 讝讻讛 讛诇讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: If one found an item on which there is no distinguishing mark alongside an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, he is obligated to proclaim that he found both. If the owner of the item with the distinguishing mark came and took his item but did not claim ownership of the other item, the other person, who found the items, acquires the item on which there is no distinguishing mark. This halakha should also apply when one finds a vessel on which there is a distinguishing mark and produce on which there is no distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜讘讗 讜讻讬转谞讗 讛讗 讘爪谞讗 讜驻讬专讬

The Gemara cites several possible resolutions to this contradiction. Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of both the vessel and the produce, is referring to a container and flax. Since the flax fibers are intertwined, when part of the flax falls out of the container, all of the flax would fall out. Therefore, the fact that the flax is completely outside the container is not an indication that it was never in the container. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a basket and produce. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, presumably some produce would remain in the basket, because the individual units of produce are not connected. Therefore, the fact that no produce was found in the basket indicates that the produce did not fall out of the basket.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘爪谞讗 讜驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬

Rav Pappa said: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a basket and produce, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the vessel, is referring to a case where some produce remains in the basket. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, indicating that the produce fell from it. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is not facing the produce.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬谉 诇爪谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬谉 诇爪谞讗

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the empty basket has a rim. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, the rim would have prevented some of the produce from falling. This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the basket has no rim and therefore the produce in its entirety could have fallen from the basket.

爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转 讜爪讘讜专讬 诪注讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪谞讬谉 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转谞讬 爪讘讜专 驻讬专讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转谞讬 爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Piles of produce and piles of coins. Conclude from it that number is a distinguishing mark, and one reclaims his produce or coins by correctly declaring the number of piles. The Gemara rejects that proof. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: A pile of produce. It is not the number of piles but their location that serves as a determining mark. Based on that emendation, conclude from it that location is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara rejects that proof as well. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: Piles of produce. Since the authoritative version of the mishna is unclear, no proof can be cited from it.

砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讜转 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讜讛讜讗 砖注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Three coins stacked one atop another. Rabbi Yitz岣k from Migdal says: And one is obligated to proclaim the find in a case where the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers. This is also taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The baraita elaborates: And these coins are arranged in towers: Three coins stacked one atop another.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 诪砖诇讞驻讬 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讛讗 诪砖诇讞驻讬 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 转谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 诪驻讜讝专讜转 拽专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction in the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. In the first clause of the baraita, you said: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap [meshal岣fei shal岣fei], he is obligated to proclaim his find. Say the latter clause of the baraita: If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap, those coins belong to him. The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita calls any pile of coins that is not arranged in well-ordered towers: Scattered.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rabbi 岣nina says: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins minted by three different kings, but if all the coins were minted by one king, one is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if all the coins were minted by one king, the finder should also be obligated to proclaim his find. And if the coins are not arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if the coins were minted by three kings, the finder should also not be obligated to proclaim his find.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讻注讬谉 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 专讜讬讞讗 转转讗讛 讜诪爪讬注讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讝讜讟讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪爪讬注讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞讜讞讬 讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗讬诪专 讗转专诪讜讬讬 讗转专诪讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞驻讜诇

Rather, if Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins of different sizes minted by one king, which are similar to coins minted by three kings. But if they are coins of the same size minted by one king, he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara elaborates: According to this interpretation, what are the circumstances of coins that are arranged in well-ordered towers and which one must proclaim? It is when the bottom coin is broadest, and the intermediate-sized coin is atop it and the smallest coin is atop the intermediate one, as we say: They were placed there and are not lost at all. But if one finds coins minted by one king, each of them sized like the other, even if each is placed upon the other, those coins belong to the finder. The reason is that it is possible to say that it is happenstance and they fell together, so their arrangement is not a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转诇转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讘注讗 诪讻专讬讝

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the coins were minted by one king, one is also obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What does one proclaim in order to invite the owner to describe his item? The Gemara answers: He proclaims that he found coins and the owner specifies the number of coins. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna specifically teach a case where one found three coins when even if one found two coins they could be identified by their number? Ravina said: Since the finder proclaims that he found coins, using the plural term, indicating that there were at least two coins, if the owner claims that he lost two coins, the default of the plural term, he is not providing a distinguishing mark. Therefore, the mishna teaches a case of three coins.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻砖讬专 诪讛讜 讻砖讜专讛 诪讛讜 讻讞爪讜讘讛 诪讛讜 讻住讜诇诐 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one found coins config-ured like a round bracelet, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a straight line, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a triangle, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a ladder, one partially upon the other and partially protruding, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讻谞讬住 诇讛 拽讬住诐 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: For any arrangement of coins such that if one were to introduce a wood chip between the coins he could thereby lift them all at once with that wood chip, he is obligated to proclaim his find. Based on that criterion, one can conclude that if one finds coins configured like a ladder, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:

讻讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 诪讛讜

If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to the Roman deity Mercury, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讻讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma. As it is taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara explains: And these are coins that were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury: One was situated here on one side, and one was situated there alongside it, and one was situated atop the two of them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 住诇注 讘砖讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛讬讗 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讗 谞讬专讜谞讬转 讛讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪讜 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇诪讟讘注 讚讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 讗驻拽讗 讜诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞驻诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who finds a sela coin in the marketplace and another person finds him and says: It is mine, and the distinguishing mark is that it is new, or that it is a coin minted by the emperor Nero, or that it is minted by king so-and-so, he has not said anything and the finder need not give him the sela. Moreover, even if his name is written on the sela he has not said anything, due to the fact that there is no distinguishing mark for a coin that is effective in its recovery, as the finder says: Perhaps he spent the coin and it fell from another person.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讗讞专 讛讙驻讛 讗讜 讗讞专 讛讙讚专 讙讜讝诇讜转 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讗讜 讘砖讘讬诇讬谉 砖讘砖讚讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讘讗砖驻讛 讗诐 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 讗诐 诪讙讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

MISHNA: If one found, behind a wooden fence or behind a stone fence, bound fledglings, or if he found them in the paths that run through fields, he may not touch them, as they were certainly placed there intentionally. In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 讗讬谞砖 讗爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 诇砖讘拽讬谞讛讜 注讚 讚讗转讬 诪专讬讬讛讜 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讛讜

GEMARA: What is the reason that one may not touch the fledglings? The Gemara answers: The reason is that we say with regard to these birds: A person concealed them, and if one takes them, their owner has no distinguishing mark on them that would enable him to reclaim them. Therefore, let the finder leave the birds in place until their owner comes and takes them.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 拽砖专 住讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讜砖专讬谉 讘讻谞驻讬讛谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 诪拽讟专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: But why? Let the knot binding them serve as their distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: This is a case where the birds were bound at their wings. Since everyone binds them in that manner, the knot binding the birds is not a distinguishing mark.

讜诇讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讘诪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讘诪讚讚讬谉 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And let their location serve as their distinguishing mark. Rav Ukva bar 岣ma said: This is a case where the birds hop and do not remain in place. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the birds hop, perhaps the birds came to that location from elsewhere and it is permitted for the finder to keep them.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谞砖 讗爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: It can be said that the birds came from elsewhere and it can be said that a person concealed them, and the result is uncertainty with regard to whether the placement of the birds was deliberate, i.e., whether or not they are lost items. And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rav says: In any case of uncertainty as to whether the placement of an item was deliberate, one may not take it ab initio. And if he took it, he need not return it.

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 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖驻讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one found a vessel concealed in a garbage dump, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared. Therefore, presumably it was not placed there; rather, it is a lost item and one is obligated to proclaim his find.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 讛讗 讘住讻讬谞讬 讜讛诪谞讬拽 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 诇讗 讬讙注 讘住讻讬谞讬 讜讛诪谞讬拽 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This mishna is referring to containers or cups. That baraita is referring to knives or a fork [vehamnik]. The Gemara elaborates: In the case of containers or cups, which are large, it is inconceivable that they fell there inadvertently, so he may not touch them. In the case of knives or forks, which are small, there is room for uncertainty as to whether it was placed there or whether it fell, so the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讻讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转

Rav Pappa said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to containers and cups, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared; therefore, he must take the vessel and proclaim his find to prevent it from being cleared with the garbage. There, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared; as it is possible that the owner placed it there, the finder may not touch it.

讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 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

The Gemara asks: How could one be obligated to proclaim his find of a vessel in a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared? Even if the owner of the vessel concealed it there, it is a deliberate loss and the owner renounced ownership of the vessel. The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讗讬 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻诇讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is the reason that the tanna teaches in the baraita: He takes it and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared, as the ruling is dependent on whether the dump is ultimately cleared. But according to Rav Zevid, the reason for the ruling in the baraita is that the utensils found were knives and forks. What is the relevance of the statement in the baraita: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared? The Gemara answers that according to Rav Zevid, it means: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to inadvertently have small utensils cleared, i.e., discarded, into it.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘讙诇 讜讘讻讜转诇 讬砖谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪爪讗 讘讻讜转诇 讞讚砖 诪讞爪讬讜 讜诇讞讜抓 砖诇讜 诪讞爪讬讜 讜诇驻谞讬诐 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

MISHNA: If one found lost items in a heap of stone rubble or in an old wall, these belong to him. If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. If he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the homeowner would rent the house to others on a regular basis and there was a steady turnover of residents, even if one found lost items inside the house, these belong to him. Since the owner of the lost items cannot be identified based on location, he will certainly despair of recovering his lost items.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖诇 讗诪讜专讬讬诐 讛谉 讗讟讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 诪爪谞注讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪爪谞注讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one found a lost item in a heap of rubble or in an old wall it belongs to him. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is his due to the fact that when the owner of the heap or wall claims the property, the finder can say to him: They belong to the Amorites, who lived in Eretz Yisrael before it was conquered by the Jews. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Amorites conceal items but Jews do not conceal items? Perhaps it was the homeowner who placed the item in the wall or the heap. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary only in the specific case

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 25

砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讜转 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛 讻专讬讻讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讻讻专讜转 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讙讬讝讬 爪诪专 讛诇拽讜讞讬谉 诪讘讬转 讛讗讜诪谉 讻讚讬 讬讬谉 讜讻讚讬 砖诪谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

three coins stacked one atop another; bundles of grain in a secluded area; loaves of a homeowner, as each shapes his loaves in his own unique manner; wool fleeces that are taken from the house of a craftsman, as each craftsman processes the wool in his own unique manner; jugs of wine; or jugs of oil. If one finds any of these, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪讗 驻讬专讜转 讘讻诇讬 讜诪注讜转 讘讻讬住 讛讗 讻诇讬 讜诇驻谞讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讻讬住 讜诇驻谞讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讜诇驻谞讬讜 驻讬专讜转 讻讬住 讜诇驻谞讬讜 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪拽爪转谉 讘讻诇讬 讜诪拽爪转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪拽爪转谉 讘讻讬住 讜诪拽爪转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason one is obligated to proclaim his find is that he found produce inside the vessel or coins inside the pouch; but if he found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. The Gemara comments: We learn from this mishna by inference that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: If one found a vessel and produce was before it, or if he found a pouch and coins were before it, those, the produce and coins, belong to him. If some of the produce is in the vessel and some of the produce is on the ground, or if some of the coins are inside the pouch and some of them are on the ground, one is obligated to proclaim his find.

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讘爪讚 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 住讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讘讗 讘注诇 住讬诪谉 讜谞讟诇 讗转 砖诇讜 讝讻讛 讛诇讛 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 住讬诪谉

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita: If one found an item on which there is no distinguishing mark alongside an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, he is obligated to proclaim that he found both. If the owner of the item with the distinguishing mark came and took his item but did not claim ownership of the other item, the other person, who found the items, acquires the item on which there is no distinguishing mark. This halakha should also apply when one finds a vessel on which there is a distinguishing mark and produce on which there is no distinguishing mark.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜讘讗 讜讻讬转谞讗 讛讗 讘爪谞讗 讜驻讬专讬

The Gemara cites several possible resolutions to this contradiction. Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of both the vessel and the produce, is referring to a container and flax. Since the flax fibers are intertwined, when part of the flax falls out of the container, all of the flax would fall out. Therefore, the fact that the flax is completely outside the container is not an indication that it was never in the container. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a basket and produce. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, presumably some produce would remain in the basket, because the individual units of produce are not connected. Therefore, the fact that no produce was found in the basket indicates that the produce did not fall out of the basket.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘爪谞讗 讜驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬

Rav Pappa said: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a basket and produce, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the vessel, is referring to a case where some produce remains in the basket. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讬讬专 讘讛 诪讬讚讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where no produce remains in the basket, and nevertheless it is not difficult: This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim his finding of the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, indicating that the produce fell from it. That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is not facing the produce.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诪讛讚专讬 讗驻讬讛 诇讙讘讬 驻讬专讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬谉 诇爪谞讗 讛讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗讜讙谞讬谉 诇爪谞讗

And if you wish, say instead: Both this ruling and that ruling are referring to a case where the mouth of the basket is facing the produce, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: That mishna, from which it is inferred that produce found outside the vessel belongs to the finder, is referring to a case where the empty basket has a rim. Had the produce fallen out of the basket, the rim would have prevented some of the produce from falling. This baraita, where the finder is obligated to proclaim the produce found outside the empty vessel, is referring to a case where the basket has no rim and therefore the produce in its entirety could have fallen from the basket.

爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转 讜爪讘讜专讬 诪注讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪谞讬谉 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转谞讬 爪讘讜专 驻讬专讜转 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讬 住讬诪谉 转谞讬 爪讘讜专讬 驻讬专讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Piles of produce and piles of coins. Conclude from it that number is a distinguishing mark, and one reclaims his produce or coins by correctly declaring the number of piles. The Gemara rejects that proof. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: A pile of produce. It is not the number of piles but their location that serves as a determining mark. Based on that emendation, conclude from it that location is a distinguishing mark. The Gemara rejects that proof as well. Perhaps one should teach the mishna as stating: Piles of produce. Since the authoritative version of the mishna is unclear, no proof can be cited from it.

砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讜转 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪讙讚诇讗讛 讜讛讜讗 砖注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讟讘注讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讙讘 讝讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And for these found items, one is obligated to proclaim his find: Three coins stacked one atop another. Rabbi Yitz岣k from Migdal says: And one is obligated to proclaim the find in a case where the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers. This is also taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The baraita elaborates: And these coins are arranged in towers: Three coins stacked one atop another.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 诪砖诇讞驻讬 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讛讗 诪砖诇讞驻讬 砖诇讞讜驻讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 转谞讗 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 诪驻讜讝专讜转 拽专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara notes an apparent contradiction in the baraita. This baraita itself is difficult. In the first clause of the baraita, you said: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap [meshal岣fei shal岣fei], he is obligated to proclaim his find. Say the latter clause of the baraita: If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, he is obligated to proclaim his find, from which it can be inferred that if the coins partially overlap, those coins belong to him. The Gemara answers: The tanna of the baraita calls any pile of coins that is not arranged in well-ordered towers: Scattered.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讜讗讬 讚讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗

Rabbi 岣nina says: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins minted by three different kings, but if all the coins were minted by one king, one is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the coins are arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if all the coins were minted by one king, the finder should also be obligated to proclaim his find. And if the coins are not arranged in well-ordered towers, then even if the coins were minted by three kings, the finder should also not be obligated to proclaim his find.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讻注讬谉 砖诇砖讛 诪诇讻讬诐 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚注砖讜讬讬谉 讻诪讙讚诇讬诐 专讜讬讞讗 转转讗讛 讜诪爪讬注讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讜讝讜讟讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪爪讬注讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗谞讜讞讬 讗谞讞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讞讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗讬诪专 讗转专诪讜讬讬 讗转专诪讬 讜讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 谞驻讜诇

Rather, if Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 ruling was stated, this is how it was stated: The Sages taught that one must proclaim his find only when he finds coins of different sizes minted by one king, which are similar to coins minted by three kings. But if they are coins of the same size minted by one king, he is not obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara elaborates: According to this interpretation, what are the circumstances of coins that are arranged in well-ordered towers and which one must proclaim? It is when the bottom coin is broadest, and the intermediate-sized coin is atop it and the smallest coin is atop the intermediate one, as we say: They were placed there and are not lost at all. But if one finds coins minted by one king, each of them sized like the other, even if each is placed upon the other, those coins belong to the finder. The reason is that it is possible to say that it is happenstance and they fell together, so their arrangement is not a distinguishing mark.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪讗讬 诪讻专讬讝 诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转诇转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讟讘注讗 诪讻专讬讝

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if the coins were minted by one king, one is also obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara asks: What does one proclaim in order to invite the owner to describe his item? The Gemara answers: He proclaims that he found coins and the owner specifies the number of coins. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna specifically teach a case where one found three coins when even if one found two coins they could be identified by their number? Ravina said: Since the finder proclaims that he found coins, using the plural term, indicating that there were at least two coins, if the owner claims that he lost two coins, the default of the plural term, he is not providing a distinguishing mark. Therefore, the mishna teaches a case of three coins.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻砖讬专 诪讛讜 讻砖讜专讛 诪讛讜 讻讞爪讜讘讛 诪讛讜 讻住讜诇诐 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one found coins config-ured like a round bracelet, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a straight line, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a triangle, what is the halakha? If they were configured like a ladder, one partially upon the other and partially protruding, what is the halakha?

驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讞讚讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讻谞讬住 诇讛 拽讬住诐 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝

The Gemara suggests: Resolve at least one of these dilemmas, as Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: For any arrangement of coins such that if one were to introduce a wood chip between the coins he could thereby lift them all at once with that wood chip, he is obligated to proclaim his find. Based on that criterion, one can conclude that if one finds coins configured like a ladder, he is obligated to proclaim his find.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:

讻讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 诪讛讜

If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to the Roman deity Mercury, what is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 诪爪讗 诪注讜转 诪驻讜讝专讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讻讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讗讘谞讬 讘讬转 拽讜诇讬住 讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 注诇 讙讘讬讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma. As it is taught in a baraita: If one found scattered coins, these belong to him. If they were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury, he is obligated to proclaim his find. The Gemara explains: And these are coins that were configured like the stones of the house of worship dedicated to Mercury: One was situated here on one side, and one was situated there alongside it, and one was situated atop the two of them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜爪讗 住诇注 讘砖讜拽 讜诪爪讗讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜讗诪专 砖诇讬 讛讬讗 讞讚砖讛 讛讬讗 谞讬专讜谞讬转 讛讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 驻诇讜谞讬 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诪讜 讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谉 诇诪讟讘注 讚讗诪专 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讜拽讬 讗驻拽讗 讜诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞驻诇

The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who finds a sela coin in the marketplace and another person finds him and says: It is mine, and the distinguishing mark is that it is new, or that it is a coin minted by the emperor Nero, or that it is minted by king so-and-so, he has not said anything and the finder need not give him the sela. Moreover, even if his name is written on the sela he has not said anything, due to the fact that there is no distinguishing mark for a coin that is effective in its recovery, as the finder says: Perhaps he spent the coin and it fell from another person.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讗讞专 讛讙驻讛 讗讜 讗讞专 讛讙讚专 讙讜讝诇讜转 诪拽讜砖专讬诐 讗讜 讘砖讘讬诇讬谉 砖讘砖讚讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讛谉 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讘讗砖驻讛 讗诐 诪讻讜住讛 诇讗 讬讙注 讘讜 讗诐 诪讙讜诇讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

MISHNA: If one found, behind a wooden fence or behind a stone fence, bound fledglings, or if he found them in the paths that run through fields, he may not touch them, as they were certainly placed there intentionally. In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛谞讬 讗讬谞砖 讗爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诇诪专讬讬讛讜 住讬诪谞讗 讘讙讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛诇讻讱 诇砖讘拽讬谞讛讜 注讚 讚讗转讬 诪专讬讬讛讜 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讛讜

GEMARA: What is the reason that one may not touch the fledglings? The Gemara answers: The reason is that we say with regard to these birds: A person concealed them, and if one takes them, their owner has no distinguishing mark on them that would enable him to reclaim them. Therefore, let the finder leave the birds in place until their owner comes and takes them.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 拽砖专 住讬诪谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讜砖专讬谉 讘讻谞驻讬讛谉 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讛讻讬 诪拽讟专讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: But why? Let the knot binding them serve as their distinguishing mark. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: This is a case where the birds were bound at their wings. Since everyone binds them in that manner, the knot binding the birds is not a distinguishing mark.

讜诇讛讜讬 诪拽讜诐 住讬诪谉 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讘诪讚讚讬谉 讗讬 讘诪讚讚讬谉 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 讜诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara asks: And let their location serve as their distinguishing mark. Rav Ukva bar 岣ma said: This is a case where the birds hop and do not remain in place. The Gemara asks: If it is a case where the birds hop, perhaps the birds came to that location from elsewhere and it is permitted for the finder to keep them.

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注诇诪讗 讗转讜 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谞砖 讗爪谞注讬谞讛讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 住驻拽 讛讬谞讜讞 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers: It can be said that the birds came from elsewhere and it can be said that a person concealed them, and the result is uncertainty with regard to whether the placement of the birds was deliberate, i.e., whether or not they are lost items. And Rabbi Abba bar Zavda says that Rav says: In any case of uncertainty as to whether the placement of an item was deliberate, one may not take it ab initio. And if he took it, he need not return it.

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 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪爪讗 讻诇讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖驻讛 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where one found a vessel in a garbage dump, if it is concealed, he may not touch it, as a person certainly concealed it there. If it is exposed, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If one found a vessel concealed in a garbage dump, the finder takes the item and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared. Therefore, presumably it was not placed there; rather, it is a lost item and one is obligated to proclaim his find.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 讛讗 讘住讻讬谞讬 讜讛诪谞讬拽 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 诇讗 讬讙注 讘住讻讬谞讬 讜讛诪谞讬拽 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝

Rav Zevid said that this is not difficult: This mishna is referring to containers or cups. That baraita is referring to knives or a fork [vehamnik]. The Gemara elaborates: In the case of containers or cups, which are large, it is inconceivable that they fell there inadvertently, so he may not touch them. In the case of knives or forks, which are small, there is room for uncertainty as to whether it was placed there or whether it fell, so the finder takes the item and proclaims his find.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 讘讻讜讘讬 讜讻住讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讻讗谉 讘讗砖驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转

Rav Pappa said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to containers and cups, and nevertheless, it is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared; therefore, he must take the vessel and proclaim his find to prevent it from being cleared with the garbage. There, the mishna is referring to a garbage dump that is not designed to be cleared; as it is possible that the owner placed it there, the finder may not touch it.

讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇驻谞讜转 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讚注转 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 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

The Gemara asks: How could one be obligated to proclaim his find of a vessel in a garbage dump that is designed to be cleared? Even if the owner of the vessel concealed it there, it is a deliberate loss and the owner renounced ownership of the vessel. The Gemara answers: Rather, the baraita 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪讗讬 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讗砖驻讛 诇驻谞讜转 诇讛 讻诇讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is the reason that the tanna teaches in the baraita: He takes it and proclaims his find, because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared, as the ruling is dependent on whether the dump is ultimately cleared. But according to Rav Zevid, the reason for the ruling in the baraita is that the utensils found were knives and forks. What is the relevance of the statement in the baraita: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to be cleared? The Gemara answers that according to Rav Zevid, it means: Because it is routine for a garbage dump to inadvertently have small utensils cleared, i.e., discarded, into it.

诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘讙诇 讜讘讻讜转诇 讬砖谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 诪爪讗 讘讻讜转诇 讞讚砖 诪讞爪讬讜 讜诇讞讜抓 砖诇讜 诪讞爪讬讜 讜诇驻谞讬诐 砖诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜

MISHNA: If one found lost items in a heap of stone rubble or in an old wall, these belong to him. If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. If he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the homeowner would rent the house to others on a regular basis and there was a steady turnover of residents, even if one found lost items inside the house, these belong to him. Since the owner of the lost items cannot be identified based on location, he will certainly despair of recovering his lost items.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 砖诇 讗诪讜专讬讬诐 讛谉 讗讟讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 诪爪谞注讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诪爪谞注讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one found a lost item in a heap of rubble or in an old wall it belongs to him. The Sages taught in a baraita: It is his due to the fact that when the owner of the heap or wall claims the property, the finder can say to him: They belong to the Amorites, who lived in Eretz Yisrael before it was conquered by the Jews. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Amorites conceal items but Jews do not conceal items? Perhaps it was the homeowner who placed the item in the wall or the heap. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is necessary only in the specific case

Scroll To Top