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

Daf Yomi

March 25, 2024 | 讟状讜 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖驻状讚

  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 26

Today’s daf is sponsored in memory of haRav Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l.

When one finds an object in a wall, what clues are there in the placement of the object that can attest to whether it belonged to the owner or to someone from the street who left it there? If the object was placed in a part close to the house, but the house was rented to others, there is no obligation to return the object. How does this halacha fit with the Mishna in Shekalim 19 where we assume that money found on the streets of Jerusalem during the holiday season was second tithe money and not from money that may have been left there from the week before? Reish Lakish quotes Bar Kapara and explains that it refers to a room rented to three Jews. How can one explain that in light of the issue in Bava Metzia 24 where they grappled with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar鈥檚 opinion and were unable to decide whether or not there is despair when there is a majority of Jews. There are two resolutions to this question. Rav Menashia bar Yaakov explains that there were three gentiles, not Jews. But Rav Nachman differentiates between the case that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar was relating to and this case. Rav Nachman鈥檚 explanation of this case is consistent with another teaching of his. Raba limits the case of the teaching of Rav Nachman. Raba describes three cases where there is a combination of theft and restitution of lost property and explains what offenses the one who found lost property committed. The Mishna rules in cases where money is found in a store or in a money changer鈥檚 store. What are the guidelines for keeping the lost item? Rabbi Elazar rules about a case that was not mentioned in the Mishna. Is it possible to raise a difficulty on his ruling from the wording of the Mishna? What in the Mishna motivated him to understand the halakha in this way?

讚砖转讬讱 讟驻讬


where the item is extremely rusted, indicating that it had been left there for a long time.


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


搂 The mishna teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. But if he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讻讬谞讗 讘转专 拽转讗 讜讻讬住讗 讘转专 砖谞爪讬讛


Rav Ashi said: The determination of ownership with regard to a knife found in a wall follows the handle, and the determination of ownership with regard to a money pouch follows the laces at the opening of the pouch. If the handle or laces face inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the handle or laces face outward, they belong to the finder.


讜讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜诇讞讝讬 讗讬 拽转讗 诇讙讗讜 讗讬 拽转讗 诇讘专 讗讬 砖谞爪讬讛 诇讙讗讜 讗讬 砖谞爪讬讛 诇讘专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗讜讚专讗 讜谞住讻讗


The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the applicability of the ruling of the mishna, which teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him, and from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner? But instead, to determine ownership, let us see if its handle faces inward or if its handle faces outward, or if its straps face inward or if its straps face outward. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where one found rags or metal strips.


转谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讜转诇 诪诪讜诇讗 诪讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪砖驻注 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖转驻讜讻讬 讗讬砖转驻讜讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


It is taught: If the hollow in the wall was filled with lost items, e.g., coins, the homeowner and the finder divide them. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this only in a case where the hollow in the wall is inclined toward one side of the wall. Lest you say that all the items were initially on the elevated side, and due to the incline they slipped and filled the entire space, the tanna teaches us that the homeowner and the finder divide them.


讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: And why do they belong to the finder? Let us follow the last renter and determine that he is the owner of the items.


诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 住讜讞专讬 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪注砖专 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讜诇讬谉


Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:2): With regard to money that was found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, it is always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with second-tithe money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would typically purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money. If the money was found on the Temple Mount it is considered non-sacred money. This halakha applies even during a Festival, when people would come to Jerusalem with second-tithe money in hand, as it can be assumed that one who entered the Temple Mount had already spent that money and only non-sacred money is left in his possession.


讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讛讻诇 诪注砖专


The mishna continues: And if the coins were found elsewhere in Jerusalem, the following distinction applies: If it was found during the rest of the days of the year, it is considered non-sacred money. But if the money was found during the Festival, when many people would come to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, all money is presumed to be second-tithe money.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝注讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注砖讜讬谉 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讗讝诇讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讝诇 讜讛谞讬 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗


And Rav Shemaya bar Ze鈥檈ira says in explanation of the mishna: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the money is considered non-sacred, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any money found there must have been left there recently. Apparently, we say that each of the first coins is gone, and these coins are other ones, i.e., they were left there after the conclusion of the Festival. Here too, with regard to lost items found in a rented house, why not say that the items belonging to each of the first renters are gone and these items belong to the last renter?


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖诇砖讛 讬砖专讗诇


Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The mishna that states that the item belongs to the finder is referring to a case where the homeowner rendered his house an inn [pundak] for three Jews. Since it is unclear to which of them the item belonged, the owner despairs of its recovery.


砖诪注 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


The Gemara previously (see 24a) raised a dilemma with regard to the halakha stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that a lost item found in a location frequented by the multitudes belongs to the finder. Is the halakha in accordance with his ruling? Moreover, is his ruling specifically with regard to a location with a gentile majority, or is it even applicable in a location with a Jewish majority? Based on the opinion of bar Kappara, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a location with a Jewish majority.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖诇砖讛 谞讻专讬诐


The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and presents an alternative explanation of the latter clause of the mishna. Rather, Rav Menashya bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The mishna is referring to a case where he rendered his house an inn for three gentiles. According to that explanation, perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling specifically in a location with a gentile majority.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讻诪讛 讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛讚专讜 诇讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讜 诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 诇讬讛讚专讜 讗讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 诇讬 讘讚注转讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬讙讝诇讛


Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Even if you say that the owner rendered his house an inn for three Jews, one cannot conclude that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling even in an area with a Jewish majority. What is the reason that the item belongs to the finder? It is because the person from whom the item fell despairs of its recovery. The one who lost the item says: Now, no other person was with me here, only these residents of the inn. I said in their presence several times to return the item to me, and they did not return it to me; and is it likely that now they are going to return it? If their intention was to return the item, they would have already returned it to me, and the fact that they did not yet return it to me indicates that it is their intention to rob me of the item.


讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讗讛 住诇注


And Rav Na岣an follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Na岣an says: If one saw a sela coin


砖谞驻诇 诪砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗谞转 讛讜讗 讚砖拽诇转讬讛


that fell from one of two people, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell does not despair of recovering it. He says: After all, no other person was with me, only this one who was with me, as he is unaware that the sela was found by a third party. He therefore thinks: I will seize him and say to him: It is you who took it.


讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 转专讬 讛讜讜 讘讛讚讗讬 讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 砖拽诇转讬讛 讜讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 砖拽诇转讬讛


In a case where the coin fell from one of three people, the finder is not obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell certainly despairs of recovering it. He says: After all, two other people were with me. If I seize this one, he will say: I did not take it. And if I seize that one, he will say: I did not take it. Since he cannot make a definitive claim, he despairs of recovering his coin.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讗诪专转 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讜专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讗砖讜


Based on the fact that by Torah law, one must return a lost item to its owner only if it is worth one peruta, Rava said: With regard to that which you said, that in a case where the coin fell from one of three people the finder is not obligated to return it, we said this only in a case where the total value of the lost coin, when divided by three, does not amount to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them; but if it amounts to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners, i.e., they own the coin jointly; consequently, they do not despair, as each assumes that one of the other two found it and is holding it for the three of them.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讜讛 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讜专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇诪谞转讬讛 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛


There are those who say that Rava said: Even if its total value is only two perutot, which is insufficient to provide each of the three partners with one peruta, one is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners and one relinquishes his share to another. In that case, the remaining two partners each have a one peruta share, rendering the finder liable to return it.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讛 住诇注 砖谞驻诇讛 谞讟诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 注诇 诪谞转 诇讙讜讝诇讛 注讜讘专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讙讝讜诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讛转注诇诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讝专讛 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 诪转谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚注讘讚 注讘讚


And Rava says: In a case where one saw a sela coin that fell from another, if he took the coin in order to steal it, before the despair of the owner, he violates all of the following mitzvot: He is liable due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not鈥ob鈥 (Leviticus 19:13); and due to the positive mitzva, stated with regard to found items, of: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), and due to the prohibition, stated with regard to one who finds an item: 鈥淵ou may not disregard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). And even if he returned it after the despair of the owner, it is merely a gift that he gave him; and the transgression that he performed, he performed, and he remains in violation of these mitzvot.


谞讟诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讙讜讝诇讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘诐


Rava continues: If he took the coin in order to return it, before the despair of the owner, and then, after the despair of the owner, he intended to steal it; he violates a commandment, due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother.鈥 He does not violate the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not鈥ob,鈥 because at the time he took the coin he did not intend to keep it. And he does not violate the prohibition: 鈥淵ou may not disregard,鈥 because he did not disregard the lost item. He took it with the intention of returning it.


讛诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜谞讟诇讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讛转注诇诐 讘诇讘讚


If he waited until the owner despaired of recovering the lost item and only then took it, he violates a commandment, but only due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou may not disregard,鈥 as he took no action to return the lost item to its owner.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讬 讚谞驻诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讘讬 讞诇转讗 讜讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜砖拽诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讗砖 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讝讬讬讛 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗专讘诇讗 讜拽讗 诪专讘诇 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞驻讜诇 诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诪砖讻讞谞讗 诪讬讚讬


Rava says: In the case of this person who saw that a dinar coin fell from another into the sand, and then he found it and took it, he is not obligated to return it to its owner. What is the reason? The reason is that the one from whom the money fell despairs of finding it. Even if the finder sees that the owner brought a sifter and is sifting through the sand, ostensibly indicating that he did not despair of finding his coin, perhaps the owner is saying: Just as a coin fell from me in the sand, so too, a coin fell from another person and I will find some item to offset my loss.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘讞谞讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转讬讘讛 讜诇讞谞讜谞讬 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 讜诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


MISHNA: If one found items without a distinguishing mark in a store, those items belong to him, as, since the store is frequented by the multitudes, the owner despairs of its recovery. If the items were found between the storekeeper鈥檚 counter and the storekeeper, the items belong to the storekeeper; since his customers do not typically have access to that area, presumably the items are his. If one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him. If the coins were found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer, because his clients do not typically have access to that area.


讛诇讜拽讞 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗讜 砖砖讬诇讞 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛谉 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 爪专讜专讬谉 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝


In the case of one who purchases produce from another or in a case where another sent him produce as a gift, and he found coins intermingled with the produce, those coins belong to him. If the coins were bundled, this serves as a distinguishing mark and the finder takes the coins and proclaims his find.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the coins were found placed upon the table itself they belong to the finder.


转谞谉 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 讚砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 讜诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara challenges: We learned in the mishna: If one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him; this indicates by inference that if they were found upon the table, the coins belong to the money changer. The Gemara responds: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If the coins were found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer; this indicates by inference that if they were found upon the table, the coins belong to the finder. The Gemara concludes: Rather, due to the contradictory inferences from the first and the latter clauses, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 诇讬转谞讬 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讗 讘砖讜诇讞谞讜转 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诪爪讗 讘讞谞讜转 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar himself, from where does he derive this halakha that coins found on the table belong to the finder, given that apparently one cannot infer this ruling from the mishna? Rava said: The mishna is difficult for him: Why did the tanna teach specifically that when the coins are found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer? Let the tanna teach instead: If the coins were found on the table, or: If the coins were found in the money-changing establishment, as it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: If one found items without a distinguishing mark in a store, those items belong to him. Rather, learn from it that since the money changer typically places his money in his drawer, even if the coins were found placed upon the table itself these coins belong to him.


讛诇讜拽讞 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗


搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who purchases produce from another, and he found coins intermingled with the produce, those coins belong to him. Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The Sages taught this only


  • 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鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Metzia 22-28 – Daf Yomi One: Week at a Time

This week we will learn that if you find the following things, you must announce that you have found them...
talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 26: A Few Considerations

The daf has a few mishnahs dealing with a few halachot around lost objects? Does the location where a lost...

Bava Metzia 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 26

讚砖转讬讱 讟驻讬


where the item is extremely rusted, indicating that it had been left there for a long time.


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


搂 The mishna teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him. But if he found the items from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住讻讬谞讗 讘转专 拽转讗 讜讻讬住讗 讘转专 砖谞爪讬讛


Rav Ashi said: The determination of ownership with regard to a knife found in a wall follows the handle, and the determination of ownership with regard to a money pouch follows the laces at the opening of the pouch. If the handle or laces face inward, they belong to the homeowner. If the handle or laces face outward, they belong to the finder.


讜讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 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 讜诇讞讝讬 讗讬 拽转讗 诇讙讗讜 讗讬 拽转讗 诇讘专 讗讬 砖谞爪讬讛 诇讙讗讜 讗讬 砖谞爪讬讛 诇讘专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讗讜讚专讗 讜谞住讻讗


The Gemara asks: But if so, what is the applicability of the ruling of the mishna, which teaches: If one found lost items in a new wall from its midpoint and outward, they belong to him, and from its midpoint and inward, they belong to the homeowner? But instead, to determine ownership, let us see if its handle faces inward or if its handle faces outward, or if its straps face inward or if its straps face outward. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where one found rags or metal strips.


转谞讗 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讜转诇 诪诪讜诇讗 诪讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诪砖驻注 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗砖转驻讜讻讬 讗讬砖转驻讜讱 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


It is taught: If the hollow in the wall was filled with lost items, e.g., coins, the homeowner and the finder divide them. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this only in a case where the hollow in the wall is inclined toward one side of the wall. Lest you say that all the items were initially on the elevated side, and due to the incline they slipped and filled the entire space, the tanna teaches us that the homeowner and the finder divide them.


讗诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬专讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讗 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讝讬诇 讘转专 讘转专讗


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: And why do they belong to the finder? Let us follow the last renter and determine that he is the owner of the items.


诪讬 诇讗 转谞谉 诪注讜转 砖谞诪爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 住讜讞专讬 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪注砖专 讘讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讜诇讬谉


Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Shekalim 7:2): With regard to money that was found before animal merchants in Jerusalem, it is always assumed to be money of the second tithe, as most of the animals purchased in Jerusalem were bought with second-tithe money. This halakha applies both during a Festival and throughout the year, as people would typically purchase animals for meat with their second-tithe money. If the money was found on the Temple Mount it is considered non-sacred money. This halakha applies even during a Festival, when people would come to Jerusalem with second-tithe money in hand, as it can be assumed that one who entered the Temple Mount had already spent that money and only non-sacred money is left in his possession.


讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讘砖注转 讛专讙诇 讛讻诇 诪注砖专


The mishna continues: And if the coins were found elsewhere in Jerusalem, the following distinction applies: If it was found during the rest of the days of the year, it is considered non-sacred money. But if the money was found during the Festival, when many people would come to Jerusalem with their second-tithe money, all money is presumed to be second-tithe money.


讜讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬讛 讘专 讝注讬专讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注砖讜讬谉 诇讛转讻讘讚 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诪讗讬 拽诪讗讬 讗讝诇讜 讜讛谞讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 讗讝诇 讜讛谞讬 讚讘转专讗 讛讜讗


And Rav Shemaya bar Ze鈥檈ira says in explanation of the mishna: What is the reason that during the rest of the year the money is considered non-sacred, even on the day after the Festival? Since the markets of Jerusalem tend to be cleaned every day, any money left there would already have been found by the street cleaners. Consequently, any money found there must have been left there recently. Apparently, we say that each of the first coins is gone, and these coins are other ones, i.e., they were left there after the conclusion of the Festival. Here too, with regard to lost items found in a rented house, why not say that the items belonging to each of the first renters are gone and these items belong to the last renter?


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖诇砖讛 讬砖专讗诇


Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The mishna that states that the item belongs to the finder is referring to a case where the homeowner rendered his house an inn [pundak] for three Jews. Since it is unclear to which of them the item belonged, the owner despairs of its recovery.


砖诪注 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


The Gemara previously (see 24a) raised a dilemma with regard to the halakha stated by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that a lost item found in a location frequented by the multitudes belongs to the finder. Is the halakha in accordance with his ruling? Moreover, is his ruling specifically with regard to a location with a gentile majority, or is it even applicable in a location with a Jewish majority? Based on the opinion of bar Kappara, the Gemara suggests: Conclude from it that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a location with a Jewish majority.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻讙讜谉 砖注砖讗讜 驻讜谞讚拽 诇砖诇砖讛 谞讻专讬诐


The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and presents an alternative explanation of the latter clause of the mishna. Rather, Rav Menashya bar Ya鈥檃kov said: The mishna is referring to a case where he rendered his house an inn for three gentiles. According to that explanation, perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling specifically in a location with a gentile majority.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讬 讗诇讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专讬 拽诪讬讬讛讜 讻诪讛 讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛讚专讜 诇讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讜 诇讬 讜讛砖转讗 诇讬讛讚专讜 讗讬 讚注转讬讬讛讜 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讛讚专讜讛 诇讬 讘讚注转讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬讙讝诇讛


Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Even if you say that the owner rendered his house an inn for three Jews, one cannot conclude that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar issued his ruling even in an area with a Jewish majority. What is the reason that the item belongs to the finder? It is because the person from whom the item fell despairs of its recovery. The one who lost the item says: Now, no other person was with me here, only these residents of the inn. I said in their presence several times to return the item to me, and they did not return it to me; and is it likely that now they are going to return it? If their intention was to return the item, they would have already returned it to me, and the fact that they did not yet return it to me indicates that it is their intention to rob me of the item.


讜讗讝讚讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讗讛 住诇注


And Rav Na岣an follows his standard line of reasoning, as Rav Na岣an says: If one saw a sela coin


砖谞驻诇 诪砖谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讛讚讗讬 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讗谞转 讛讜讗 讚砖拽诇转讬讛


that fell from one of two people, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell does not despair of recovering it. He says: After all, no other person was with me, only this one who was with me, as he is unaware that the sela was found by a third party. He therefore thinks: I will seize him and say to him: It is you who took it.


讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讬讗砖 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 转专讬 讛讜讜 讘讛讚讗讬 讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 砖拽诇转讬讛 讜讗讬 谞拽讬讟谞讗 诇讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 砖拽诇转讬讛


In a case where the coin fell from one of three people, the finder is not obligated to return it. What is the reason? The person from whom the sela fell certainly despairs of recovering it. He says: After all, two other people were with me. If I seize this one, he will say: I did not take it. And if I seize that one, he will say: I did not take it. Since he cannot make a definitive claim, he despairs of recovering his coin.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚讗诪专转 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讘诇 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讜专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讗砖讜


Based on the fact that by Torah law, one must return a lost item to its owner only if it is worth one peruta, Rava said: With regard to that which you said, that in a case where the coin fell from one of three people the finder is not obligated to return it, we said this only in a case where the total value of the lost coin, when divided by three, does not amount to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them; but if it amounts to the value of one peruta for each and every one of them, he is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners, i.e., they own the coin jointly; consequently, they do not despair, as each assumes that one of the other two found it and is holding it for the three of them.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讜讛 砖转讬 驻专讜讟讜转 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讞讝讬专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诪讜专 砖讜转驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇诪谞转讬讛 讙讘讬 讞讘专讬讛


There are those who say that Rava said: Even if its total value is only two perutot, which is insufficient to provide each of the three partners with one peruta, one is obligated to return it. What is the reason? Say that perhaps they are partners and one relinquishes his share to another. In that case, the remaining two partners each have a one peruta share, rendering the finder liable to return it.


讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讛 住诇注 砖谞驻诇讛 谞讟诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 注诇 诪谞转 诇讙讜讝诇讛 注讜讘专 讘讻讜诇谉 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讙讝讜诇 讜诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讛转注诇诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讝专讛 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 诪转谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 讚注讘讚 注讘讚


And Rava says: In a case where one saw a sela coin that fell from another, if he took the coin in order to steal it, before the despair of the owner, he violates all of the following mitzvot: He is liable due to the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not鈥ob鈥 (Leviticus 19:13); and due to the positive mitzva, stated with regard to found items, of: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), and due to the prohibition, stated with regard to one who finds an item: 鈥淵ou may not disregard鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:3). And even if he returned it after the despair of the owner, it is merely a gift that he gave him; and the transgression that he performed, he performed, and he remains in violation of these mitzvot.


谞讟诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专讛 讜诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讙讜讝诇讛 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘诐


Rava continues: If he took the coin in order to return it, before the despair of the owner, and then, after the despair of the owner, he intended to steal it; he violates a commandment, due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother.鈥 He does not violate the prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not鈥ob,鈥 because at the time he took the coin he did not intend to keep it. And he does not violate the prohibition: 鈥淵ou may not disregard,鈥 because he did not disregard the lost item. He took it with the intention of returning it.


讛诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖谞转讬讗砖讜 讛讘注诇讬诐 讜谞讟诇讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讛转注诇诐 讘诇讘讚


If he waited until the owner despaired of recovering the lost item and only then took it, he violates a commandment, but only due to his failure to fulfill the positive mitzva of: 鈥淵ou may not disregard,鈥 as he took no action to return the lost item to its owner.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讞讝讬 讚谞驻诇 讝讜讝讬 诪讞讘专讬讛 讘讬 讞诇转讗 讜讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜砖拽诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讛讜讗 讚谞驻诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讗砖 讛讜讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讝讬讬讛 讚讗讬讬转讬 讗专讘诇讗 讜拽讗 诪专讘诇 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚谞驻讜诇 诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讻讬 谞驻讜诇 诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诪砖讻讞谞讗 诪讬讚讬


Rava says: In the case of this person who saw that a dinar coin fell from another into the sand, and then he found it and took it, he is not obligated to return it to its owner. What is the reason? The reason is that the one from whom the money fell despairs of finding it. Even if the finder sees that the owner brought a sifter and is sifting through the sand, ostensibly indicating that he did not despair of finding his coin, perhaps the owner is saying: Just as a coin fell from me in the sand, so too, a coin fell from another person and I will find some item to offset my loss.


诪转谞讬壮 诪爪讗 讘讞谞讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讬谉 讛转讬讘讛 讜诇讞谞讜谞讬 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 讜诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬


MISHNA: If one found items without a distinguishing mark in a store, those items belong to him, as, since the store is frequented by the multitudes, the owner despairs of its recovery. If the items were found between the storekeeper鈥檚 counter and the storekeeper, the items belong to the storekeeper; since his customers do not typically have access to that area, presumably the items are his. If one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him. If the coins were found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer, because his clients do not typically have access to that area.


讛诇讜拽讞 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讘讬专讜 讗讜 砖砖讬诇讞 诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 驻讬专讜转 讜诪爪讗 讘讛谉 诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讗诐 讛讬讜 爪专讜专讬谉 谞讜讟诇 讜诪讻专讬讝


In the case of one who purchases produce from another or in a case where another sent him produce as a gift, and he found coins intermingled with the produce, those coins belong to him. If the coins were bundled, this serves as a distinguishing mark and the finder takes the coins and proclaims his find.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the coins were found placed upon the table itself they belong to the finder.


转谞谉 诇驻谞讬 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 讚砖讜诇讞谞讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 讜诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara challenges: We learned in the mishna: If one found coins before a money changer, those coins belong to him; this indicates by inference that if they were found upon the table, the coins belong to the money changer. The Gemara responds: Say the latter clause of the mishna: If the coins were found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer; this indicates by inference that if they were found upon the table, the coins belong to the finder. The Gemara concludes: Rather, due to the contradictory inferences from the first and the latter clauses, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讚转谞讬 讘讬谉 讛讻住讗 诇砖讜诇讞谞讬 砖诇 砖讜诇讞谞讬 诇讬转谞讬 注诇 砖讜诇讞谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪爪讗 讘砖讜诇讞谞讜转 讻讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 诪爪讗 讘讞谞讜转 砖诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜谞讞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 砖讜诇讞谉 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇讜


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar himself, from where does he derive this halakha that coins found on the table belong to the finder, given that apparently one cannot infer this ruling from the mishna? Rava said: The mishna is difficult for him: Why did the tanna teach specifically that when the coins are found between the money changer鈥檚 chair and the money changer, those coins belong to the money changer? Let the tanna teach instead: If the coins were found on the table, or: If the coins were found in the money-changing establishment, as it is taught in the first clause of the mishna: If one found items without a distinguishing mark in a store, those items belong to him. Rather, learn from it that since the money changer typically places his money in his drawer, even if the coins were found placed upon the table itself these coins belong to him.


讛诇讜拽讞 驻讬专讜转 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗


搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of one who purchases produce from another, and he found coins intermingled with the produce, those coins belong to him. Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The Sages taught this only


Scroll To Top