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

Daf Yomi

March 27, 2024 | 讬状讝 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 28

As another difficulty is raised against Rava’s explanation for simanim being a rabbinic law, Rava concludes that one can retrieve a lost item by bringing simanim by Torah law. What if two people bring simanim or one person brings simanim and the other witnesses or the other one witness? Rava explains cases where two people bring different identifying details and explains which is the stronger one. For how long does the finder need to announce the lost object? Rabbi Meir holds until the neighbors know. The Gemara explains that “the neighbors” refers to the neighbors in the neighborhood where the lost item was found. Rabbi Yehuda says one must announce it on the three regalim, holidays, and for seven days after the last one to allow people to go home, see that they lost the item, and come back to claim it. This amount of time mentioned contradicts a Mishna in Taanit 10a regarding when we start to pray for rain as there it states that it takes fifteen days for the people who live farthest to get home. How is this contradiction resolved? Once the Temple was destroyed, the finder would announce in the shuls and the batei midrash. But at a certain point in history, the lost items were given to the authorities so people would spread the word more quietly among their neighbors. In the Temple, the finders would announce lost items in a place called the even hatoen and the ones who had lost items would go there to retrieve their lost items. Even when one brought simanim, they would question them even further to ensure they weren’t lying. Rav Yehuda and Rav Nachman disagree about whether one would announce “I found a lost item” or “I found a cloak (for example).” Can we find support for one of the opinions from the Mishna? Originally, they were not concerned that people would lie about lost items and take items of others, but as time went on, people took advantage. As a result, the Sages instituted that to retrieve an item with simanim, one would have to bring witnesses attesting to the person’s honesty. If the lost item is an animal that can work and generate revenue, the finder should keep the animal if the revenue exceeds the upkeep costs. If not, the finder can sell the animal and return the money to the owner. Can the finder use the money? If yes, the finder is responsible for replacing it, if the money gets lost. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree about this issue. Even an animal that generates more revenue than cost, after twelve months pass, the finder can sell it. Two braitot list different amounts of time necessary to wait before selling calves and foals, and geese and roosters, as they do not generate enough income. How are the contradictory braitot reconciled?

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛


The Gemara asks: But there is that which we learned in that mishna (20a): If one found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he shall return the documents to whomever describes the roll and the bundle, which serve as distinguishing marks. Would one say that so too, if one returns lost items on the basis of distinguishing marks due to the tacit agreement of the owners, it is satisfactory to the debtor to have the documents returned to the creditor?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 注诪讱 注讚 讚专砖 讗讞讬讱 讗转讜 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讬转谞谞讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚专砖讛讜 讗诐 专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 专诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, Rava said: Identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it, and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that he would give the lost item to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. Scrutinize him [darshehu] to determine whether the claimant is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler. Only then may you return the lost item to him. What, is it not that the one who claims the lost item proves that he is not a swindler on the basis of distinguishing marks that he provides? Rava affirms: Conclude from it that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉


Rava begins his statement and says: If you say that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law. The Gemara interjects: If you say? Didn鈥檛 he already resolve the dilemma and conclude that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law? The Gemara answers: Rava phrased his statement conditionally due to the fact that although he holds that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, one could reject his conclusion and say as we explained previously (27b), that when the mishna states that the finder scrutinizes whether he is a swindler, he does so on the basis of witnesses and not on the basis of distinguishing marks.


住讬诪谞讬谉 讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讬谞讬讞 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜注讚讬诐 讬谞转谉 诇讘注诇 讛注讚讬诐 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讜注讚 讗讞讚 注讚 讗讞讚 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讬谞讬讞


The Gemara resumes Rava鈥檚 interrupted statement: If you say that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, then in a case where an item is found and two people claim it as theirs, and one describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other describes distinguishing marks on the item, the finder shall leave it in his possession and not give it to either claimant. In a case where one person describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other brings two witnesses to support his claim of ownership, the item shall be given to the claimant with witnesses. In a case where one person describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other describes distinguishing marks on the item and brings one witness to support his claim of ownership, the one witness is as one who is not there, and the finder shall leave it in his possession. The testimony of a single witness has no legal standing in this case.


注讚讬 讗专讬讙讛 讜注讚讬 谞驻讬诇讛 转谞转谉 诇注讚讬 谞驻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讘讜谞讬 讝讘谞讛 讜诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞驻诇


In a case where one claimant to a found garment brings witnesses who testify that the garment was woven for him, and the other claimant brings witnesses who testify that the garment had fallen from him, the garment shall be given to the claimant whose witnesses testified that the garment had fallen from him, as we say that perhaps the one for whom it was woven sold the garment and it fell from another person, who is the current owner.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 转谞转谉 诇诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讚诪讚转 专讞讘讜 砖注讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖注专 诇讛 讻讚 诪讻住讬 诇讛 诪专讛 讜拽讗讬 讜诪讚转 讗专讻讜 诇讗 诪砖转注专 诇讛


If one claimant provides the measure of length of a lost garment and the other provides the measure of its width, the garment shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its length, as one can approximate the measure of its width when its owner dons the garment and stands, but the measure of its length cannot be approximated in that manner. Therefore, it is a more clear-cut distinguishing characteristic.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讜诪讚转 讙诪讬讜 讬谞转谉 诇诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜专讞讘讜


If one claimant provides the measure of its length and the measure of its width and the other provides the measure of its gamma, its combined length and width, which together form the Greek letter gamma, but does not provide each measure individually, the item shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its length and the measure of its width separately.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讜诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讬谞转谉 诇诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜


If one claimant provides the measure of its length and the measure of its width and the other provides the measure of its weight, the item shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its weight, which, because it is more difficult to approximate, is a more clear-cut distinguishing characteristic.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讟 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讟 讬谞转谉 诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜专讞讘讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬


Rava continues: In a case where a bill of divorce is found and it is unclear whether it had been delivered to the wife, and the husband, who reconsidered, states the distinguishing marks of the bill of divorce and claims that he did not yet give it to his wife, and the wife, who wants to be divorced, states the distinguishing marks of the bill of divorce and claims that she already received it, the document shall be given to the wife. The Gemara asks: With what distinguishing mark did she describe the bill of divorce? If we say that she described it with the measure of its height and its width, that is not a clear-cut distinguishing mark; perhaps while her husband was holding the bill of divorce, she saw it, although he had not yet given it to her. Rather, it must be that she says that there is a perforation alongside such and such letter in the document, which she could know only if the bill of divorce had been in her hand.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬 讛讞讜讟 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 住诪谞讬 讛讞讜讟 讬谞转谉 诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 讜讘住讜诪拽讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讚转 讗专讻讜


In a case where the husband states the distinguishing marks of the string with which the bill of divorce is bound, and she states the distinguishing marks of the string, the document shall be given to the wife. The Gemara asks: With what distinguishing mark did she describe the string? If we say that she described it by saying that the string is white or by saying that it is red, this cannot be the mark based on which she proves her ownership, as perhaps while her husband was holding the bill of divorce, she saw the string. Rather, it must be that she stated the measure of its length. As the string was wrapped around the document, she would know its length only if the bill of divorce had been in her hand.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞驻讬住讛 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘讞驻讬住讛 讬谞转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讛 讚讻诇 诪讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讞驻讬住讛 讛讜讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛


In a case where the husband claims that the bill of divorce was not given to the wife and states that it was stored in a case, and the wife claims that she received the bill of divorce and states that it was stored in a case, the document shall be given to the husband. What is the reason? Identification of the document based on its storage cannot prove her ownership, as she knows that he places any valuable item that he has in his possession in the case.


诪转谞讬壮 讜注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 砖讻谞讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 诇讘讬转讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讻专讬讝 讬讜诐 讗讞讚


MISHNA: And until when is one who finds a lost item obligated to proclaim his find? He is obligated to do so until the moment that the neighbors will know of its existence; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will have time to go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and he will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 砖讻谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讗讬 砖讻谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讻讬谞讬诐 讚讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗讬 讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讬讝讜诇 讜诇讛讚专讬讛 谞讛诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讻谞讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘讜 讗讘讬讚讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one must proclaim his find until his neighbors will know of its existence. A tanna taught: One must proclaim his find until the neighbors of the lost item will know of its existence. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: Neighbors of the lost item? If we say that the reference is to neighbors of the owner of the lost item, he need not proclaim his find, as if the finder knows who lost the item, let him go and return it to him. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reference is to the neighbors of the place where the lost item was found.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, will ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘砖诇砖讛 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘注讛 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讞诪讬砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 讛讞讙 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞讛专 驻专转


Apropos Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 calculation of three days as the duration of a pilgrim鈥檚 travel from Jerusalem to his home, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 10a): On the third of the month of Mar岣shvan one starts to request rain by inserting the phrase: And grant dew and rain, in the blessing of the years, the ninth blessing of the Amida prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: One starts to request rain on the seventh of Mar岣shvan, which is fifteen days after the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, so that the last of those who are in Eretz Yisrael on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem can reach their homes beyond the Euphrates River before the onset of rain, which would make crossing the river more hazardous. Apparently, it takes fifteen days for those who came for the pilgrimage Festivals to return home, not three days.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬


Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in tractate Ta鈥檃nit, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the First Temple period, which took fifteen days; whereas there, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the Second Temple period, which took three days.


讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬诐 讻讞讜诇 讗砖专 注诇 讛讬诐 诇专讘 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻诇 讛拽讛诇 讻讗讞讚 讗专讘注 专讘讜讗 讗诇驻讬诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖砖讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬


The Gemara explains the answer: During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous, as it is written with regard to them: 鈥淛udea and Israel were many, as the sand that is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing鈥 (I聽Kings 4:20), we need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the wide distribution of the large population. During the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous, as it is written: 鈥淭he whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty鈥 (Ezra 2:64), we do not need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the limited distribution of the small population.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讘讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讛诪砖专专讬诐 讜讛砖讜注专讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘注专讬讛诐


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪o the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Gibeonites, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities鈥 (Ezra 2:70). The verse indicates that despite their limited numbers, the Jewish people dwelt in all the cities that they inhabited previously, and the distance to the far reaches of Eretz Yisrael was no shorter during the Second Temple period.


讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚诪爪讜讜转 注诇诪讗 讜诪砖转讻讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜住讙讬 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讗 诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讜讜转 注诇诪讗 讜诇讗 诪砖转讻讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬


Abaye continued: And since that is the reality, the opposite is reasonable. During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous and when everyone was structured in groups, and caravans could be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we do not need that much time to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, and three days suffice. By contrast, during the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous and when everyone was not structured in groups, and therefore, caravans could not be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we need that much time, i.e., fifteen days, to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诇讗 讛讟专讬讞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗讘讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬


Rava said: It is no different during the First Temple period and it is no different during the Second Temple period; the requisite travel time to the border was fifteen days, as the opinion of Rabban Gamliel indicates. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda calculated three days of travel to the border because the Sages did not wish to trouble the finder excessively in returning a lost item by requiring him to wait an extended amount of time.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 诪讻专讬讝 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讟驻讬 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讬讜诪讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘诪讗谞讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Ravina says: Learn from the calculation of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna that when a finder proclaims his find he specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak. As, if it enters your mind that the finder proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature, we need to increase the period of time afforded the owner to ascertain that he lost an item, and add one day for him to examine all his vessels. Rather, learn from it that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that the finder specifies the nature of the item.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 诇讗 讛讟专讬讞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗讘讬讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬


Rava said: Even if you say that the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda does not require extending the period afforded the owner, because the Sages did not wish to trouble the finder excessively in returning a lost item by requiring him to wait an extended amount of time.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讙诇 砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 专讙诇 砖谞讬 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜诪专 住转诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: On the first pilgrimage Festival after finding the lost item, the finder proclaims his find and says: This is the first pilgrimage Festival that I am proclaiming this find. On the second pilgrimage Festival after finding the lost item, the finder proclaims his find and says: This is the second pilgrimage Festival that I am proclaiming this find. On the third pilgrimage Festival, the finder proclaims his find and says his proclamation without specification of the number of the Festival.


讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘砖谞讬 砖谞讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: And why does he not specify the number of the Festival? Just as he specified the previous two Festivals, let him say that it is the third pilgrimage Festival. The Gemara answers: He does not specify that it is the third pilgrimage Festival, so that one who hears him will not come to confuse it with the second pilgrimage Festival. If the finder were to proclaim that it is the third [shelishi] Festival, it is possible that the owner would mistakenly hear the word second [sheni] and believe that there is time remaining to reclaim his lost item. Since on the second Festival he mentions the number and on the third Festival he does not mention a number, there is no potential for confusion. The Gemara asks: Based on that reasoning, on the second pilgrimage Festival too, the finder should not mention the number of the Festival,


讗转讬讗 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 拽讗 讗转讬 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬


because perhaps one who hears him will come to confuse it with the first pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, won鈥檛 the finder come on the third pilgrimage Festival, thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖诪爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讬讛 诪讻专讬讝 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗讞专 专讙诇 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讻专讬讝 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 砖讬讘谞讛 讘诪讛专讛 讘讬诪谞讜 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪讻专讬讝讬诐 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜诪砖专讘讜 讛讗谞住讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 诇砖讻讬谞讬讜 讜诇诪讬讜讚注讬讜 讜讚讬讜


The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him.


诪讗讬 诪砖专讘讜 讛讗谞住讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讚转讗 诇诪诇讻讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗砖讻讞 讗讜讚讬讬讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讛讛讜讗 专讜诪讗讛 讚拽讗 诪讬专转转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 讚诇讗讜 驻专住讗讬 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讚转讗 诇诪诇讻讗


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘谉 讟讜注谉 讛讬转讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖诪讜爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讜谞讜转谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 谞诪讞转 讗讘谉 讛讟讜注谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant鈥檚 Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant鈥檚 Stone has been obscured by the rising water.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讜讛专诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 讚专砖 讗讞讬讱 讗转讜 注讚 砖转讚专讜砖 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讗诐 专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 专诪讗讬


MISHNA: If a claimant accurately stated what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e., describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it [oto], and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize [shetidrosh] your brother to determine whether he, the claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler.


讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝


GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature. And Rav Na岣an said: He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak.


专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专诪讗讬


Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item, as if you say that he proclaims that he found a cloak, we are concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 诇专诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝


Rav Na岣an said: The finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and we are not concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item, as if so, there is no end to the matter. Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.


转谞谉 讗诪专 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: If a claimant accurately states what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. Granted, if you say the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, this mishna teaches us that even though the claimant indeed stated that the lost item is a cloak, as long as he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him. But if you say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, if the finder stated that he found a cloak and the claimant stated that he lost a cloak, does it need to be said that when he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him?


讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讚讬讚讛


Rav Safra said: Actually, one could say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder stated that he found a cloak, and the claimant stated its distinguishing marks. And what is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he did not state its distinguishing marks? It means: If he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.


讜讛专诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讛 诪砖专讘讜 讛专诪讗讬谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讚诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 讜讟讜诇


搂 The mishna teaches: And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide its distinguishing marks and take it. But when the swindlers proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the finders will say to him: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and take your item.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讗砖讻讞讜讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 讜讟讜诇 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注讬转讜谉 讘讬讛 讚专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 专诪讗讛 讗谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讞讜讘转讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa鈥檚 father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa鈥檚 father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa鈥檚 father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讬注砖讛 讜讬讗讻诇 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讬诪讻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讘讜转讜 诇讜 专讗讛 讛讬讗讱 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜


MISHNA: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall work and eat while in the finder鈥檚 possession. And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him. Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder鈥檚 keeping the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it.


诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉


What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it.


讙诪壮 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讻讙讜谉 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal that generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats shall work and eat while in the finder鈥檚 possession. The Gemara asks: And must he care for the animal forever? Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: He cares for the animal until twelve months pass. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months pass. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


If one finds calves and foals, which are young and unfit for labor, he tends to them for three months, as they do not earn their keep. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转专谞讙讜诇转 讻讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讟讬驻讜诇讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖讻专讜 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The legal status of a chicken is like that of a large domesticated animal in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds a chicken and a large domesticated animal, he tends to them for twelve months. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds calves and foals, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters and anything that costs more to tend to than the revenue generated by it, he tends to them for three days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


拽砖讬讗 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: It is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for three months and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for thirty days, and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for three days.


注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚专注讬讗 讜讛讗 讚驻讟讜诪讗


The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to calves and foals and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to calves and foals is not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals that graze in the pasture, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals that need to be fattened and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.


讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬


The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to geese and roosters and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to geese and roosters is also not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to large geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for three days is referring to small geese and roosters, which require great exertion.


讜砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讘讜转讜 诇讜 专讗讛 讛讬讗讱 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 砖诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇 注讙诇 诇注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讞 诇住讬讬讞讬谉 讗讜讜讝讗 诇讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉


The mishna teaches: And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the lost foals that he is tending, nor the value of a goose to the geese that he is tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.


诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖转诪砖 讜讻讜壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬


搂 The mishna teaches: What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree


  • 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 28: Lost & Found

More on distinguishing marks - and whether they are a Torah requirement or a rabbinic one. Also, how long must...

Bava Metzia 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 28

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 诪爪讗 转讻专讬讱 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讗讜 讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 砖讟专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讞讝讬专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛


The Gemara asks: But there is that which we learned in that mishna (20a): If one found a roll of documents or a bundle of documents, he shall return the documents to whomever describes the roll and the bundle, which serve as distinguishing marks. Would one say that so too, if one returns lost items on the basis of distinguishing marks due to the tacit agreement of the owners, it is satisfactory to the debtor to have the documents returned to the creditor?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 注诪讱 注讚 讚专砖 讗讞讬讱 讗转讜 讜讻讬 转注诇讛 注诇 讚注转讱 砖讬转谞谞讜 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚专砖讛讜 讗诐 专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 专诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Rather, Rava said: Identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it, and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that he would give the lost item to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. Scrutinize him [darshehu] to determine whether the claimant is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler. Only then may you return the lost item to him. What, is it not that the one who claims the lost item proves that he is not a swindler on the basis of distinguishing marks that he provides? Rava affirms: Conclude from it that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讗 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉


Rava begins his statement and says: If you say that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law. The Gemara interjects: If you say? Didn鈥檛 he already resolve the dilemma and conclude that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law? The Gemara answers: Rava phrased his statement conditionally due to the fact that although he holds that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, one could reject his conclusion and say as we explained previously (27b), that when the mishna states that the finder scrutinizes whether he is a swindler, he does so on the basis of witnesses and not on the basis of distinguishing marks.


住讬诪谞讬谉 讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讬谞讬讞 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜注讚讬诐 讬谞转谉 诇讘注诇 讛注讚讬诐 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜住讬诪谞讬谉 讜注讚 讗讞讚 注讚 讗讞讚 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讬谞讬讞


The Gemara resumes Rava鈥檚 interrupted statement: If you say that identification of an item on the basis of distinguishing marks is by Torah law, then in a case where an item is found and two people claim it as theirs, and one describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other describes distinguishing marks on the item, the finder shall leave it in his possession and not give it to either claimant. In a case where one person describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other brings two witnesses to support his claim of ownership, the item shall be given to the claimant with witnesses. In a case where one person describes distinguishing marks on the item and the other describes distinguishing marks on the item and brings one witness to support his claim of ownership, the one witness is as one who is not there, and the finder shall leave it in his possession. The testimony of a single witness has no legal standing in this case.


注讚讬 讗专讬讙讛 讜注讚讬 谞驻讬诇讛 转谞转谉 诇注讚讬 谞驻讬诇讛 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讘讜谞讬 讝讘谞讛 讜诪讗讬谞讬砖 讗讞专讬谞讗 谞驻诇


In a case where one claimant to a found garment brings witnesses who testify that the garment was woven for him, and the other claimant brings witnesses who testify that the garment had fallen from him, the garment shall be given to the claimant whose witnesses testified that the garment had fallen from him, as we say that perhaps the one for whom it was woven sold the garment and it fell from another person, who is the current owner.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 转谞转谉 诇诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讚诪讚转 专讞讘讜 砖注讜专讬 拽讗 诪砖注专 诇讛 讻讚 诪讻住讬 诇讛 诪专讛 讜拽讗讬 讜诪讚转 讗专讻讜 诇讗 诪砖转注专 诇讛


If one claimant provides the measure of length of a lost garment and the other provides the measure of its width, the garment shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its length, as one can approximate the measure of its width when its owner dons the garment and stands, but the measure of its length cannot be approximated in that manner. Therefore, it is a more clear-cut distinguishing characteristic.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讜诪讚转 讙诪讬讜 讬谞转谉 诇诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜专讞讘讜


If one claimant provides the measure of its length and the measure of its width and the other provides the measure of its gamma, its combined length and width, which together form the Greek letter gamma, but does not provide each measure individually, the item shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its length and the measure of its width separately.


诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜诪讚转 专讞讘讜 讜诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜 讬谞转谉 诇诪讚转 诪砖拽诇讜转讬讜


If one claimant provides the measure of its length and the measure of its width and the other provides the measure of its weight, the item shall be given to the claimant who provided the measure of its weight, which, because it is more difficult to approximate, is a more clear-cut distinguishing characteristic.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讟 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 住讬诪谞讬 讛讙讟 讬谞转谉 诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讜专讞讘讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 谞拽讘 讬砖 讘讜 讘爪讚 讗讜转 驻诇讜谞讬


Rava continues: In a case where a bill of divorce is found and it is unclear whether it had been delivered to the wife, and the husband, who reconsidered, states the distinguishing marks of the bill of divorce and claims that he did not yet give it to his wife, and the wife, who wants to be divorced, states the distinguishing marks of the bill of divorce and claims that she already received it, the document shall be given to the wife. The Gemara asks: With what distinguishing mark did she describe the bill of divorce? If we say that she described it with the measure of its height and its width, that is not a clear-cut distinguishing mark; perhaps while her husband was holding the bill of divorce, she saw it, although he had not yet given it to her. Rather, it must be that she says that there is a perforation alongside such and such letter in the document, which she could know only if the bill of divorce had been in her hand.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谞讬 讛讞讜讟 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 住诪谞讬 讛讞讜讟 讬谞转谉 诇讛 讘诪讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讬讜专讗 讜讘住讜诪拽讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚谞拽讬讟 诇讬讛 讞讝讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讚转 讗专讻讜


In a case where the husband states the distinguishing marks of the string with which the bill of divorce is bound, and she states the distinguishing marks of the string, the document shall be given to the wife. The Gemara asks: With what distinguishing mark did she describe the string? If we say that she described it by saying that the string is white or by saying that it is red, this cannot be the mark based on which she proves her ownership, as perhaps while her husband was holding the bill of divorce, she saw the string. Rather, it must be that she stated the measure of its length. As the string was wrapped around the document, she would know its length only if the bill of divorce had been in her hand.


讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞驻讬住讛 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讘讞驻讬住讛 讬谞转谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注讛 讚讻诇 诪讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讞驻讬住讛 讛讜讗 讚诪谞讞 诇讬讛


In a case where the husband claims that the bill of divorce was not given to the wife and states that it was stored in a case, and the wife claims that she received the bill of divorce and states that it was stored in a case, the document shall be given to the husband. What is the reason? Identification of the document based on its storage cannot prove her ownership, as she knows that he places any valuable item that he has in his possession in the case.


诪转谞讬壮 讜注讚 诪转讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讛讻专讬讝 注讚 讻讚讬 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 砖讻谞讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗讞专 讛专讙诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖讘注讛 讬诪讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 诇讘讬转讜 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讻专讬讝 讬讜诐 讗讞讚


MISHNA: And until when is one who finds a lost item obligated to proclaim his find? He is obligated to do so until the moment that the neighbors will know of its existence; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will have time to go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and he will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 砖讻谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 诪讗讬 砖讻谞讬 讗讘讬讚讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讻讬谞讬诐 讚讘注诇 讗讘讬讚讛 讗讬 讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讬讝讜诇 讜诇讛讚专讬讛 谞讛诇讬讛 讗诇讗 砖讻谞讬 诪拽讜诐 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘讜 讗讘讬讚讛


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one must proclaim his find until his neighbors will know of its existence. A tanna taught: One must proclaim his find until the neighbors of the lost item will know of its existence. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: Neighbors of the lost item? If we say that the reference is to neighbors of the owner of the lost item, he need not proclaim his find, as if the finder knows who lost the item, let him go and return it to him. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reference is to the neighbors of the place where the lost item was found.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: He is obligated to proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, will ascertain that he in fact lost the item, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day.


讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讘砖诇砖讛 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘砖讘注讛 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 讞诪讬砖讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 讗讞专 讛讞讙 讻讚讬 砖讬讙讬注 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞讛专 驻专转


Apropos Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 calculation of three days as the duration of a pilgrim鈥檚 travel from Jerusalem to his home, the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 10a): On the third of the month of Mar岣shvan one starts to request rain by inserting the phrase: And grant dew and rain, in the blessing of the years, the ninth blessing of the Amida prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: One starts to request rain on the seventh of Mar岣shvan, which is fifteen days after the conclusion of the festival of Sukkot, so that the last of those who are in Eretz Yisrael on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem can reach their homes beyond the Euphrates River before the onset of rain, which would make crossing the river more hazardous. Apparently, it takes fifteen days for those who came for the pilgrimage Festivals to return home, not three days.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬


Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. Here, in the mishna in tractate Ta鈥檃nit, Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the First Temple period, which took fifteen days; whereas there, Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement is referring to the duration of the journey during the Second Temple period, which took three days.


讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬诐 讻讞讜诇 讗砖专 注诇 讛讬诐 诇专讘 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻诇 讛拽讛诇 讻讗讞讚 讗专讘注 专讘讜讗 讗诇驻讬诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖砖讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬


The Gemara explains the answer: During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous, as it is written with regard to them: 鈥淛udea and Israel were many, as the sand that is by the sea in multitude, eating and drinking and rejoicing鈥 (I聽Kings 4:20), we need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the wide distribution of the large population. During the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous, as it is written: 鈥淭he whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and sixty鈥 (Ezra 2:64), we do not need that much time for them to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, due to the limited distribution of the small population.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖讘讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讛诪砖专专讬诐 讜讛砖讜注专讬诐 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讘注专讬讛诐


Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪o the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Gibeonites, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities鈥 (Ezra 2:70). The verse indicates that despite their limited numbers, the Jewish people dwelt in all the cities that they inhabited previously, and the distance to the far reaches of Eretz Yisrael was no shorter during the Second Temple period.


讜讻讬讜谉 讚讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讗驻讻讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讚谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讚诪爪讜讜转 注诇诪讗 讜诪砖转讻讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜住讙讬 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讗 诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬砖讬 讬砖专讗诇 讟讜讘讗 讜诇讗 诪爪讜讜转 注诇诪讗 讜诇讗 诪砖转讻讞讬 砖讬讬专转讗 讚讗讝诇讬 讘讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讘注讬谞谉 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬


Abaye continued: And since that is the reality, the opposite is reasonable. During the First Temple period, when the Jewish people were very numerous and when everyone was structured in groups, and caravans could be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we do not need that much time to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael, and three days suffice. By contrast, during the Second Temple period, when the Jewish people were not very numerous and when everyone was not structured in groups, and therefore, caravans could not be found that traveled both during the day and during the night, we need that much time, i.e., fifteen days, to travel from Jerusalem to the farthest reaches of Eretz Yisrael.


专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪拽讚砖 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪拽讚砖 砖谞讬 诇讗 讛讟专讬讞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗讘讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬


Rava said: It is no different during the First Temple period and it is no different during the Second Temple period; the requisite travel time to the border was fifteen days, as the opinion of Rabban Gamliel indicates. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda calculated three days of travel to the border because the Sages did not wish to trouble the finder excessively in returning a lost item by requiring him to wait an extended amount of time.


讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讬 诪讻专讬讝 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讟驻讬 诇讬讛 讞讚讗 讬讜诪讗 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘诪讗谞讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Ravina says: Learn from the calculation of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna that when a finder proclaims his find he specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak. As, if it enters your mind that the finder proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature, we need to increase the period of time afforded the owner to ascertain that he lost an item, and add one day for him to examine all his vessels. Rather, learn from it that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak. The Gemara affirms: Learn from it that the finder specifies the nature of the item.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 诇讗 讛讟专讬讞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗讘讬讚讛 讬讜转专 诪讚讗讬


Rava said: Even if you say that the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, nevertheless, Rabbi Yehuda does not require extending the period afforded the owner, because the Sages did not wish to trouble the finder excessively in returning a lost item by requiring him to wait an extended amount of time.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 讗讜诪专 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讙诇 砖谞讬 讗讜诪专 专讙诇 砖谞讬 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜诪专 住转诐


The Sages taught in a baraita: On the first pilgrimage Festival after finding the lost item, the finder proclaims his find and says: This is the first pilgrimage Festival that I am proclaiming this find. On the second pilgrimage Festival after finding the lost item, the finder proclaims his find and says: This is the second pilgrimage Festival that I am proclaiming this find. On the third pilgrimage Festival, the finder proclaims his find and says his proclamation without specification of the number of the Festival.


讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讚诇讗 讗转讬 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘砖谞讬 砖谞讬 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: And why does he not specify the number of the Festival? Just as he specified the previous two Festivals, let him say that it is the third pilgrimage Festival. The Gemara answers: He does not specify that it is the third pilgrimage Festival, so that one who hears him will not come to confuse it with the second pilgrimage Festival. If the finder were to proclaim that it is the third [shelishi] Festival, it is possible that the owner would mistakenly hear the word second [sheni] and believe that there is time remaining to reclaim his lost item. Since on the second Festival he mentions the number and on the third Festival he does not mention a number, there is no potential for confusion. The Gemara asks: Based on that reasoning, on the second pilgrimage Festival too, the finder should not mention the number of the Festival,


讗转讬讗 诇讗讞诇讜驻讬 讘专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 拽讗 讗转讬 专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬


because perhaps one who hears him will come to confuse it with the first pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, won鈥檛 the finder come on the third pilgrimage Festival, thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖诪爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讬讛 诪讻专讬讝 注诇讬讛 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 讜讗讞专 专讙诇 讗讞专讜谉 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬诇讱 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讞讝讜专 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讻专讬讝 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 砖讬讘谞讛 讘诪讛专讛 讘讬诪谞讜 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪讻专讬讝讬诐 讘讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转 讜诪砖专讘讜 讛讗谞住讬诐 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 诇砖讻讬谞讬讜 讜诇诪讬讜讚注讬讜 讜讚讬讜


The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him.


诪讗讬 诪砖专讘讜 讛讗谞住讬谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讚转讗 诇诪诇讻讗 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗砖讻讞 讗讜讚讬讬讗 讚讚讬谞专讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讛讛讜讗 专讜诪讗讛 讚拽讗 诪讬专转转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 砖拽讜诇 诇谞驻砖讱 讚诇讗讜 驻专住讗讬 讗谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讘讬讚转讗 诇诪诇讻讗


The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘谉 讟讜注谉 讛讬转讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讜讻诇 诪讬 砖诪讜爪讗 讗讘讬讚讛 谞驻谞讛 诇砖诐 讝讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪讻专讬讝 讜讝讛 注讜诪讚 讜谞讜转谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讛 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 谞诪讞转 讗讘谉 讛讟讜注谉


The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant鈥檚 Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta鈥檃nit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant鈥檚 Stone has been obscured by the rising water.


诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讜讛专诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 讚专砖 讗讞讬讱 讗转讜 注讚 砖转讚专讜砖 讗转 讗讞讬讱 讗诐 专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 专诪讗讬


MISHNA: If a claimant accurately stated what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e., describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it [oto], and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize [shetidrosh] your brother to determine whether he, the claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler.


讙诪壮 讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝


GEMARA: It was stated that Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature. And Rav Na岣an said: He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak.


专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇专诪讗讬


Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item, as if you say that he proclaims that he found a cloak, we are concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item.


专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 诇专诪讗讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 诇讚讘专 住讜祝


Rav Na岣an said: The finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and we are not concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item, as if so, there is no end to the matter. Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.


转谞谉 讗诪专 讗转 讛讗讘讬讚讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讘讬讚转讗 诪讻专讬讝 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪专 讙诇讬诪讗 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诇讗 诪讛讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛


The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: If a claimant accurately states what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. Granted, if you say the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, this mishna teaches us that even though the claimant indeed stated that the lost item is a cloak, as long as he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him. But if you say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, if the finder stated that he found a cloak and the claimant stated that he lost a cloak, does it need to be said that when he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him?


讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇注讜诇诐 讙诇讬诪讗 诪讻专讬讝 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 讙诇讬诪讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专 住讬诪谞讬谉 诪讜讘讛拽讬谉 讚讬讚讛


Rav Safra said: Actually, one could say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder stated that he found a cloak, and the claimant stated its distinguishing marks. And what is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he did not state its distinguishing marks? It means: If he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.


讜讛专诪讗讬 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专 讗转 住讬诪谞讬讛 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬转谉 诇讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讻诇 诪讬 砖讗讘讚讛 诇讜 讗讘讬讚讛 讛讬讛 谞讜转谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讜谞讜讟诇讛 诪砖专讘讜 讛专诪讗讬谉 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讜 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 爪讗 讜讛讘讗 注讚讬诐 讚诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 讜讟讜诇


搂 The mishna teaches: And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide its distinguishing marks and take it. But when the swindlers proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the finders will say to him: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and take your item.


讻讬 讛讗 讚讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讜讗砖讻讞讜讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讚诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 讜讟讜诇 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讬讚注讬转讜谉 讘讬讛 讚专诪讗讬 讛讜讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 专诪讗讛 讗谞讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诇讗讜 专诪讗讬 讗转 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住转讘专讗 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讞讜讘转讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛


The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa鈥檚 father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa鈥檚 father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa鈥檚 father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讬注砖讛 讜讬讗讻诇 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讬诪讻专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讘讜转讜 诇讜 专讗讛 讛讬讗讱 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜


MISHNA: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall work and eat while in the finder鈥檚 possession. And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, and you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him. Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder鈥檚 keeping the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it.


诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 讗讘讚讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉


What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it.


讙诪壮 讜诇注讜诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讚讘专 砖注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讻讙讜谉 驻专讛 讜讞诪讜专 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


GEMARA: The mishna teaches that an animal that generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats shall work and eat while in the finder鈥檚 possession. The Gemara asks: And must he care for the animal forever? Rav Na岣an says that Shmuel says: He cares for the animal until twelve months pass. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months pass. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛诐 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


If one finds calves and foals, which are young and unfit for labor, he tends to them for three months, as they do not earn their keep. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转专谞讙讜诇转 讻讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 转专谞讙讜诇转 讜讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讟讬驻讜诇讜 诪专讜讘讛 诪砖讻专讜 诪讟驻诇 讘讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 砖诐 讚诪讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬讞谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The legal status of a chicken is like that of a large domesticated animal in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds a chicken and a large domesticated animal, he tends to them for twelve months. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds calves and foals, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters and anything that costs more to tend to than the revenue generated by it, he tends to them for three days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.


拽砖讬讗 注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: It is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for three months and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for thirty days, and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for three days.


注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 讗注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讬讞讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚专注讬讗 讜讛讗 讚驻讟讜诪讗


The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to calves and foals and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to calves and foals is not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals that graze in the pasture, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals that need to be fattened and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.


讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讗讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬


The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to geese and roosters and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to geese and roosters is also not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to large geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for three days is referring to small geese and roosters, which require great exertion.


讜砖讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讘讜转讜 诇讜 专讗讛 讛讬讗讱 转砖讬讘谞讜 诇讜 砖诇讗 讬讗讻讬诇 注讙诇 诇注讙诇讬诐 讜住讬讞 诇住讬讬讞讬谉 讗讜讜讝讗 诇讗讜讜讝讬谉 讜转专谞讙讜诇 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉


The mishna teaches: And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall return it to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the lost foals that he is tending, nor the value of a goose to the geese that he is tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.


诪讛 讬讛讗 讘讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖转诪砖 讜讻讜壮 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬


搂 The mishna teaches: What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree


Scroll To Top