Bava Metzia 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

say

it should be explained:

it is validated by its signatures,

that is,

we ask the witnesses whether it was paid or not paid,

meaning, we ask the witnesses who signed it whether they saw the repayment or not. And if they did not see the repayment, the creditor is believed to say that the receipt was written only to be ready for when he would be repaid.

Ta shma:

We learned in a beraita:

A simpon

a receipt

that has witnesses on it—

is valid

even if it is in the creditor’s possession.

This is difficult for Rav, who said that a receipt found in the creditor’s possession is invalid.

And we answer:

What is meant by witnesses

is

witnesses of validation,

witnesses who validate the receipt, having written “validated”; and a court validates the receipt only if the borrower has repaid the debt. Therefore, the receipt is valid even when it is in the creditor’s possession.

This too is evident,

that the reference is to witnesses of validation,

from the fact that the latter clause teaches: And one on which there are no witnesses—

is invalid,

the receipt.

And we inquire about this:

What

is meant by

“there are no witnesses on it”?

If you say

that it means

that there are none on it,

that there are no

witnesses at all

on the receipt—

must it be stated that it is invalid?

It is obvious that without witnesses it is not evidence that the debt was repaid.

Rather, is it not

meant that there are witnesses on the receipt, but it does not have

witnesses of validation,

and therefore it is invalid when found in the creditor’s possession?

As for the matter itself:

We learned in the Tosefta:

A simpon that has witnesses on it is validated by its signatures,

and we established that this refers to witnesses of validation who saw the repayment; and if there are witnesses, then even if the receipt emerges from the creditor’s possession, it is valid.

And if

there are not on it,

on the receipt,

witnesses

who saw the repayment, but there are witnesses who signed it ,

and it emerges from the possession of a trustee,

meaning that the document is not in the possession of either the borrower or the creditor, but in the hands of a trustee between them—the trustee is believed.

Or if it emerges

the receipt

after the signatures of documents

meaning that it came before us written in another debt document after the signature—

it is valid.

And we explain: The reason that the receipt is valid when it

emerges from the possession of a trustee is

because he trusted him,

for

the creditor trusted the trustee,

as the creditor wrote the receipt and gave it into the trustee’s hands, thereby demonstrating his trust in him.

And likewise,

if it emerges after the signatures of documents as well,

it is valid, since

if it were not that it had been paid,

if the debt had not been repaid,

he would not have impaired his document,

he would not have written the receipt in the document, since the receipt detracts from the evidentiary force of the document.

We have returned to you, chapter Shnayim Ohazin.

Introduction

It is written in the Torah [Exodus 23]: “When you encounter the ox of your enemy or his donkey straying, you shall surely return it to him.”

It is further stated [Deuteronomy 22]: “You shall not see the ox of your brother or his sheep straying and disregard them; you shall surely return them to your brother:

And if your brother is not near you, and you do not know him, you shall gather it inside your house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall return it to him:

And so shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost object of your brother that he has lost from him and you have found; you may not disregard it.”

The chapter before us deals primarily with the laws of returning a lost object.

These are the principal matters concerning lost objects discussed in our chapter:

a. Which found objects belong to their finder, and which are those regarding which he is obligated to make a proclamation.

b. The laws of the owner’s despair of recovering the object: what constitutes despair with knowledge, and what constitutes despair without knowledge, and what their respective laws are.

c. The laws of identifying features: which features are those on the basis of which a lost object is returned.

d. The law governing the finder while he safeguards the lost object: is he treated as an unpaid bailee, or as a paid bailee?

e. The laws governing the care of the lost object until its owners come to take it.

f. The laws governing the care of animals that were found.

However, in the second part of the chapter, new subjects will be added, such as the laws of unloading and loading, and other matters involving financial loss to Jews, concerning which the Torah commanded a person to assist his fellow in these cases in order to prevent loss.

Mishna:

These found objects are his

that is, [they belong to the finder], and he is not obligated to make a proclamation that he found them so that he can return them to their owners, because their owners have despaired of them, and they are ownerless.

And these

found objects

he is obligated to proclaim

regarding their discovery, so that their owners will come to take them?

These

are the

found objects

that

are his

:

If one found produce [

the Gemara below will explain that the produce discussed by our Mishna means grain ]

scattered

over a certain area [the Gemara will explain what degree of scattering is meant],

Or if he found

scattered coins,

and likewise if he found

bundles [

small sheaves of grain]

in the public domain,

where many people pass, tread on the bundles, and even if they had an identifying feature, it is destroyed by the passage of the public .

And round cakes of dried figs [

crushed dried figs stuck together and made in a circular form], which have no identifying feature, since everyone makes them in the same shape,

and

loaves made by a baker [

who bakes many loaves in order to sell them], which have no identifying feature, since all loaves made by bakers are identical [ but loaves made by a householder, who bakes them for himself, do have an identifying feature. For it is not customary for a householder to knead a large quantity of dough, and he cannot fill an entire oven by himself; therefore, several householders join together for baking. Consequently, each one marks his loaf so that they will recognize them. A baker, however, bakes a large quantity of bread and fills an entire oven by himself],

and

strings of fish [

fish threaded on a cord], which have no identifying feature, since everyone ties them in the same manner,

and pieces of meat,

in a manner in which there is no identifying feature in the body of the piece, and the form of the cut and the size of the piece are also standard,

and bundles of wool purchased from their country of origin,

purchased as they were after being shorn, before they had been processed, like all the wool shorn in that country [ excluding bundles of wool that come from the artisan’s workshop after they have already been processed, which do have an identifying feature],

and bundles of flax [

bundles of unprocessed flax],

and strips of purple wool,

combed wool stretched into the form of a tongue and dyed purple; it is common and has no distinctive identifying feature,

if one found any one of all these objects,

these are his,

and he is not obligated to proclaim them.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

The reason is that none of all these objects has a recognizable identifying feature, and their owners have despaired of them; they are therefore ownerless, and whoever takes possession of them first acquires them.

Rabbi Yehuda

adds to the words of Rabbi Meir and

says: Anything

item

that has a distinguishing change —

he is obligated to proclaim

it.

What is the case?

For example, if he

found a round cake

of dried figs

with

a piece of

pottery

stuck inside it.

Or a loaf with

there were

coins

inside it. In that case, although ordinarily one who finds a round cake or a loaf is not obligated to proclaim it, nevertheless, in these cases he is obligated to proclaim it, because it is reasonable to assume that the pottery and the coins did not fall inside them on their own; rather, the owner of the cake or loaf placed them there. Consequently, the cake and loaf have an identifying feature for him, and he does not despair of them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to any utensil that is new, one is not obligated to proclaim it.

The Gemara will explain what “new” means and why one is not obligated to proclaim it.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

If one found produce scattered.

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

And how much?

That is, how much produce, and over what area, must it be scattered for us to say that the owners certainly despaired of the produce?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

It is speaking of

a kav

of produce that became scattered

over

an area of

four cubits

by four cubits .

And we wonder:

What are the circumstances?

If

it is speaking of a case in which it is evident that they were lost by

falling along the way,

having fallen from a person without his knowledge, then

even

if he found

a great deal [

more] than a kav, scattered over four cubits,

also

it should belong to the finder. For they have no identifying feature, and therefore their owners certainly despaired of them, since they cannot prove that the produce is theirs!

And if

he found them by

placement,

such that it is evident from the produce that someone deliberately placed it there, then

even

if the produce was

less than this,

less than a kav,

also not

should it belong to him, since its owner placed it there deliberately and will certainly return to take it!

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said:

Indeed, our Mishna is speaking neither of loss through falling nor of actual placement, in which the owner placed the produce there intending to return and take it. Rather,

we are dealing with produce gathered at the threshing floor .

The produce was found at the site where the grain was gathered, during the period when the threshing floors were being collected and the owner of the threshing floor was threshing his produce. He had taken the main part of the produce, and the produce now found had remained there .

Therefore,

a kav

of produce scattered

over

an area of

four cubits, because the effort required is considerable,

as it is a great effort to gather it, we say that

a person does not undertake the effort, nor does he return and come to collect it [

the owner will not trouble himself to return to take it], but rather

he declares it ownerless ,

and therefore it belongs to the finder.

But

if it is less than this,

if the produce was scattered over less than four cubits, so that the effort required to gather it is not so great,

he will undertake the effort

its owner

and return and come to collect it, and he does not declare it ownerless,

and therefore one must proclaim it.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

If a person found

half a kav

of produce scattered

over

an area of

two cubits, what is

the law? Must he proclaim it, or not?

And the explanation of the dilemma is as follows:

When one found

a kav over four cubits, what is the reason,

for what reason do we say that its owner despaired of it? Is the principal reason

because the effort required is considerable,

as it is a great effort to gather it, and therefore, if he found

half a kav over two cubits, since the effort required is not considerable [

since the effort required to gather it is not great],

he does not declare it ownerless

its owner?

Or perhaps,

perhaps the principal reason that when he found a kav over four cubits its owner despaired of it is

because

a kav of produce

is not significant,

it is not important enough to him for him to return to take it,

and

if so, also

half a kav over two cubits, since it is not significant [

it is not important in his eyes] —

he declares it ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a dilemma: If he found

two kavs [

two kavs of produce] scattered

over

an area of

eight cubits, what is the law?

Should we say that when he found

a kav over four cubits, what is the reason,

what is the reason that we say its owner despaired of it —

because the effort required is considerable, and

if so,

all the more so

when he found

two kavs

scattered

over eight cubits, since the effort required is even greater —

certainly

he declares it ownerless

its owner.

Or perhaps:

perhaps the reason that its owner despaired of it is

because

a kav of produce

is not significant,

and if so, when he found

two kavs over eight cubits, since they are significant —

he does not declare them ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a dilemma: If he found

a kav of sesame [

which is expensive, but whose collection, on the other hand, requires very great effort] scattered

over

an area of

four cubits —

what is the law?

Should we say that

when one finds a kav over four cubits, what is the reason —

because it is not significant, and

if so, when he found

sesame, since it is significant,

as it is expensive —

he does not declare it ownerless.

Or perhaps:

perhaps the reason is

because the effort required is considerable, and all the more so

when he found

sesame, since the effort required is even greater,

as the grains are fine and small and difficult to gather —

he declares it ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a dilemma: If he found

a kav of dates

over four cubits,

or if he found

a kav of pomegranates over four cubits —

what is the law?

Could we say that when he found

a kav within four cubits, what is the reason? Because they are not significant,

and if so, when he found

a kav of dates within four cubits,

or found

a kav of pomegranates within four cubits as well, since they are not significant—

he renders them ownerless.

Or perhaps:

Maybe the reason is

because the effort involved in gathering them is considerable, and

if so, this reason applies specifically to produce, which is difficult to gather. But

a kav of dates within four cubits, and a kav of pomegranates within four cubits, since the effort involved in gathering them is not considerable,

for they are large fruits and gathering them entails no effort—

he does not render them ownerless.

What is the law?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved .

Introduction to the sugya of despair without awareness.

Every lost item involves three stages:

a. The loss of the object itself.

b. The owner becoming aware of the loss and despairing of recovering it.

c. The finder taking possession of the object.

If the events occurred in the order we have described, this is “despair with awareness”: before the finder took possession of the find, the owners had already become aware of their loss and despaired of recovering it. Therefore, the lost object came into the finder’s possession after the owners’ despair, and he acquired it as ownerless property; consequently, it was in his possession permissibly from the moment he lifted it.

However, if the events occurred in the opposite order—if the finder first took the find, and only afterward the owners became aware of their loss and despaired of recovering it—this is “despair without awareness.”

The issue is the law in such a case of despair. Do we say that since the find came into his possession before the despair, it did not come into his possession permissibly, even though he did not intend to steal it, and therefore he does not acquire it?

Or perhaps, since the reason the owners had not despaired was their lack of awareness—they had not realized that they had lost it—whereas had they known, they certainly would have despaired, therefore, although there was no actual despair, this situation is nevertheless considered equivalent to despair, and the find came into the finder’s possession permissibly?