Bava Metzia 21a — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

say

it means:

it shall be validated by its signatories,

that is,

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

for we ask the signed witnesses whether they saw the payment or not; and if they did not see the payment, the creditor is believed to say that the receipt was written only to be ready for when he would be paid.

ta shma:

We learned in a

beraita:

a receipt

upon which there are witnesses—

is valid

even if it is in the creditor’s possession.

And 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—

the reference is to

validation witnesses,

witnesses who validate the receipt, who wrote “validated”; and a court does not validate the receipt unless the debtor paid the debt. Therefore, the receipt is valid even when it is in the creditor’s possession.

This too is reasonably [understood],

that it is speaking of validation witnesses.

For from the fact that it teaches at the end: And one upon which there are no witnesses—

is invalid

the receipt.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

what

is meant by

“there are no witnesses upon it?”

If you say,

if it is said

that there are none upon it,

that there are no

witnesses at all upon the receipt—

and is it

necessary to say that it is invalid?

For it is obvious that without witnesses it is not proof of payment of the debt.

Rather, is it not

the reference to a case in which there are witnesses upon the receipt, but it does not have

validation witnesses,

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

The matter itself:

We learned in the Tosefta:

a receipt upon which there are witnesses shall be validated by its signatories,

and we established that it is speaking of validation witnesses who saw the payment; and if there are witnesses, even if the receipt emerges from beneath the creditor’s hand, it is valid.

And if

there are not upon it

upon the receipt

witnesses

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

and it emerges from beneath the hand of a trustee

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

Or if it emerges

the receipt

after the signing of documents,

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 beneath the hand of a trustee—

for he trusted him

for he trusted him

the creditor to the trustee,

for the creditor wrote the receipt, and he handed it over to the trustee, and through this he trusted him .

And likewise,

if it emerges after the signing of documents as well

it is valid, since

if it were not that it had been paid,

if the debt had not been paid—

he would not have impaired his document,

he would not have written the receipt in the document, for the receipt damages the proof in the document .

We shall return to you, chapter “Two Hold”

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 wandering and ignore them; you shall surely return them to your brother:

And if your brother is not near you and you do not know him, then you shall gather it inside your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seeks it, and 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 article of your brother that is lost from him and you find it; you shall not be able to ignore it.”

The chapter before us deals primarily with the matters of returning a lost article.

These are the principal matters of lost articles discussed in our chapter:

a. Which finds belong to their finder, and which are those concerning which he is obligated to announce.

b. The laws of the owner’s despair. What is despair with knowledge, and what is despair without knowledge, and what is their law.

c. The laws of identifying marks. Which are the marks by which a lost article is returned.

d. The law of the finder so long as he is guarding the lost article. Is his law that of an unpaid guardian, or that of a paid guardian.

e. The laws of caring for the lost article until the owners come to take it.

f. The laws of caring for 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 in which there is financial loss to Israel’s property, concerning which the Torah commanded a person to assist his fellow in these cases, in order to prevent loss.

Mishna:

These are his finds

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

And these

finds

he is obligated to announce

their finding, so that their owners will come to take them?

These

are the

finds

that

are his

:

He found produce [

The Gemara below will explain that the produce of which our Mishna speaks is grain]

scattered

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

or he found

scattered coins,

and likewise if he found

bundles [

small sheaves of grain]

in the public domain,

where many people walk, and tread on the bundles; and even if they had an identifying mark, it is destroyed by the passage of the many .

And round cakes of dried figs [

crushed dried figs stuck to one another and made in a round form], which have no identifying mark, since everyone makes them in the same form,

and

loaves of a baker,

who bakes many loaves in order to sell them, which have no identifying mark, since all loaves of bakers are alike [ but loaves of a householder, who bakes them for himself, do have an identifying mark. For it is not the way of a householder to knead a large quantity of dough, and he cannot fill an entire oven by himself; therefore several householders join together for the baking. For this reason each one marks his loaf, so that they can recognize them. But a baker bakes a large quantity of bread and fills an entire oven by himself],

and

strings of fish [

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

and pieces of meat,

in a manner in which there is no identifying mark in the body of the piece, and the form of cutting and the size of the piece are also fixed,

and fleeces of wool taken from their country,

taken as they were sheared, not yet processed, like all the shearing of that country [ excluding fleeces of wool coming from the craftsman’s house, after they have already been processed, which have an identifying mark],

and bundles of flax [

bundles of unprocessed flax],

and tongues of purple wool,

combed wool drawn into the shape of a tongue and dyed purple; it is common, and has no special identifying mark,

if he found one of all these things,

these are his,

and he is not obligated to announce them.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

The reason is that, since all these things have no recognizable identifying mark, their owners despaired of them, and they are ownerless; and whoever comes first acquires them.

Rabbi Judah

adds to Rabbi Meir’s words and

says: Every

object

that has a change—

he is obligated to announce

it.

How so?

For example,

he found a round cake

of dried figs, and

inside it

there was embedded a piece of

pottery.

Or he found

a loaf, and inside it

there were

coins.

In that case, although ordinarily one who finds a round cake or a loaf is not obligated to announce it, nevertheless, in these cases he is obligated to announce it, because it is reasonable that the pottery and the coins did not fall there by themselves; rather, the owner of the round cake and the loaf placed them there. If so, they constitute an identifying mark in the round cake and the loaf, and he does not despair of them.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any vessel of anpurya, he is not obligated to announce.

The Gemara will explain what “anpurya” is and why he is not obligated to announce it.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna:

He found produce scattered.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

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 Yitzhak said:

It is referring to

a kav

of produce that became scattered

in

an area of

four cubits

by four cubits .

And we wonder:

What are the circumstances?

If

it is speaking of a case in which he found them in a manner indicating that they were lost in

the manner of falling,

that they fell from a person without his knowledge, then

even

if he found

much [

more] than a kav, which became scattered over four cubits,

also

they should belong to the finder, since they have no identifying mark; and if so, their owners certainly despaired of them, since they will not be able to prove that the produce was theirs!

And if

he found them in

the manner of placing,

where it is apparent from the produce that a person placed it there intentionally, then

even

if the produce was

less than this,

less than a kav,

also not

would it belong to him, since its owners placed it there intentionally, and would certainly return to take it!

Rav Ukva bar Hama said:

Indeed, our Mishna is speaking neither of the manner of falling nor of actual placing, in which he placed them there intending to return to take them. Rather,

we are dealing with miknashta de-vei dari .

The produce was found at the place where the threshing floors were gathered, during the period when the threshing floors are gathered, and the owner of the threshing floor threshed his grain and took the main produce, while this produce that was now found remained there .

Therefore,

a kav

of scattered produce

in

an area of

four cubits, because their labor is great,

for it is great labor to gather it, we say that

no person would trouble himself, and then return and come to take them [

the owners would not trouble themselves to return to take them], but

he renders them ownerless ,

and therefore these are the finder’s.

But

less than this,

if the produce was scattered over less than four cubits, where the labor of gathering it is not so great,

he would trouble himself,

its owners,

and then return and come to take them, and he would not render them ownerless,

and therefore he must announce them.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a problem:

If a person found

half a kav

of produce scattered

in

an area of

two cubits, what is the law?

What is the law: must he announce them or not?

And the explanation of the doubt is:

When he found

a kav in four cubits, what is the reason,

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

because their labor is great,

for there is much labor in gathering it, and if so, if he found

half a kav in two cubits, since their labor is not great [

for their labor is not great], since they are scattered over only two cubits—

he does not render them ownerless

their owners.

Or perhaps,

perhaps the principal reason that, when he found a kav in four cubits, its owners despaired of it, is

because

a kav of produce

is not important,

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

and

if so, also

half a kav in two cubits, since it is not important [

it is not important in his eyes]—

he renders them ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a doubt: If he found

two kavs [

two kavs of produce] scattered

in

an area of

eight cubits, what is the law?

Should we say that when he found

a kav in four cubits, what is the reason,

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

because their labor is great, and

if so,

all the more so

when

two kavs

were found scattered

over eight cubits, since their labor is even greater—

certainly

their owners render them ownerless.

its owner.

Or perhaps:

perhaps the reason that its owners despaired of it is

because

a kav of produce

is not important,

and if so, when he found

two kavs in eight cubits, since they are important—

he does not render them ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a doubt: If he found

a kav of sesame [

whose price is high, but on the other hand, the labor of gathering it is very great] scattered

in

an area of

four cubits—

what is the law?

Should we say that

a kav in four cubits—what is the reason -

because it is not important, and

if so, when he found

sesame, since it is important,

because it is expensive—

he does not render it ownerless.

Or perhaps:

perhaps the reason is

because their labor is great, and all the more so

when he found

sesame, since its labor is even greater,

for it is fine and small, and difficult to gather—

he renders it ownerless.

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a doubt: If he found

a kav of dates

in four cubits,

or if he found

a kav of pomegranates in four cubits—

what is the law?

Should we say that when he found

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

and therefore, when he found

a kav of dates within four amot,

or when he found

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

he declares them ownerless.

Or perhaps:

perhaps the reason is

because their exertion is great, and

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

a kav of dates within four amot, and a kav of pomegranates within four amot, since their exertion is not great,

for they are large fruits, and there is no exertion in gathering them—

he does not declare them ownerless.

What is the law?

And we conclude:

teyku .

Introduction to the sugya of yeiush שלא מדעת

In every lost object there are three stages:

a. The very loss of the object.

b. The owners’ becoming aware of their loss, and their yeiush from it.

c. The finder’s taking of the object.

If the order of events was as we mentioned, this yeiush is “yeiush with knowledge”: for even before the find was taken by the finder, the owners had already learned of their loss and despaired of it. If so, the lost object came into the finder’s possession after the owners’ yeiush, and he acquired it from the ownerless property; thus, it was in his possession permissibly from the time he lifted it.

However, if the order of events was different—namely, that first the finder took the find, and only afterward the owners became aware of their loss and despaired—this is “yeiush without knowledge.”

And the issue is: what is the law with such yeiush? Should we say that since the find came into his possession before yeiush, 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 did not despair was their lack of knowledge, because they did not notice their loss, whereas if they had known, they certainly would have despaired, therefore, even though there was no actual yeiush, nevertheless this state is considered yeiush, and the find came into the finder’s possession permissibly?