Bava Metzia 23a — the Talmud in English

Because

the bundles

are trampled

and the sign is destroyed.

But if the bundles were found

in a private domain, he takes them and announces them—

because

they are not trampled,

and their owners rely on the sign in them.

And the sheaves, whether

they were found

in a public domain, or whether

they were found

in a private domain—

he takes them and announces them. Since they are high

because they are large and high—

they are not trampled,

and even if they were lost in a public domain, the sign remained upon them and was not destroyed.

And Rava explains according to his reasoning, with regard to a

sign of

place:

Bundles in a public domain belong to him—

because

they are scattered.

Because they roll beneath the feet of people and animals passing through the public domain, and they are not found in the place where they initially fell; therefore, he cannot announce the place.

But if the bundles were found

in a private domain—

he is obligated to announce them,

because

in

a private domain the bundles

are not scattered,

and he can announce the place.

And the sheaves, both in a public domain and in a private domain—

he takes them and announces them, since they are heavy

because they are large and heavy—

they are not scattered

beneath the feet of people and animals, and he can announce the place.

Ta shma:

from what we learned in our Mishna:

loaves of a baker—

they belong to him,

because they have no sign.

It follows:

but

loaves

of a householder—

he is obligated to announce

them.

And now, loaves

of a householder, what is the reason

that he is obligated to announce them—

Since they contain a sign.

And what is their sign?

That it is clearly known: a person’s loaf—

it is a person

A person’s bread is the person, for every householder makes his loaves in a different form, and it is recognizable whose they are.

And it makes no difference

whether they were found in a

public domain, and it makes no difference

whether they were found in a

private domain—

he takes them and announces them,

even though, in a public domain, they are liable to be trampled.

Apparently: a sign liable to be trampled—

is a sign! A refutation of Rabba!

Rabba can say to you:

Indeed, a sign liable to be trampled is not a sign.

And

there,

with regard to loaves,

this is the reason

that he must announce them even if they were found in a public domain: because loaves are not ordinarily trampled even when they are in a public domain,

because people do not pass over

the

food.

For one who finds food in his path is not permitted to pass over it and leave it there; rather, he must lift it from the path. Therefore, they certainly were not trampled, since the first person who found them lifted them!

And we raise an objection:

But there are non-Jews

who do not concern themselves with this matter, and the loaves are liable to be trampled by their feet before a Jew passes there!

Even

non-Jews

do not trample food, because they

are wary of sorcery,

as they think that it was placed there on account of sorcery, in order to cause those who trample it to stumble. Therefore, although they do not lift the food, nevertheless they do not trample it; rather, they leave it in its place.

And we raise an objection:

But there are animals and dogs,

which trample the food!

And we say: Our Mishna is speaking

in a place

where

animals and dogs are not common.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Rabba and Rava

is like

the dispute

of tannaim

?

For we learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: Everything that has a distinguishing alteration—

he is obligated to announce.

How so?

He found a round loaf with a potsherd inside it, a loaf with coins inside it.

By implication, the first tannaitic authority holds

that even in such a case—

they belong to him.

They supposed,

the students of the study hall,

that everyone,

both the first tannaitic authority and Rabbi Judah, holds that

a sign that comes

at times

by itself,

such as the cases in our Mishna—a potsherd placed in a round loaf, and coins placed in a loaf, which sometimes fall into the round loaf or loaf unintentionally, without their owners intending to place them there—

is a sign.

Because we say that the owners placed them there as a sign, and that they did not fall there by themselves.

And

the students of the study hall further assumed that everyone holds that

people pass over food.

And if so, this is a sign liable to be trampled.

Is it not

with regard to a sign liable to be trampled

whether it is a sign or not—

that they disagree?

One master,

the first tannaitic authority,

holds

that a sign liable to be trampled

is not a sign.

Therefore, if he found a round loaf with a potsherd inside it, or a loaf with coins inside it, this is not a sign.

And one master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds: A sign liable to be trampled

is

is a sign,

and therefore he is obligated to announce it!

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tannaitic authority holds that a sign liable to be trampled—

is not a sign, and people pass over food,

then, when he found

loaves of a householder in a public domain—

why does he announce

them? Indeed, they contain a sign, but this is a sign liable to be trampled!?

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Everyone holds

that

a sign liable to be trampled—

is a sign, and

everyone holds that

people pass over food.

Therefore, if he found loaves of a householder in a public domain, even though they are liable to be trampled there, since people pass over food, nevertheless he is obligated to announce them, since a sign liable to be trampled is a sign.

And here—

they disagree with regard to a sign that comes by itself,

whether it is considered a sign or not.

For the first tannaitic authority holds: A sign that comes by itself—

is not a sign,

and therefore they belong to him.

And Rabbi Judah holds:

A sign that comes by itself

is a sign,

and therefore he is obligated to announce it.

And Rabba can say to you: Everyone

holds that

a sign liable to be trampled—

is not a sign, and

likewise everyone holds that

people do not pass over food.

Therefore, one who finds loaves of a householder in a public domain is obligated to announce them, since they are not liable to be trampled, because people do not pass over food.

And here, they disagree with regard to a sign that comes by itself,

whether it is a sign or not.

The first tannaitic authority holds: It is not a sign,

and therefore they belong to him.

And Rabbi Judah holds: It is a sign,

and therefore he is obligated to announce it.

There are those who say

that the Gemara’s statement, “Shall we say it is like the tannaim,” was said with regard to “people do not pass over food”:

They supposed,

the students of the study hall,

that everyone,

both the first tannaitic authority and Rabbi Judah, holds that

a sign that comes by itself is a sign, and

likewise everyone holds that

a sign liable to be trampled—

is not a sign.

Is it not—

with regard to people passing over food that they disagree,

the first tannaitic authority and Rabbi Judah?

For one master,

the first tannaitic authority,

holds: People pass over

food; therefore, since it is a sign liable to be trampled, it is not a sign, and they belong to him.

And one master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds: People do not pass over

food, and this is not a sign liable to be trampled; therefore, he is obligated to announce it!

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind

that

the first tannaitic authority holds

that

a sign liable to be trampled is not a sign, and people pass over food,

and therefore they belong to him, then when he found

loaves of a householder in a public domain—

why does he announce them?

After all, the sign in them is liable to be trampled, and is not a sign!

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Everyone holds that a sign liable to be trampled—

is a sign, and

likewise everyone holds that

people pass over food.

And here—

they disagree with regard to a sign that comes by itself.

For the first tannaitic authority holds: A sign that comes by itself—

is not a sign.

And Rabbi Judah holds: It is a sign.

And Rabba can say to you: Everyone

holds that

a sign liable to be trampled—

is not a sign, and

likewise everyone holds that

people do not pass over food.

And here—

they disagree with regard to a sign that comes by itself.

The first tannaitic authority holds: A sign that comes by itself—

is not a sign.

And Rabbi Judah holds: It is a sign.

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:

This is the

general rule of lost objects

Once

we have heard the owner of the lost object

say, “Woe over the loss of money”—

A pity over the loss that was caused to me—this is a sign that he

has despaired of it

He has despaired of it— even though he did not say so explicitly.

And Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: The halakha is,

if he found

bundles in a public domain—

they belong to him,

because in a public domain place is not a sign, since they are scattered beneath the feet of people and animals.

But when he found bundles

in a private domain,

the law is as follows:

If

they were found in such a manner that it is apparent that they were lost

by falling,

and were not intentionally placed there—

they belong to him.

Because he cannot announce the place, since the owners do not know where the lost object fell from them.

But

if

they were found

by placement—

as it is apparent that their owners placed them there, and that they did not fall from them—

he takes

the loaves

and announces

the place. For if he leaves them and goes, a non-Jew may come and take them.

And both this and that,

bundles in a public domain and in a private domain by falling, concerning which we ruled that they belong to him—this is

with regard to something that has no sign.

But with regard to something that has a sign, it makes no difference

whether it was found

in a public domain, and it makes no difference

whether it was found

in a private domain, whether by falling or by placement—

he is obligated to announce it

This follows the reasoning of Rava, who holds that a sign liable to be trampled is a sign.

Therefore, even if it was found in a public domain, he is obligated to announce it.