Bava Metzia 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

Because

the bundles

are trampled and the identifying feature is destroyed.

the identifying mark is destroyed.

But if the bundles were found

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

because

they are not trampled, and their owners can rely on the identifying feature they contain.

and their owners can rely on the identifying mark on them.

And as for the sheaves, whether

they were found

in a public domain, or whether

they were found

in a private domain—

he takes them and announces his find. Since they are tall [because they are large and high]—

because they are large and tall]—

they are not trampled,

and even if they were lost in a public domain, the identifying feature remains on them and is not destroyed.

And Rava explains it according to his own reasoning, with regard to an

identifying feature of

location:

Bundles found in a public domain belong to him—

because

they are scattered.

Since they are rolled about by the feet of people and animals passing through the public domain, they are not found in the place where they initially fell; therefore, he cannot announce the location.

But if the bundles were found

in a private domain—

he is obligated to announce his find,

because

in

a private domain, the bundles

are not scattered,

and he can announce the location.

And as for the sheaves, whether in a public domain or in a private domain—

he takes them and announces his find, since they are heavy [because they are large and heavy]—

because they are large and heavy]—

they are not scattered

by the feet of people and animals, and he can announce the location.

Ta shma,

from what we learned in our Mishna:

loaves baked by a professional baker—

belong to him,

because they have no identifying feature.

It may be inferred:

but

loaves

baked by a householder—

he is obligated to announce his find

concerning them.

And now, with regard to loaves

baked by a householder, what is the reason

that he is obligated to announce his find?

Since they contain an identifying feature.

And what is their identifying feature?

It is clearly recognizable that a person’s bread

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

a person’s bread is identified with the person himself: every homeowner makes his loaves in a different shape, and it is recognizable whose they are].

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 his find,

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

Apparently, an identifying feature that is likely to be trampled

is considered an identifying feature! This is a refutation of Rabba!

Rabbah can say to you:

Indeed, an identifying feature likely to be trampled is not considered an identifying feature.

And

there,

with regard to loaves,

this is the reason

that he must announce his find even if they were found in a public domain: loaves are not likely to be trampled even when they are in a public domain,

because people do not pass

over

food .

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

And we raise an objection:

But there are gentiles

who are not particular about this, and the loaves are likely to be trampled under their feet before a Jew passes there!

Even

gentiles

do not trample food, because they

are concerned about sorcery,

thinking that it was placed there through 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 another objection:

But there are animals and dogs,

which trample food!

And we say: Our Mishna is speaking

in a place [A place]

where]

where animals and dogs are not common.

Shall we say

that the dispute between Rabbah and Rava

is like

a dispute between

tannaim

?

For we learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any object that has a distinctive alteration—

he is obligated to announce his find.

What is an example?

If he found a round cake containing a shard of pottery, or a loaf containing coins.

By inference, the first tanna holds

that even in such a case—

it belongs to him.

They assumed,

the students of the study hall,

that everyone,

both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda, held that

an identifying feature that comes

at times

by itself,

such as the cases in our Mishna—a shard of pottery placed in a round cake, or coins placed in a loaf, which sometimes fall into the cake or loaf accidentally, without their owners intending to place them there—

is considered an identifying feature.

This is because we say that the owners placed them there as an identifying feature, rather than that they fell in by themselves.

And

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

people pass over food.

If so, this is an identifying feature likely to be trampled.

Is it not the case that

they disagree with regard to an identifying feature likely to be trampled,

whether it is considered an identifying feature or not—

this is the subject of their dispute?

One master,

the first tanna,

holds

that an identifying feature likely to be trampled

is not considered an identifying feature.

Therefore, if he found a round cake containing a shard of pottery, or a loaf containing coins, this is not an identifying feature.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds:

an identifying feature likely to be trampled

is considered an identifying feature,

and therefore he is obligated to announce his find!

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: If it enters your mind that the first tanna holds that an identifying feature likely to be trampled

is not considered an identifying feature, and that people pass over food,

then, when he found

loaves baked by a householder in a public domain—

why does he announce his find

concerning them? They indeed contain an identifying feature, but this is an identifying feature likely to be trampled!?

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

that

an identifying feature likely to be trampled—

is considered an identifying feature, and

everyone holds that

people pass over food .

Therefore, if he found loaves baked by a householder in a public domain, although they are likely to be trampled there, since people pass over food, nevertheless he is obligated to announce his find, since an identifying feature likely to be trampled is considered an identifying feature.

And here—

they disagree with regard to an identifying feature that comes by itself,

whether it is considered an identifying feature or not.

For the first tanna holds: An identifying feature that comes by itself—

is not considered an identifying feature,

and therefore it belongs to him.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds:

an identifying feature that comes by itself

is considered an identifying feature,

and therefore he is obligated to announce his find.

And Rabbah can say to you: Everyone

holds that

an identifying feature likely to be trampled—

is not considered an identifying feature, and

everyone also holds that

people do not pass over food.

Therefore, one who finds loaves baked by a householder in a public domain is obligated to announce his find, since they are not likely to be trampled, as people do not pass over food.

And here, they disagree with regard to an identifying feature that comes by itself,

whether it is an identifying feature or not.

The first tanna holds: It is not considered an identifying feature,

and therefore it belongs to him.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: It is considered an identifying feature,

and therefore he is obligated to announce his find.

There are those who say

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

they assumed,

the students of the study hall,

that everyone,

both the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda, held that

an identifying feature that comes by itself is considered an identifying feature, and

everyone also held that

an identifying feature likely to be trampled—

is not considered an identifying feature.

Is it not the case that

they disagree with regard to whether people pass over food,

the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda?

One master,

the first tanna,

holds: People pass over

food, and therefore, since it is an identifying feature likely to be trampled, it is not considered an identifying feature, and it belongs to him.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds: People do not pass over

food, and this is not an identifying feature likely to be trampled; therefore, he is obligated to announce his find!

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

that

the first tanna holds

that

an identifying feature likely to be trampled is not considered an identifying feature, and that people pass over food,

and therefore it belongs to him, then, when he found

loaves baked by a householder in a public domain—

why does he announce his find?

After all, the identifying feature they contain is likely to be trampled and is not considered an identifying feature!

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Everyone holds that an identifying feature likely to be trampled—

is considered an identifying feature, and

everyone also holds that

people pass over food.

And here—

they disagree with regard to an identifying feature that comes by itself.

For the first tanna holds: An identifying feature that comes by itself—

is not considered an identifying feature.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: It is considered an identifying feature.

And Rabbah can say to you: Everyone

holds that

an identifying feature likely to be trampled—

is not considered an identifying feature, and

everyone also holds that

people do not pass over food.

And here—

they disagree with regard to an identifying feature that comes by itself.

The first tanna holds: An identifying feature that comes by itself—

is not considered an identifying feature.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: It is considered an identifying feature

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:

This is the

general principle concerning lost objects

Once

we have heard the owner of the lost object

say, “Woe over the loss of money,” [How unfortunate is the loss I have suffered]—

it 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 the location is not an identifying feature, since they are scattered by 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 a manner indicating that they had been lost

through falling,

and were not intentionally placed there—

they belong to him.

This is because he cannot announce the location, since the owners do not know where their lost object fell from them.

But

if

they were found

in the manner of an intentional placement [indicating that their owners placed them there and that they did not fall from them]—

in a manner indicating that their owners placed them there and that they did not fall from them]—

he takes

the loaves

and announces

the location, because if he leaves them and goes away, a gentile may come and take them.

Both this and that,

bundles in a public domain and bundles in a private domain that were found in the manner of falling, concerning which we ruled that they belong to him—this is referring

to an object that has no identifying feature.

But with regard to an object that has an identifying feature, 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 in the manner of falling or in the manner of intentional placement—

he is obligated to announce his find [This follows Rava’s reasoning, according to which an identifying feature likely to be trampled is considered an identifying feature.

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

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