Bava Metzia 23b — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

and strings of fish

etc.—these belong to him, because they have no identifying mark.

And we raise a difficulty:

Why

do these belong to him?

Let there be

the

knot

with which the fish are tied

an identifying mark,

and the finder should be obligated to proclaim the lost item!

And we answer: In our Mishna, the fish are tied

with the fishermen’s knot

[with the knot of the fishermen],

for everyone ties in this manner

[for everyone ties in the same manner], and if so, the knot is not an identifying mark.

And we raise a difficulty:

And let the number be an identifying mark!

That is to say, let the number of fish strung on the string be an identifying mark!

And we answer: It is speaking of a place where the fishermen customarily string

with equal numbers.

They string a fixed number of fish on a string, and therefore the number is not an identifying mark, for there is the same number in all the strings.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

A lost item that has no identifying mark in its body, but an identifying mark can be given by the

number

of objects found—is it

an identifying mark

by which to return the lost item,

or is it not an identifying mark?

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have learned it: If one found silver vessels, copper vessels, a gasteron of lead [pieces of lead],

and every metal vessel, he may not return it until

the owner of the lost item gives an

identifying sign

[an identifying mark],

or until he accurately specifies its weights.

That he says what the weight of the lost item was.

And since weight is an identifying mark,

it is reasonable that

measure

[the size of the lost item]

and number—

also are identifying marks.

We learned in our Mishna:

and pieces of meat, etc.

These belong to him.

And we raise a difficulty:

Why

do these belong to him?

Let the weight

[the weight of the pieces]

be an identifying mark!

And we answer:

With equal weights.

That is to say, the butchers were accustomed to cut pieces of equal weight.

And we raise a difficulty:

And let

the type of

the piece itself be an identifying mark!

Let the owner of the lost item give as an identifying mark

either

[whether] the piece is

from the neck

[of the neck],

or

that it is

from the thigh

[of the thigh]?

Is it not taught

that this matter is considered an identifying mark? For so we learned in a beraita:

If one found pieces of fish, or a bitten fish

[or found a fish that had been bitten]—

he is obligated to proclaim.

But if he found

barrels of wine, and of oil, and of grain, and of dried figs, and of olives—

these belong to him,

because these objects have no identifying mark.

The Gemara now assumes that the fish have no identifying mark, but that the piece itself—whether it is a head or a tail and the like—is itself the identifying mark. And likewise with a bitten fish, the bite itself is the identifying mark. And it is proven from here that a piece is an identifying mark!

And the Gemara rejects this:

What are we dealing with here—

where there is an identifying mark in the cut

[where there is an identifying mark in the form of the cut, that it was not cut in the customary manner].

Like this, as in the case of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

when he would send a piece of meat to his wife by the hand of a gentile, and was concerned that it might be exchanged for other meat that was not kosher, he would make an identifying mark in the meat, by

cutting it into three corners

[he would cut it in the shape of a triangle, which has three corners].

And we say:

It is also precise,

this is also inferred from the wording of the beraita, that it is speaking of an identifying mark in the form of the fish’s cut,

for it teaches

“pieces of fish”—

analogous to a bitten fish,

which has a distinctive identifying mark. It follows that even with pieces of fish, it is speaking of pieces that have an identifying mark, namely, in the form of the cut.

And we conclude:

Learn from this.

In the days of the tannaim, the wine and oil barrels were made of earthenware. After the householders filled them with wine, they would cover them with an earthenware cover and smear clay around it, at the place where the cover joined the barrel, to attach the cover to the barrel so that the smell of the wine would not escape.

And in the months of Shevat or Nisan, when the householders would sell wine barrels to shopkeepers, they would remove their covers so that the shopkeeper could taste the wine. Afterwards, the shopkeeper would reseal the covers and smear clay around the entire cover, so that the smell of the wine would be preserved for a long time and he could sell it at the time of high prices. This was called “sealing,” and in this manner the shopkeeper would carry them to his house.

However, there are shopkeepers who do not want to preserve the barrels in order to sell them at the time of high prices, but take them in order to sell them immediately, and they carry them to their houses open.

The master said:

If one found

barrels of wine, and of oil, and of grain, and of dried figs, and of olives—

these belong to him.

And we raise a difficulty:

But we learned:

One who finds

wine jars and oil jars—

he is obligated to proclaim!

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav:

In the

Mishna

it is speaking

of one that is sealed

[of a sealed barrel]. And this is the identifying mark that the owner of the barrel gives, since, as was explained, some seal the barrels in order to sell them later, while others carry them open in order to sell them immediately.

And we raise a difficulty:

By inference, in

the

beraita

that we learned, “these belong to him,” it is speaking

of

one who found it

open!? If

he found it

open—

it is obvious that he is not obligated to proclaim, since

it is a lost item through the owner’s negligence!

For vermin, crawling creatures, and snakes can drink from the barrel!

Rav Hoshaya said:

Indeed, the beraita is certainly not speaking of a completely open barrel, but

of one who merely places the cover on it

[who placed the cover on the mouth of the barrel but did not seal it with clay], and therefore it is not a lost item through the owner’s negligence, since crawling creatures cannot drink from it. Nevertheless, there is no identifying mark here, and therefore it belongs to him.

Abaye said: You may even say

that

both this and that,

both the Mishna and the beraita, are speaking

of one that is sealed, and

nevertheless

there is no difficulty,

because

here,

in the Mishna, it is speaking of a barrel that was found

before the storehouses were opened

for wine, when the fixed time for selling wine barrels, which is in the months of Adar and Nisan, had not yet arrived, and only individuals would then bring out sealed barrels to sell; therefore, the seal constitutes an identifying mark.

Whereas

here,

in the beraita, it is speaking

after the storehouses were opened,

when the seal of the barrel is not considered an identifying mark, since at that time there are many who seal their barrels.

And we find that Abaye conducted himself in this manner in actual halakhic practice as well.

Like this

[as we find],

Rabbi Yaakov bar Abba

found a barrel of wine after the storehouses had been opened.

He came before Abaye,

to ask him how to act concerning the barrel.

He said to him: Go, take it for yourself

[take it for yourself]. This was in accordance with his statement above, that after the storehouses had been opened, the seal of the barrel is not considered an identifying mark. Therefore, he did not ask whether the barrel had been sealed or not, because even if it had been sealed, this would not be an identifying mark.

Rav Bibi asked Rav Nahman: Is location an identifying mark, or is it not an identifying mark?

[This question was brought here because Rav Nahman resolves it from the beraita brought above.]

He said to him: You have learned it: If one found barrels of wine, and of oil, and of grain, and of dried figs, and of olives—

these belong to him.

And if it should enter your mind that location is an identifying mark,

why do these belong to him?

Let him proclaim

[let him proclaim]

the location!

Rav Zevid said: There is no proof from here, because it is possible to say that

what are we dealing with here—

the barrel was found

at the riverbank

[at the bank of the river]. For the sellers bring the wine there by ship, and the purchasers unload the barrels they bought onto the riverbank and carry them from there one by one, and sometimes they forget one barrel there.

And the Gemara continues to explain why, if a person comes and gives as an identifying mark that the barrel was found at the riverbank, this is not considered an identifying mark.

Rav Mari said: What is the reason the Sages said

that

the riverbank is not an identifying mark?

Because

we say to him,

to the one who claims that the lost item is his:

Just as it happened to you

that you forgot a barrel there, so it is possible that

it also happened to your fellow

that he forgot one, for it is common for barrels to be forgotten there.

There are those who say,

that thus

said Rav Mari: What is the reason the Rabbis said

that

place is not a sign

if the lost item was found on the riverbank?

Because

we say to him: Just as it happened to you [

just as it happened to you that you lost something in

this [

that same]

place,

it is possible that it also happened

to your fellow

that he lost something in exactly

this place,

because it is common for jugs to be forgotten there.

A certain man found tar in the oil press [

he found tar in the oil press, and it is an item that has no sign].

He came before Rav,

to ask how he should act concerning the tar.

He said to him: Go and take it for yourself [

go and take the tar for yourself].

He saw that he was hesitating [

Rav saw that this man was hesitating], and he wished to remove the doubt from his heart.

He said to him: Go and divide it with my son Hiyya [

go and divide the tar with my son Hiyya].

The Gemara infers:

Let us say,

is it possible to prove from this incident that

Rav holds

that

place is not a sign?

For if not, the finder should have made an announcement, so that the loser could take it by providing the sign of the place!

Rabbi Abba said:

It is indeed possible that Rav holds that place is a sign, and there is indeed here a sign by which it can be returned. Rather, the reason that he said to him that he could take it for himself was

because they touched upon the owners’ despair, for he saw

Rav

that plants had sprouted in it [

that plants had grown on the vessel in which the tar had been], and this proves that the tar had been lying there for many days, and its owners had certainly already despaired of it.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, and so on [

with regard to every vessel of anpurya, one is not obligated to announce it].

What is anpurya?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: New vessels, which

still

have not satisfied

and become familiar to

the eye

so that he can recognize them well, since he has not yet used the vessels extensively. And the expression anpurya is an acronym for “there is no proof here.”

And we raised it:

What are the circumstances?

If they have

in the vessels

a sign,

if so,

if the eye has not become familiar with them—

what of it?

He should announce the lost item, and if a person comes and provides a sign concerning the vessel, he should return it to him!

And

if they do not have a sign, when the eye has become familiar with them—

what

of it,

what benefit is there in this? For vessels that have no sign are not announced even if they are old, when the eye has certainly already become familiar with them, because of the owners’ despair!?

And the Gemara explains:

In fact,

it is speaking

of those that have no sign.

And concerning what we asked, if so, what does it help if the eye has become familiar with them—

The practical difference is for returning them to a Torah scholar through visual recognition [

to return the lost item to a Torah scholar through mere visual recognition, when he says that he recognizes the object as his].

For then, with vessels whose

eye has become familiar with them, he has certainty concerning them,

he indeed recognizes the vessels,

and

therefore

we return it to him

if he claims that he recognizes it through visual recognition.

But

when the eye has not become familiar with them,

we are concerned that

he has no certainty concerning them.

And although he claims that he recognizes the object, it is possible that it merely appears so to him, but in truth the object is not his, since his eye has not yet become familiar with it,

and

therefore

we do not return it to him.

And the Gemara brings proof for the matter, that Shmuel holds that we return an item to a Torah scholar through visual recognition:

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: In these three matters

the Rabbis are accustomed to alter their words [

in the following three matters, the Sages practice altering their statements]:

a.

Regarding a tractate,

when they ask him whether a certain tractate is arranged in his mouth, although in truth it is arranged in his mouth, he says no. And this is a measure of humility.

b.

And regarding his bed,

when they ask him whether he had marital relations, he says no. And this is a measure of modesty.