Bava Metzia 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in our Mishna:

and strings of fish

and so on—these belong to the finder, because they have no identifying mark.

And we raise an objection:

Why

do these belong to the finder?

Let [

there be]

the knot

with which the fish are tied

an identifying mark,

and the finder should be obligated to announce the lost property!

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

with the fishermen’s knot [

the knot used by fishermen],

which everyone ties in this manner [

as everyone ties it in the same way]. If so, the knot is not an identifying mark.

And we raise an objection:

And let the number be an identifying mark!

That is, the number of fish strung on the string should be an identifying mark!

And we answer: The case is one in which the fishermen customarily string the fish

in equal numbers.

They string a fixed number of fish on each string, and therefore the number is not an identifying mark, since all the strings contain the same number.

They asked Rav Sheshet:

A lost object that has no identifying mark in its body, but for which an identifying mark can be provided by the

number

of objects found—is that

an identifying mark

by which the lost object may be returned,

or is it not an identifying mark?

Rav Sheshet said to them: You have already learned the answer: If one found silver vessels, copper vessels, a gastron of lead [pieces of lead],

or any metal vessel, he may not return it until

the owner of the lost object provides an

identifying mark [

a distinguishing sign],

or until he specifies its weights—

that he says what the weight of the lost object was.

And since weight is an identifying mark,

it is reasonable that

measure [

the size of the lost object]

and number

are also identifying marks .

We learned in our Mishna:

and pieces of meat, and so on

these belong to the finder.

And we raise an objection:

Why

do these belong to the finder?

Let the weight [

of the pieces]

be an identifying mark!

And we answer:

With equal weights.

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

And we raise an objection:

And let

the type of

the piece itself be an identifying mark!

The owner of the lost object could provide as an identifying mark

either [

if] the piece is

a dafka [

of the neck],

or

if it is

an atma [

of the thigh]?

Is it not taught

that this matter is considered an identifying mark? For this is what 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 announce it.

But if he found

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

these belong to the finder,

because these items 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, a tail, or the like—is itself the identifying mark . Likewise, in the case of the bitten fish, the bite itself is the identifying mark. It follows from here that the type of piece is an identifying mark!

And the Gemara rejects this:

What are we dealing with here?

With a distinctive cut [

where there is an identifying mark in the form of the cut, which was not cut in the usual manner].

As in the case of Rabba bar Rav Huna,

when he would send a piece of meat to his wife through a gentile, and was concerned that it might be exchanged for another piece of non-kosher meat, 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:

This is also precise,

as is likewise inferred from the wording of the beraita, which is speaking of an identifying mark in the form of the cut of the fish:

for it teaches

“pieces of fish”

analogous to a bitten fish,

which has a distinctive identifying mark. This implies that the pieces of fish likewise have an identifying mark, namely, the form of the cut.

And we conclude:

Learn from this.

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

In the months of Adar or Nisan, when householders would sell barrels of wine to shopkeepers, they would remove the lids so that the shopkeeper could taste the wine. Afterwards, the shopkeeper would reseal the lids and smear clay around the entire lid, so that the smell of the wine would be preserved for a long time and he could sell it when prices rose. This was called sealing, and in this manner the shopkeeper would carry them to his home.

However, there were shopkeepers who did not wish to store the barrels and sell them when prices rose. Rather, they took them in order to sell them immediately, and they carried them to their homes open.

The master said:

If one found

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

these belong to the finder .

And we raise an objection:

But we learned:

One who finds

wine barrels or oil barrels—

he is obligated to announce them!

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said:

In the

Mishna

the case

is one involving a sealed barrel [

a sealed barrel], and this is the identifying mark provided by the owner of the barrel. As explained, some people seal their barrels in order to sell them later, while others carry them open in order to sell them immediately .

And we raise an objection:

By inference,

in the

beraita

that we learned, which says that these belong to the finder, the case

is

that he found it

open?! If

he found it

open—

it is obvious that he is not obligated to announce it, for it is

an intentionally abandoned lost object!

After all, vermin, creeping creatures, and snakes can drink from the barrel!

Rav Hoshaya said:

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

of one who merely places the lid on top [

he placed the lid over the mouth of the barrel but did not seal it with clay]. Therefore, it is not an intentionally abandoned lost object, since vermin cannot drink from it. Nevertheless, there is no identifying mark here, and therefore it belongs to the finder.

Abaye said: You can even say

that

both this and that,

both the Mishna and the beraita, speak

of a sealed barrel, and

nevertheless

there is no difficulty,

because

here,

in the Mishna, the case involves a barrel found

before the storehouses were opened

for wine. The appointed time for selling wine barrels, during the months of Adar and Nisan, had not yet arrived, and only a few individuals were then taking out sealed barrels to sell. Therefore, the seal constitutes an identifying mark.

Whereas

here,

in the beraita, the case involves a barrel found

after the storehouses were opened,

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

And we find that Abaye acted in this manner in actual halakha as well.

As in this case [

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 deal with the barrel.

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

take it for yourself]. This follows from what he said above: 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, since even if it had been sealed, that would not be an identifying mark.

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

[

This question is brought here because Rav Naḥman resolves it from the beraita cited above.]

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

these belong to the finder.

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

why do these belong to the finder?

Let him announce [

that he should announce]

the

location!

Rav Zevid said: This is not a proof, because it is possible to say that

what are we dealing with here?

A barrel found at the riverbank [ on the riverbank] . The sellers would bring the wine there by boat, and the purchasers would unload the barrels they had bought onto the riverbank and carry them from there one by one. Sometimes they would forget one barrel there.

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 claiming that the lost object is his:

Just as it happened to you

that you forgot a barrel there, so too it may be that

it happened to your fellow

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

There are those who say:

that

this is what Rav Mari said: What is the reason the Sages said

that

place is not a distinguishing mark when the lost item was found on the riverbank?

when the lost item was found on the riverbank?

Because

we say to him: Just as it happened to you [that you lost something]

in

this [that]

[that]

place,

it is possible that

it also happened to your fellow

that he lost something precisely in

this place,

because it is common for jugs to be forgotten there .

A certain man found pitch in a press-house [that is, he found tar in an olive press, and it is an item that has no distinguishing mark].

[he found pitch in an olive press, and an item of this kind has no distinguishing mark].

He came before Rav,

to ask how he should deal with the pitch.

He said to him: Go and take it for yourself [go and take the pitch for yourself] .

[go and take the pitch for yourself] .

He saw that the man was hesitating [Rav saw that this man was wavering]

and wanted to remove the doubt from his heart.

He said to him: Go and divide some of it with Ḥiyya, my son [go and share the pitch with my son Ḥiyya].

[go and divide the pitch with my son Hiyya].

The Gemara infers:

Shall we say

that it is possible to prove from this incident that

Rav holds

that

place is not a distinguishing mark?

For if that were not so, the finder should have announced the find, so that the loser could take it by providing the distinguishing mark of its location!

Rabbi Abba said:

It is indeed possible that Rav holds that place is a distinguishing mark, and that there is here a distinguishing mark on the basis of which the item could be returned. Rather, the reason he told him that he could take it for himself was

because despair of the owners was involved, as he saw

Rav

that plants had sprouted in it [that vegetation had grown on the vessel containing the pitch]. This proves that the pitch had been lying there for many days, and its owners had certainly already despaired of recovering it .

[plants had grown on the vessel that had held the pitch]. This proves that the pitch had been lying there for many days, and its owners had certainly already despaired of recovering it .

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, and so on [with regard to every utensil of anpurya, one is not required to announce the find].

[any vessel of the type called anpurya need not be announced].

What is anpurya?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: New utensils, which

have

not yet become familiar to

and been habituated by

the eye,

so that he can recognize them well, since he has not yet used the utensils extensively. The term anpurya is an acronym for “there is no visual evidence.”

And we raised a difficulty:

What are the circumstances?

If they have

the utensils

a distinguishing mark,

then

if the eye has not yet become familiar with them—

what difference does that make?

He should announce the lost item, and if someone comes and provides a distinguishing mark concerning the utensil, he should return it to him!

And

if they have no distinguishing mark, if the eye has become familiar with them—

what

difference does that make?

What benefit is there in this? Utensils that have no distinguishing mark are not announced even if they are old, so that the eye has certainly already become familiar with them, because of the owners’ despair!?

The Gemara explains:

Actually,

it is speaking of a case

where they have no distinguishing mark.

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

the practical difference is to return them to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition [to return the lost item to a Torah scholar on the basis of mere visual recognition, when he says that he recognizes the object as his].

[the lost item may be returned to a Torah scholar on the basis of mere visual recognition, when he says that he recognizes the object as his].

At that point, with regard to utensils with which

the eye has become familiar, he has clear recognition of them,

and he indeed recognizes the utensils,

and

therefore

we return them to him

if he claims that he recognizes them through visual recognition .

But

when the eye has not yet become familiar with them,

we are concerned that

he does not have clear recognition of them.

Although he claims to recognize 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 . The Gemara brings proof for this, that Shmuel holds that an item is returned to a Torah scholar on the basis of visual recognition:

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 that Shmuel said: With regard to these three matters

the Sages are accustomed to alter their statements [in the following three matters, scholars customarily depart from the truth in their statements]:

[in the following three matters, the Sages are accustomed to changing what they say]:

1.

Regarding a tractate,

when they ask him whether a particular tractate is arranged in his mouth, although it truly is well arranged in his mouth, he says no. This is a measure of humility .

2.

And regarding marital relations,

when they ask him whether he engaged in marital relations, he says no. This is a measure of modesty .