Bava Metzia 24a — the Talmud in English

.

And concerning the innkeeper.

And we raise this concerning it:

What practical difference is there

for us in this, that a Torah scholar is accustomed to alter his words in these matters?

Mar Zutra said: For the

matter of

returning a lost object to him through recognition by visual appearance.

If we know concerning him

that person,

that he does not alter [

that he does not alter his speech from the truth]

except in these three

matters that we said, in which Torah scholars are accustomed to alter their words, but in other matters he always speaks the truth—

we return it to him

through recognition by visual appearance .

And if he alters

his speech also

in other matters—

we do not return it to him

through visual recognition, but only through identifying signs or witnesses.

Mar Zutra the pious had a silver cup stolen from him at the inn [

a silver cup was stolen from him while he was staying at an inn ].

Mar Zutra saw

Mar Zutra

a certain student, who washed his hands and dried them on his fellow’s cloak [

Mar Zutra saw one student who washed his hands and dried them on his fellow’s garment].

He said: “This is the one” [

he is certainly the thief],

who does not

care about his fellow’s property.

He bound him [

he compelled him Mar Zutra]—

and he confessed [

that student confessed to the theft].

This incident was brought here to teach us that from a person’s conduct in his ordinary life, we learn about the uprightness of his character. Therefore, if we know concerning a Torah scholar that he always speaks the truth, it is possible to rely on his words and return a lost object to him through visual recognition.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar concedes [

who said in our Mishna that with regard to new vessels, one is not obligated to announce them]

with regard to new vessels that the eye has become accustomed to—

that one is obligated to announce them .

And these are new vessels to which the eye has not become accustomed, which one is not obligated to announce

concerning them:

such as needle-branches [

an object on which needles are hung],

and small tubes [

small forks with which women spin gold],

and strings of axes.

For these objects are very similar to one another, and if they have no identifying sign, it is difficult to distinguish between them.

We further learned in the beraita:

All these

things

concerning which they said “

one is not obligated to announce,”

when are they permitted

to their finder—

when he found them one by one.

When he found one branch, or when he found one string.

But if he found them two by two—

the finder is obligated

the finder

to announce:

“I found needles!” And the loser will come and say: “They were needle-branches, and there were two of them” .

What are branches—

branches of a tree [

branches of a tree].

And why do they call it branches?

Because they are

an object on which something is hung [

something is hung on it]—

they call it “branch.”

Like that which we learned

there

in tractate Sukkah concerning a willow:

“One leaf on one branch.”

That is, there are those who say that even if only one leaf remained on the willow, when it is attached to only one branch, it is valid.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar likewise used to say:

One who saves

an object

from a lion, from a bear, from a leopard, and from a hyena [

hyena ],

and from the overflow of the sea, and from the overflow of a river,

And likewise

one who finds

a lost object

on a highway [

a road on which they travel from city to city]

and in a public square [

or if he found it in a city’s open square, where they gather for commerce]

a large one, and

likewise if he found

in every place where the many are found ,

In all these cases, even if the lost object has an identifying sign,

they are his, because the owners despair of them .

They raised a question before them:

1.

When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said

that they are his—is this specifically

in

a place where there is

a majority of gentiles,

because then he acquires the lost object whichever way one looks at it: if it belongs to a gentile, it is certainly his, since there is no mitzva of returning a lost object to a gentile. And even if it fell from a Jew, the loser despairs, because he reasons that if a gentile finds it, he will certainly take it for himself. And even if a Jew finds it, he will not announce it, because he will think that it fell from a gentile.

But with a majority of Jews—

he may not

take it for himself, but must announce it.

Or perhaps, even with a majority of Jews also

Rabbi Shimon said his words, because the owners despair, since they fear that improper people will find the lost object and take it for themselves? 2.

If you should say

that

even with a majority of Jews also he said

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar his words, is it the case that

the Rabbis disagree with him, or do they not disagree?

3.

And if you should say

that

the Rabbis disagree

with his words,

with a majority of Jews certainly

it is logical to say that

they disagree,

and they hold that one is obligated to announce it. But it is still necessary to inquire whether

with a majority of gentiles

also they

disagree, or do they not disagree?

4.

And if you should say

that

the Rabbis disagree

with his words

even with a majority of gentiles,

it is still necessary to inquire whether

the halakha is according to him,

according to Rabbi Shimon,

or

perhaps

the halakha is not according to him?

5. And

if you should say

that

the halakha is according to him,

is it

specifically with a majority of gentiles

that the halakha is according to him,

or

that

even with a majority of Jews

the halakha is according to him?

Come and hear,

from what we learned:

“One who finds money in synagogues and study halls, and in every place where the many are found, it is his, because the owners despair of it.”

The Gemara now supposes that it is speaking of piles of money, concerning which we learned in the first clause of our Mishna that one is obligated to announce them. For if it is speaking of scattered money, we have learned that even in a place where the many are not found, it is his. And although it is speaking of piles of money, nevertheless, when he found them in synagogues and the like, since the many are found there, the owners certainly despaired; therefore it is his.

Whom have you heard say that one follows the majority?

Who is this from whose words we have heard that in the matter of a lost object one must take into consideration that “the many are found there”?

It is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [

stated above]!

And if so,

you may learn from it—

that

even with a majority of Jews also

he said his words. For in synagogues and study halls the majority found there are Jews, and the first question is resolved!

And the Gemara rejects this:

With what are we dealing here—

with

money

scattered,

concerning which everyone agrees that one is not obligated to announce them, since they have no identifying sign.

And we raise an objection:

If

it is speaking

of

money

scattered,

which has no identifying sign,

why specifically

why did the tannai state that it is his because he found it in

a place where the many are found?

But

even if the many are not found there—

he is not obligated to announce it, since it has no identifying sign!

But rather, forever

it is speaking

of

coins

that are bundled,

which have an identifying mark.

And here, with what are we dealing—

with synagogues of non-Jews .

Their place of gathering and assembly, where they gather there to consult and meet.

And we ask: Indeed, you have explained what we learned, “synagogues,” that it is speaking of those belonging to non-Jews. But

batei midrash—

what is there to say?

For in batei midrash only Israelites sit, in order to study Torah there!

And we answer: It is speaking of

our batei midrash,

ours,

where non-Jews sit [non-Jewish guards sit in them].

For batei midrash are located outside the city, and non-Jews are stationed in them to guard them .

And we say:

Now that you have come to this,

now that you have come to explain it this way, if so,

the synagogues also,

it is possible to say that it is speaking of synagogues

of ours

ours, and

where non-Jews sit.

Ta shma,

from what we learned: A city in which Israelites and non-Jews dwell, and

if he found a lost item in it, if the majority

of the city's inhabitants are

Israelites—

he is obligated to announce it.

And

if the majority are non-Jews—

he is not obligated to announce it.

Who is the one you hear saying, “We follow the

majority” —

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar; learn from it: when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says this—

specifically

where the majority are non-Jews, but where the majority are Israelites—

no,

rather, he is obligated to announce it!

And the Gemara rejects: It is indeed possible that according to Rabbi Shimon, even where the majority are Israelites, it belongs to him. And

this

beraita,

whose is it—

it is the Rabbis’,

and therefore specifically where the majority are non-Jews—it belongs to him.

And we object: If so,

you can resolve from it

the other problem brought above: whether the Sages disputed Rabbi Shimon even where the majority are non-Jews, for it is proved from here

that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar where the majority are non-Jews!

And we say:

Rather, it is Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, forever,

and indeed according to his view—

even where the majority are Israelites as well

it belongs to him.

And here, with what are we dealing—

with a case in which the object was

hidden

and concealed, which proves that its owner placed it there intentionally, and this is not a lost item at all, and the owners did not despair. Therefore, where the majority are Israelites, he is obligated to announce it .

And we ask:

If

it is speaking

of something hidden—

what business does it have with him [what is the lost item doing with him]? Who permitted him to lift it? He should have left it in its place, until its owner comes and takes it!

And

as

proof of this,

we learned

below in our chapter: If a person

found

an

object in a garbage heap,

if the object was

covered,

which shows that it was placed intentionally—

he should not touch it.

But if the object was

uncovered—

he takes it and announces it!

And it is proved from here that if a person finds an object in which it is evident that it was not lost, but that its owner intentionally placed it there, intending to return and take it, he should not take it from there!

And we answer:

As Rav Pappa says

below, in his answer to a difficulty on that same Mishna:

In a garbage heap that is not designated to be cleared, and he later decided to clear it.

Here too,

it is speaking

of a garbage heap that is not designated to be cleared,

and therefore the owner placed the object there in order to return and take it afterward.

And

in the end

he decided concerning it

the owner of the garbage heap

to clear it

immediately.

For in such a case, if the finder does not take the object, it will be lost entirely; therefore he is obligated to lift it and announce it.