Bava Metzia 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

3.

And concerning the inn.

When they ask him about his host—whether he received him graciously—he says that he did not. This is a proper practice, so that unsuitable people will not continually flock to that person and exhaust his resources .

The Gemara discusses this:

What practical difference

is there for us in the fact that a Torah scholar is accustomed to altering the truth in these matters?

Mar Zutra said: For the

purpose of

returning his lost property on the basis of visual recognition.

If we know about him

that he

does not alter his speech [

that he does not deviate from the truth in his speech]

except in these three

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

we return it to him

on the basis of visual recognition .

But if he alters

his speech also

in other matters—

we do not return it to him

on the basis of visual recognition, but only on the basis of identifying marks 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

a certain

student of the study hall washing his hands and drying them on his fellow’s cloak [

Mar Zutra saw a certain student wash his hands and dry them on his fellow’s garment].

He said: This is the one [

surely this is the thief],

who

does not care about his fellow’s property.

He restrained him [

he coerced him Mar Zutra]—

and he confessed [

that student confessed to the theft].

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

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar concedes [

to what he said in our Mishna, that one is not obligated to announce the finding of indistinguishable vessels]

in the case of new vessels that have been seen and recognized—

that one is obligated to announce the finding .

And these are the new vessels whose form has not become familiar to the eye, for which one is not obligated to announce the finding

of them:

such as needle shafts [

an object on which needles are hung],

and small spindles [

small forks with which women spin gold],

and strings of axe heads.

These objects closely resemble one another, and if they have no identifying mark, it is difficult to distinguish between them.

We learned further in a baraita:

All these

objects

concerning which they said, “

one is not obligated to announce the finding,”

when are they permitted

to their finders?—

When he found them one at a time.

For example, he found one shaft or one string.

But if he found them two at a time—

the finder is obligated

to

announce the finding:

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

What are “shafts”?—

Branches [

tree branches].

And why are they called shafts?

Because they are

an object on which something is hung [

something is hung], and therefore

they are called “shaft.”

As in that which we learned

there

in tractate Sukkah concerning the willow branch:

“one leaf on one shaft.”

That is, some say that even if only one leaf remains on the willow branch, if it is attached to a single shaft, it is fit.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would likewise say:

One who saves

an object

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

a hyena ],

from the inundation of the sea, or from the overflowing of a river,

Likewise,

one who finds

a lost object

on a main road [

a road traveled from one city to another]

or in a public square [

or finds it in a city square where people gather for commerce]

large, and

likewise if he finds it

in any place where the multitudes are found ,

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

it belongs to the finder, because the owners despair of recovering it .

They raised a dilemma:

A.

When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said

that the object belongs to the finder—was this specifically

in

a place where there is

a majority of gentiles,

because in that case he acquires the lost object either way: if it belongs to a gentile, it certainly belongs to him, since there is no mitzva to return a lost object to a gentile; and even if it fell from a Jew, the owner despairs, because he assumes 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 assume that it fell from a gentile .

But in a majority of Jews—

no,

he may not take it for himself; rather, he must announce it.

Or perhaps, even in a majority of Jews as well

Rabbi Shimon stated his ruling, because the owners despair, fearing that unsuitable people will find the lost object and take it for themselves ? B.

If you say

that

even in a majority of Jews as well he said

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s ruling, is the question whether

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

C.

And if you say

that they

disagree

with his ruling,

in a majority of Jews, certainly

it is reasonable to say that they

disagree,

and hold that one is obligated to announce the finding. But it is still uncertain whether

in a majority of gentiles

as well they

disagree, or do they not disagree?

D.

And if you say

that they

disagree

with his ruling

even in a majority of gentiles,

it is still uncertain whether

the halakha follows him,

like Rabbi Shimon,

or

perhaps

the halakha does not follow him?

E.

And if you say

that

the halakha follows him,

does

the halakha follow him specifically in a majority of gentiles

or

does

it

follow him even in a majority of Jews?

the halakha is according to him?

Come and hear,

from what we learned:

One who finds coins in synagogues, in study halls, or in any place where the multitudes are found, they belong to him, because the owners despair of recovering them.

The Gemara now assumes that the reference is to piles of coins, which we learned in the first clause of our Mishna must be announced. For if the reference were to scattered coins, we already learned that even in a place where the multitudes are not found, they belong to the finder. Although the case involves piles of coins, nevertheless, when he finds them in synagogues and the like, since the multitudes are found there, the owners certainly despaired; therefore, they belong to the finder.

Whom have you heard follow the majority?

Who is the one whose statement we have heard indicating that, concerning a lost object, one must take into account that “the multitudes are found there”?

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar [

mentioned above]!

And if so,

you can learn from this

that

even in a majority of Jews as well

he stated his ruling. For in synagogues and study halls the majority present are Jews, and the first question is resolved!

The Gemara rejects this:

What are we dealing with here?—

with

coins

scattered,

for which, according to everyone, one is not obligated to announce the finding, since they have no identifying mark.

We challenge this:

If

the case is

with

coins

scattered,

which have no identifying mark,

why specify

that the tanna stated that they belong to the finder because he found them in a

place where the multitudes are found?

But

even if the multitudes are not found there,

he is not obligated to announce the finding, since they have no identifying mark!

Rather, actually,

it is speaking

of

coins

tied in a bundle,

which have an identifying mark.

And with what are we dealing here—

with synagogues of gentiles .

A place where they gather and assemble, where they convene to deliberate and meet.

And we ask: You have indeed explained what we learned concerning “synagogues,” that it is speaking of those belonging to gentiles. But

batei-midrash—

what can be said?

After all, only Jews sit in batei-midrash to study Torah there!

And we answer: It is speaking of

our batei-midrash,

ours,

where gentiles sit [gentile guards sit there]. Since batei-midrash are located outside the city, gentiles are stationed there to guard them .

And we say:

Now that you have arrived at this,

now that you have explained it in this manner, then

synagogues as well,

it can be said that it is speaking of synagogues

of ours

[ours], and

where gentiles sit.

Come and hear,

from what we learned: In a city in which Jews and gentiles reside, and one

finds a lost item in it, if the majority

of the city's residents are

Jews—

he is obligated to announce it.

And

if the majority are gentiles—

he is not obligated to announce it.

Whom do you hear saying, “We follow the

majority” —

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Learn from this: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said this—

specifically

where the majority are gentiles; but where the majority are Jews—

no,

rather, he is obligated to announce it!

The Gemara rejects this: It is indeed possible that according to Rabbi Shimon, even where the majority are Jews, the item belongs to the finder.

This

beraita

is whose opinion?—

It is the opinion of the Rabbis,

and therefore specifically when the majority are gentiles does the item belong to the finder.

And we challenge this: If so,

resolve from it

the other question cited above, whether the Sages disputed Rabbi Shimon even where the majority are gentiles, for it is proven from here

that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar where the majority are gentiles!

And we say:

Rather, actually, it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

and indeed according to his view—

even where the majority are Jews as well

the item belongs to the finder.

And with what are we dealing here—

with a case in which the object was

hidden

and concealed, demonstrating that its owner deliberately placed it there; it is not a lost item at all, and the owners did not despair. Therefore, when the majority are Jews, he is obligated to announce it .

And we ask:

If

it is speaking

of a hidden object—

what business does it have with him [what is the lost item doing in his possession]? Who permitted him to pick it up? He should have left it in its place until its owner came and took it!

And

a proof of this is that

we learned

in the continuation of our chapter: If a person

finds

an object in a garbage heap,

if the object was

covered,

indicating that it had been deliberately placed there—

he may not touch it.

But if the object was

exposed—

he takes it and announces it!

This proves that if a person finds an object that evidently was not lost, but was deliberately placed there by its owner, with the intention of returning to take it, he may not take it from there!

And we answer:

As Rav Pappa said

below, in resolving a difficulty concerning that same Mishna:

In a garbage heap that is not destined to be cleared, but the owner subsequently decided to clear it.

Here too,

it is speaking

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

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

But

eventually

he decided concerning it—

the owner of the garbage heap

to clear it

immediately.

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