Bava Metzia 24b — the Talmud in English

Alternatively, if you wish, say:

the beraita is according to the method of

the Rabbis

and there is no need to establish it as referring to something concealed. And as for what you asked: if so, let us prove from here that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon that when there is a majority of gentiles, the lost object belongs to the finder!

There is no proof from here. For

does it teach

in the beraita

“it is his”? It teaches: “he is not obligated to proclaim it”!

And the reason he is not obligated to proclaim it is that, since the majority of the city is gentiles, the Sages did not trouble him to proclaim it.

And

nevertheless,

he should set it down

the finder should set down the object and not use it, since the Rabbis do not hold that one follows the majority,

and

the finder should wait until

there comes [he comes]

a Jew, and

gives a identifying mark for it [gives a identifying mark for the lost object]—

[and gives a distinguishing mark for the lost item]—

and takes it.

Come and hear, for Rav Asi said: If

a person finds

a

wine barrel in a city whose majority is gentiles, it is permitted

the barrel

because of the lost-object law,

for he is not obligated to proclaim it; rather, it is his.

And

nevertheless,

it is forbidden to derive benefit from it,

perhaps it is yayin nesekh. [And below the Gemara asks: If so, that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, what difference does it make to him that it is permitted to him because of the lost-object law?]

And if afterward

a Jew came and gave a identifying mark for it,

which proves from this that the barrel had belonged to a Jew—

the barrel is permitted

even

for drinking by its finder.

And the finder is not obligated to return it to its owner, for since the majority of the city are gentiles, he certainly despaired of it.

According to whom

does this statement proceed?—

According to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

for he is the one who holds that we follow the majority.

Infer from it: when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said

that it is his—this is specifically

when the majority are gentiles, but when the majority are Jews—

no!

And the Gemara rejects this:

I can always tell you

that

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

said this even when the majority are Jews as well,

for it is his.

And Rav Asi

who said that the barrel is permitted because of the lost-object law specifically when the majority are gentiles,

agrees with him

according to Rabbi Shimon’s method—

in one matter,

in one matter: in that he holds that when the majority are gentiles, it is his.

And he disputes him in one matter,

concerning a majority of Jews, for in this he disputes him and holds that he is obligated to proclaim it.

And we ask:

But since

the barrel

is forbidden to derive benefit from,

if so, what Rav Asi said, that it is

permitted because of the lost-object law—

for what halakhic purpose,

what can the finder do with his lost object, since it is forbidden to derive benefit from it?

Rav Ashi said:

What we said—that it is permitted because of the lost-object law—means

with regard to

the

barrel.

The finder may use the barrel itself.

A certain man found four zuz wrapped in a sheet [that were tied in a sheet],

[which were tied in a cloth],

and cast [and were lying]

[and lying]

in the Biran River.

He came before Rav Yehuda,

to ask him what the law of the lost object was.

He said to him: Go proclaim it

your lost object!

And we ask:

But

the Biran River is like

the flood of the sea,

about which we said above that he is not obligated to proclaim it, since the lost object is lost from him and from every person!?

And the Gemara explains:

The Biran River differs

from the flood of the sea,

since it is obstructed,

for it has obstacles, such as stones and barriers made for fish,

he does not despair

the owner of the lost object, because he reasons that the river will not be able to carry his lost object beyond the obstacles. And since they regularly block it from time to time in order to clean it and clear it so that its waters will flow, he relies on those who clean the river, that they will find the lost object and proclaim it.

And we ask:

But the majority are gentiles,

and nevertheless Rav Yehuda said that he must proclaim it.

Infer from it

that

the halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

even when the majority are gentiles!?

And we say: Indeed, it is possible to say that the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon when the majority are gentiles, but

the [different]

[different]

Biran River is different, for Jews

are the ones who

blocked it [they are the ones who make a barrier in the river],

[they are the ones who build dams in the river],

and

also

Jews cleared it [they are the ones who clean the river of its obstructions].

[they are the ones who clear the river of its obstructions].

And therefore,

since Jews blocked it—

say

that

it fell from a Jew

when he made a barrier in the river.

And since Jews cleared it—

he does not despair

the owner of the lost object, because he relies on the fact that a Jew will find it and proclaim it.

Rav Yehuda was taking and walking after Mar Shmuel [he was walking after Mar Shmuel]

[he was walking behind Mar Shmuel]

in the market of Beit Disa [where crushed wheat for porridge was sold, and many people were found there].

[where crushed wheat for porridge was sold, and many people were present].

He said to him

Rav Yehuda said to Mar Shmuel: If

a person finds here

a

wallet—

what is the law?

Is he obligated to proclaim it, or not?

He said to him: It is his.

Rav Yehuda said to him: And if, despite the fact that the finder did not proclaim the lost object,

a Jew came and gave an identifying mark for it—

what is the law?

Must the finder return it to him, or not?

He said to him: He is obligated to return it.

Rav Yehuda wondered and said to him:

Two things?!

Surely these two statements contradict one another!

For the reason that he is not obligated to proclaim it is that the owners certainly despaired of the lost object. If so, how is it possible to say, on the other hand, that if a person comes before us and gives an identifying mark for it, he is obligated to return it to him!

He said to him

Mar Shmuel: What I said, that he is obligated to return it, is not the essential law; rather, it is

beyond the letter of the law.

As in this incident: Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the wilderness [he found donkeys in the wilderness],

[he found donkeys in the wilderness],

and returned them to their owners [and returned them to their owners],

[and returned them to their owners],

despite

having found them

after twelve months

from the time that they were lost by their owners. Even though according to the essential law they were his, since the owners had certainly despaired, Shmuel’s father returned them

beyond the letter of the law.

Rava was taking and walking after Rav Naḥman in the market of the leatherworkers [Rava was walking after Rav Naḥman in the market of shoemakers].

[Rava was walking behind Rav Naḥman in the market of the shoemakers].

And some say [and some say] that he was walking after him

[and some say] that he was walking behind him

in the market of the Rabbis [a place where Torah scholars sold their possessions].

And in this place the majority were Canaanites.

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If

a person finds

a

here,

in the market,

wallet—

what is the law?

Is he required to proclaim it, or not?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

It is his.

Rava said to him: And if

a Jew came and gave an identifying mark for it—

what is the law?

He said to him:

Even so—

it is his.

Rava wondered and asked:

But surely

the owner of the lost object

is standing and crying out

that the lost object belongs to him!

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Let

that person

become like

one who

cries out over his house that collapsed, and over his ship that sank in the sea,

whose cry accomplishes nothing to restore his loss. Here too, since he certainly despaired of his lost object and abandoned it, it is no longer his.

A certain bird [a species of bird]

[a type of bird]

that took meat in the market and cast it among the palm trees of the house of Bar Maryon [that took meat from the market and cast it among the palms of Bar Maryon].

[which took meat from the marketplace and cast it among bar Maryon’s palm trees].

Bar Maryon came

Bar Maryon

before Abaye,

to ask him how he should conduct himself concerning the meat.

He said to him: Go, take it for yourself [go, take for yourself]

the meat.

And we infer precisely:

But

in that place

the majority are Jews,

and nevertheless Abaye ruled that it is his! Does

one learn from this

that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even when the majority are Jews!?

And we say: There is no proof from here, because

the

taking of

the bird is different—

for

the taking of

the flood of the sea is comparable,

which the Torah permitted to the finder, for the meat is lost from its owner and from every other person.

And we ask: Indeed, according to the laws of lost objects, this lost object was permitted to its finder, but how did Abaye rule that the meat was permitted for eating?

But Rav said: Meat

that is kosher

that was hidden from sight [which they did not see for some period of time]—

[which was not seen for some period of time]—

is forbidden,

because we are concerned that perhaps it was exchanged for meat of an unslaughtered carcass!?

And we answer: Indeed, that would be the law if the meat had been hidden from sight. But in our case, it is speaking

of

the finder having

stood and watched it [the meat], from the time the bird took it from the market until it cast it among the palm trees.

[the meat], from the moment the bird took it from the marketplace until it cast it among the palm trees.

Rabbi Ḥanina found a slaughtered kid between Tiberias and Sepphoris, and they permitted it to him

because of the lost-object law: he was permitted to acquire it, and they even permitted it for eating, and they were not concerned that it was an unslaughtered carcass.

And now the Gemara explains the reasons for the permission:

Rabbi Ami said: They permitted it to him because of the lost-object law—

according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who said that an object found in a place where many people are present is permitted, because the owners despair of it. And here the lost object was found on a public road.

And that which they permitted him

because of slaughter,

and they did not fear that it was an animal carcass

as

the words of

Rabbi Hananiah son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

For it was taught in a beraita: If his

kids and chickens were lost to him, and he went and found them slaughtered,

and it is uncertain whether they were slaughtered according to halakha,

Rabbi Judah prohibits

the meat for eating.

And Rabbi Hananiah son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean permits it.

Rabbi said: The words of Rabbi Judah appear

who prohibited the meat

when he found them in a garbage heap,

because it is the way to cast animal carcasses into a garbage heap.

And the words of Rabbi Hananiah son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean

who permitted it

when he found them in a house.

And even when a kid is found on the road, its law is like that of one found in a house—and it is permitted for eating.

And we infer:

From the fact that they permitted it to him because of slaughter

it necessarily follows that

the majority are Jews.

For if not, we would have to fear that a non-Jew slaughtered it!

If so,

learn from it

that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben

Elazar,

who says that an object found in a place where many people are present is permitted, and

even in

a place in which there is

a majority of Jews!

Rava said:

Indeed, the case is in a place where

the majority are non-Jews,

and therefore the meat was permitted because of a lost object, because it is reasonable that it was lost by a non-Jew.

And

on the other hand, in that same place there were

a majority of butchers [

most of the slaughterers]—

Jews,

and therefore they permitted the meat for eating, because it is reasonable that Jews slaughtered it.

Rabbi Ami found [

he found]

slaughtered young birds [

nestlings]

between Tiberias and Sepphoris.

He came before Rabbi Asi

to ask him how he should conduct himself with regard to the meat.

And some say

that he came

before Rabbi Yohanan

to ask.

And some say—

that he came to ask in

the beit-midrash.

And they said to him: Go, take for yourself .

Rabbi Yitzhak the Smith found a bundle of spun threads [he found bundles of spun threads for snares and nets

in which were threads [

in the place of the spinning]. And it is a place where many people are present.

He came before Rabbi Yohanan, and some say in the beit-midrash.

And they said to him: Go, take for yourself.

Mishna:

And these

are lost objects that

one is obligated to announce

about them:

If one found produce in

within

a vessel [

and ordinarily a vessel has a distinguishing mark ], although there is no distinguishing mark in the produce itself, nevertheless it is reasonable that it belongs to the owner of the vessel; therefore one is obligated to announce it.

Or

that he found

a vessel as it is,

without produce inside it, he is obligated to announce it.

And likewise if he found

coins in a pocket [

and ordinarily a pocket has a distinguishing mark],

or

that he found

a pocket as it is,

without coins, he is obligated to announce them, for there is a distinguishing mark in the pocket.

And likewise if he found

piles of produce [

produce gathered together and placed in the form of a heap], it is certain that the owners placed them in this manner knowingly—and forgot them; he is obligated to announce them, for through his announcement the owners will remember their loss, come, and provide its distinguishing mark. And in the Gemara it will be explained what their distinguishing mark is: whether the number of the produce or the place where it was found.

This is not so with scattered produce, for it is reasonable that it fell from its owners without their knowledge; the finder does not need to announce it, for the owners cannot provide a distinguishing mark concerning it, since they do not know where they lost it, and they also do not know its number, and certainly despair of it.

Or he found

piles of coins,

he is obligated to announce them, for the same reason that was explained concerning produce.