Bava Metzia 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

Alternatively, say:

the beraita is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

and there is no need to establish it as referring to an item concealed from view. And as for what you asked: If so, let us prove from here that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon that when the majority are gentiles, the lost item belongs to the finder!

There is no proof from here. For

does it teach in the beraita

the phrase

“it is his”? It teaches: “He is not obligated to announce it”!

And the reason he is not obligated to announce it is that since the majority of the city’s inhabitants are gentiles, the Sages did not trouble him to make an announcement.

But

nevertheless,

he should set it aside

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

and

the finder should wait until

a Jew comes and gives a distinguishing mark

[comes]

and provides a distinguishing mark for the lost item

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

and takes it.

Come and hear, as Rav Asi said: If a person

finds

a

barrel of wine in a city whose majority are gentiles, the barrel is permitted

the barrel

with regard to the laws of lost property,

as he is not obligated to announce it; rather, it belongs to him.

But

nevertheless

it is forbidden to derive benefit from it,

as perhaps it is yayin nesekh, wine used for idolatrous purposes. [And below the Gemara asks: If so, that it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, what practical difference is there to him in the fact that it is permitted to him with regard to lost property?]

And if afterward

a Jew comes and gives a distinguishing mark for it,

which proves that the barrel belonged to a Jew—

the barrel is permitted

the barrel is even

permitted for drinking by its finder.

The finder is not obligated to return it to its owner, since the majority of the city’s inhabitants are gentiles, and the owner certainly despaired of it.

In accordance with whom

does this statement proceed?

In accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

as he is the one who holds that one follows the majority.

Infer from this: When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says

that the item belongs to the finder—this is specifically

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

no.

The Gemara rejects this:

I can say to you that

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said that even when the majority are Jews as well

the item belongs to the finder.

And Rav Asi,

who said that the barrel is permitted with regard to lost property specifically when the majority are gentiles,

held in accordance with his view

the view of Rabbi Shimon—

in one matter,

in one respect: He agrees with him that when the majority are gentiles, the item belongs to the finder.

But he disagrees with him in one matter,

with regard to a majority of Jews, in which case he disagrees with him and holds that the finder is obligated to announce it.

And we raise an objection:

But since

the barrel

is forbidden to derive benefit from,

then what did Rav Asi mean by saying that it is

permitted with regard to lost property—

for what halakhic purpose,

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

Rav Ashi

said: When we said that it is permitted with regard to lost property, that is

with regard to

the

barrel itself.

The finder may use the barrel itself.

A certain man found four dinars wrapped in a cloth

[which were tied in a cloth],

and cast

[and lying]

in the Biren River.

He came before Rav Yehuda

to ask him what the status of the lost item was.

He said to him: Go and announce

your lost item!

And we raise a difficulty:

But

the Biren River is like

the overflow of the sea,

with regard to which we said above that one is not obligated to announce the item, since the lost property is inaccessible to its owner and to everyone else!?

The Gemara explains:

The Biren River differs

from the overflow of the sea

because it contains obstructions,

such as stones and the dams made for fish.

He does not despair

the owner of the lost item does not despair, because he assumes that the river cannot carry his lost item beyond the obstructions. And since people regularly dam 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 to find the lost item and announce it.

And we raise a difficulty:

But the majority are gentiles,

and nevertheless Rav Yehuda said that one must announce it

! Infer from this

that

the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar—

even when the majority are gentiles!?

And we say: Indeed, it is possible to say that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon with regard to a majority of gentiles. However,

the

[different]

Biren River is different, as Jews

are the ones who

built its dams

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

and

also

Jews cleared it

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

Therefore,

since Jews built its dams—

assume

that

it fell from a Jew

when he built a dam in the river.

And since Jews cleared it—

the owner does not despair,

because he relies on a Jew finding it and announcing it.

Rav Yehuda was walking behind Mar Shmuel

[he was walking behind Mar Shmuel]

in the marketplace of the porridge sellers

[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 ruling?

Is he obligated to announce it or not?

He said to him: It belongs to the finder.

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

a Jew comes and provides a distinguishing mark for it—

what is the ruling?

Must the finder return it to him or not?

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

Rav Yehuda was astonished and said to him:

Two things?!

These two statements contradict one another!

The reason he is not obligated to announce it is that the owners certainly despaired of the lost item. If so, how can one say, on the other hand, that if someone comes before us and provides a distinguishing mark for it, he must return it to him!?

Mar Shmuel said to him:

What I said, that he is obligated to return it, is not the strict law; rather, it is

beyond the letter of the law.

As in the case where Shmuel’s father found these donkeys in the wilderness

[he found donkeys in the wilderness],

and returned them to their owners

[and returned them to their owners],

despite

having found them

after twelve months

from the time they had been lost by their owners. Although strictly speaking they belonged to him, since the owners had certainly despaired, Shmuel’s father returned them

beyond the letter of the law.

Rava was walking behind Rav Naḥman in the marketplace of the leatherworkers

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

And some say

[and some say] that he was walking behind him

in the marketplace of the Sages

[a place where Torah scholars sold their possessions]. In this place, the majority were gentiles.

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: If

a person finds

a

here,

in the marketplace,

wallet—

what is the ruling?

Must he announce it or not?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman:

It belongs to the finder.

Rava said to him: And if

a Jew comes and provides a distinguishing mark for it—

what is the ruling?

He said to him:

Even so—

it belongs to the finder.

Rava was astonished and asked:

But

the owner of the lost item

stands and cries out

that the lost item belongs to him!

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Let

that person

be like

one who

cries out over his house that collapsed or over his ship that sank at sea,

whose cry accomplishes nothing to restore his loss. Here too, since he certainly despaired of his lost item and renounced ownership of it, it no longer belongs to him.

A certain bird

[a type of bird]

that took meat from the marketplace and cast it among the palm trees of the house of bar Maryon

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

He came

bar Maryon

before Abaye,

to ask him how he should deal with the meat.

He said to him: Go and take it for yourself

[go and take the meat for yourself].

And we infer:

But

in that place

the majority are Jews,

and nevertheless Abaye ruled that it belongs to the finder! Does

this teach us

that

the halakha follows 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—

as

the taking of

the overflow of the sea,

which the Torah permitted the finder to take, since the meat was inaccessible to its owner and to everyone else.

And we raise a difficulty: True, according to the laws of lost property, this item is permitted to its finder; but how could Abaye rule that the meat is permitted to be eaten?

But Rav said: Meat

that is kosher

that was left unattended

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

is forbidden,

because we are concerned that perhaps it was exchanged for meat from an unslaughtered animal!?

And we answer: Indeed, that would be the law if the meat had been left unattended. But in our case, it was

that

the finder was

standing and watching it

[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

with regard to lost property, since he was entitled to acquire it, and they even permitted him to eat it; they were not concerned that it might be from an unslaughtered animal.

The Gemara now explains the reasons for the ruling:

Rabbi Ami said: They permitted it to him with regard to lost property—

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

who said that an item found in a place frequented by the public is permitted, because the owners despair of it. And here too, the lost item was found on a public road.

And what they permitted him

because it had been slaughtered,

and they were not concerned that it might be an animal carcass—that is

in accordance with the

opinion of

Rabbi Hananya son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

As it was taught:

If a person's goats and chickens were lost, and he went and found them slaughtered,

and it was uncertain whether they had been slaughtered in accordance with halakha,

Rabbi Yehuda prohibits

the meat for consumption.

And Rabbi Hananya son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili permits it.

Rabbi Yehuda said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears correct

when he prohibited the meat—

when he found them in a refuse heap,

because it is customary to throw carcasses into a refuse heap.

And the statement of Rabbi Hananya son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

who permitted it appears correct—

when he found them in a house.

And even when a goat is found on the road, its status is like that of one found in a house—and it is permitted for consumption.

And we infer:

Since they permitted it to him because it had been slaughtered

—you must conclude that

the majority are Jewish.

For if this were not so, we would have to be concerned that a gentile slaughtered it!

If so,

infer from it

that

the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben

Elazar,

who says that an object found in a place frequented by the public is permitted,

even in

a place where there are

a majority of Jews!

Rava said:

Indeed, the case concerns a place frequented by

a majority of gentiles,

and therefore the meat was permitted under the laws of lost property, because it is reasonable to assume that a gentile lost it.

But

at the same time, the majority of the

butchers [

the majority of those who slaughter] were

Jewish,

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

Rabbi Ami found [

discovered]

slaughtered chicks [

young birds]

between Tiberias and Sepphoris.

He came before Rabbi Asi

to ask him how he should deal with 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 it for yourself .

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa found a bundle of thread [he found coils of spun thread used for snares and nets],

in its place of spinning [

in the place where it had been spun]. And it was a place frequented by the public.

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

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

Mishna:

And these are

lost objects concerning which one

is obligated to announce

their finding:

If one found produce inside

a

vessel [

and an ordinary vessel has a distinguishing mark ], even though the produce itself has no distinguishing mark, nevertheless it is reasonable to assume that it belongs to the owner of the vessel, and therefore one is obligated to announce its finding.

Or

if he found

a vessel as it is,

with no produce inside it, he is obligated to announce it.

Likewise, if he found

coins in a pouch [

and an ordinary pouch has a distinguishing mark],

or

if he found

a pouch as it is,

with no coins, he is obligated to announce them, since the pouch has a distinguishing mark.

Likewise, if he found

heaps of produce [

produce gathered and placed in the form of a pile], which certainly were deliberately left in this manner by their owners—and then forgotten, he is obligated to announce them. Through his announcement, the owners will remember their loss and come and provide its distinguishing mark. The Gemara will explain what the distinguishing mark is: whether the number of produce items or the place where they were found.

This is not the case with scattered produce, which it is reasonable to assume fell from its owner without his knowledge. The finder need not announce it, since the owner cannot provide a distinguishing mark for it: He does not know where he lost it, nor does he know its number, and he will certainly despair of recovering it.

Or if he found

a heap of coins,

he is obligated to announce them, for the same reason stated with regard to produce.