Bava Metzia 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

Or if he found

three coins, one atop the other,

which demonstrates that they were deliberately placed there [and the Gemara will explain what their identifying feature is], he is obligated to announce them.

And likewise, if he found

bundles in private property,

he is obligated to announce them, since the place where they were found is their identifying feature.

This is not so with bundles in the public domain, as they are rolled about by the feet of people and animals and do not remain in the place where they were initially placed.

And

likewise, if he found

loaves belonging to a householder,

he is obligated to announce them, because a householder is accustomed to mark his loaves.

And

likewise, one who finds

bundles of wool purchased from an artisan’s workshop

is obligated to announce them, because they have an identifying feature, as every artisan makes them in a slightly different manner.

Or if he found

jars of wine and jars of oil —

These

in every instance

are

subject to announcement,

because they have an identifying feature, and their owners have not despaired of recovering them.

Gemara:

We learned in the first clause of our Mishna that one who finds a vessel containing produce, or a purse containing coins, is obligated to announce them.

It may be inferred that

the reason

he is obligated to announce them is because

he found produce in the

interior of the

vessel, and coins in the

interior of the

purse.

It may be inferred that

indeed,

if he found a

vessel,

and before it

[before the vessel] there were

produce,

or if he found a

purse

and before it

there were

coins, these

—the produce and the coins—

belong to him,

and he announces only the vessel, which has an identifying feature, and gives it to whoever provides an identifying feature for it.

But with regard to the produce, although it was adjacent to the vessel, we do not say that it fell from the vessel. And since it has no identifying feature, it belongs to the finder.

And we say:

we have already learned this

[we learned this law in a beraita].

As the Sages taught: If one found a vessel with produce before it,

or if he found

a purse with coins before it

these

[the produce and the coins]

belong to him.

When are these matters stated? When all the produce was found outside the vessel.

But if

some

of the produce was found

in

the interior of the

vessel, and some of it on the ground,

and likewise, if

some

of the coins was found

in the purse, and some of them on the ground

he is obligated to announce

them as well.

The reason is that it is reasonable to assume that these produce and coins had also been inside the vessel and purse and fell out of them. Therefore, the finder announces his find, and the owner of the vessel comes and provides an identifying feature for it and takes the produce as well. And the same applies to the coins.

And he raises a contradiction: If one finds an item that has no identifying feature beside an item that has an identifying feature,

such as one who finds coins before a purse, he

is obligated to announce

everything, and the coins are given to the one who provides an identifying feature for the purse.

When are these matters stated? When the owner of the lost object claims that everything belongs to him.

But if

the owner

of the purse, which has an

identifying feature,

came and provided an identifying feature for it,

and took the

purse

that belongs to him,

and said that the coins do not belong to him,

the other has acquired

—the finder—

the item that has no identifying feature.

That is, the coins.

It is evident from here that the owner of the purse takes the coins by means of the identifying features of the purse, and not as we inferred from our Mishna, and as we learned in the above beraita, that the finder always acquires the coins!

Rav Zevid said: It is not difficult.

Here,

what we learned in our Mishna and in the beraita, that the items belong to the finder, is referring

to a large vessel and flax

[where he found a large vessel lying down, with flax before it]. It is certain that this flax did not fall from the vessel, since if it had, some flax would certainly have remained in the vessel. And the same applies to a purse with coins before it: If the coins had fallen from it, some of them would certainly have remained in the purse. Rather, it must be that these are two separate lost objects.

But

here,

what we learned in the second beraita, that he is obligated to announce everything, is referring

to a basket and produce

[a vessel with produce before it]. In such a case, it is possible that this is one lost object: Initially the produce was in the vessel, but as a result of the fall, all the produce slid out of the vessel, and nothing remained inside.

Rav Pappa said:

It is indeed possible to say that

both this and that

are referring

to a basket and produce. And it is not difficult: Here,

what we learned in the second beraita, that he is obligated to announce everything, is referring

to the fact that something remained in it

[something remained in the vessel]. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the produce outside also fell from this vessel.

But

here,

what we learned in our Mishna and in the first beraita, that he is not obligated to announce it, is referring

to the fact that nothing remained in it

—in the vessel. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the produce did not come from this vessel.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this and that are referring to the fact that nothing remained in it

—in the vessel—

and it is not difficult: Here,

what we learned, that he is obligated to announce everything, is referring

to the fact that it is facing toward the produce

[the face of the vessel, meaning its open side, is directed toward the produce]. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the produce fell from it.

But

here,

what we learned, that he is not obligated to announce it, is referring

to the fact that it is not facing toward the produce,

and therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that the produce fell from this vessel.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this and that are referring to the fact that it is facing

—the vessel—

toward the produce,

and no produce remained in the vessel.

And it is not difficult: Here,

what we learned, that he is not obligated to announce everything, is referring

to a basket that has rims

[a rim around it, folded inward]. In the case of such a basket, had produce fallen from it, it is reasonable that a small amount would have remained inside, since its rim would have prevented it from all falling out. Rather, it must be that these are two lost objects, and there is no connection between the produce and the basket.

But

here,

what we learned, that he is obligated to announce it, is referring

to a basket that does not have rims,

and therefore it is possible that initially the produce was in this vessel and all of it fell out.

We learned in our Mishna:

piles of produce and piles of coins

—he is obligated to announce them.

And we inquire: Does

it follow

from our Mishna that the

number

of piles

is an identifying feature!?

For if not, by means of what identifying feature do we return the produce and the coins?

The Gemara rejects this:

Teach: A pile of produce,

meaning that he found one pile of produce. If so, there is no number by which he could provide an identifying feature.

Rather, the identifying feature is the place where the produce was lying. Since the produce was piled in a heap, it is certain that it was deliberately placed there. The owner of the produce will come and say: I placed it in such-and-such a place.

And we inquire: If so, does

it follow

from our Mishna that

location is an identifying feature!

The Gemara rejects this:

Teach: Piles of produce,

and the identifying feature is the number of piles.

And since this is so, it is indeed necessarily evident from our Mishna that one of the two—location or number—is an identifying feature. But there is no proof from our Mishna in favor of one side or the other.

We learned in our Mishna:

three coins, one atop the other

—he is obligated to announce them.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Migdal’a said:

What we learned, that he is obligated to announce them, is so

when they are arranged

—the coins—

like a tower. The widest coin is placed at the bottom, the medium coin is placed upon it, and the narrowest coin is placed on top. This is the form of a tower, whose base is wide and which gradually narrows toward the top.

The widest coin is placed at the bottom, the medium-sized coin on top of it, and the narrowest coin on top. This is like the shape of a tower: its foundation is wide and it becomes narrower toward the top.

Since the coins are lying in this formation, it is certain that they did not fall, but were deliberately placed there. The owners intended to return and take them, but forgot them. Therefore, the finder takes them and announces them, and the owner of the lost object comes and provides the identifying feature: They were arranged like a tower.

It was taught likewise

in a beraita:

If one found scattered coins

—they belong to him.

And if the coins were

arranged like towers

—he is obligated to announce them.

And what is considered arranged like towers?

Three coins, one atop the other.

It is evident from here that the ruling that three coins, one atop the other, must be announced applies when they are arranged like towers, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak Migdal’a.

And we inquire:

This itself is difficult! You said

at the beginning of the beraita:

If one found scattered coins

—they belong to him.

It may be inferred:

indeed,

if the coins are

spread in a cascading arrangement,

with one coin lying entirely on the ground, the second partially on the first and partially on the ground, and likewise the third partially on the second and partially on the ground, this is not the manner of coins falling—and

he is obligated to announce them.

Say the latter clause: If they are arranged like towers

—he is obligated to announce them.

This implies that specifically in such a case is he obligated to announce them;

but if they are spread in a cascading arrangement,

they belong to him,

because even such a formation is a manner in which coins fall!

And the Gemara explains: One cannot infer from the opening clause as you inferred, because the

tanna

of the beraita

, all

cases

in which the coins are not arranged

as

a tower,

even when they are partially overlapping—

he calls them scattered.

Therefore, included in what the tanna taught in the opening clause, “If one found scattered coins, these belong to him,” is also the case of partially overlapping coins, and this is indeed what is inferred from the latter clause.

Rabbi Hanina said: They taught

that one who finds three coins arranged as a tower is required to announce them—

only

when they are coins

of three kings

[different kings, as each king inscribed his name and image on the coin minted during his reign].

But

if one found three coins

of one king

—he is not required to announce them.

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

If the coins are arranged

the coins

as a tower,

meaning that the coins differ in their sizes, then

even

if all three are

of one king,

whose images are identical,

also

he should be required to announce them, since the manner in which they were placed proves that they were placed intentionally!

And if they are not arranged as a tower

—even coins of three kings should not require an announcement,

since this is not the manner in which objects are intentionally placed, but rather the manner in which they fall!

Rather, if

Rabbi Hanina’s statement

was stated, this is how it was stated:

They taught only in the case of one king

of the sort of three kings.

That is, even if they are coins of one king, whose images are identical, they are nevertheless like coins of three kings, meaning that their widths are unequal and they appear to be three different coins.

And what are the circumstances

in which coins of one king are like coins of three kings?

They are arranged as a tower.

That is,

the wide one is below

[the wide coin is the bottom one],

the medium one is above it

[the medium-sized coin is placed on it], and

the smallest one is above the medium one

[the smallest coin is placed on the middle one].

For

if coins are found in this arrangement,

we say

:

he certainly placed them there intentionally,

the owner of the coins having deliberately placed them there, since coins do not ordinarily fall in such an arrangement.

But

coins

of one king,

whose

all are alike

[whose widths are all similar],

even though they are placed one on top of the other

[even though they are actually lying one on top of the other]—

these belong to him.

This is because

perhaps it happened that they fell together

[for perhaps this is what happened: the coins fell at once and came to rest in this manner] .

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even

three coins

of one king,

whose widths are equal, if they are found lying one on top of the other—

he also announces them.

Since the coins are lying one on top of the other, this constitutes a identifying mark, as it is unreasonable to say that they happened to fall into such an arrangement.

And we ask:

What does he announce

—the number?

The finder announces and says: “I found such-and-such coins,” and the owner comes and provides an identifying mark, saying: “You found them one on top of the other.”

If so,

why specifically three?

Why did the tanna mention specifically three coins?

Even

with

two

[two coins],

also

this law should apply!

Ravina said:

The finder does not announce the number; rather,

he announces coins

.

The finder announces that he found coins, and the owner of the lost property comes and states the number of coins. Therefore, the tanna did not formulate this law with regard to two coins, because in such a case the owner cannot provide the number as an identifying mark: the smallest number of coins is two, and if someone comes and says that there were two coins there, this is not an identifying mark

.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

If he found the coins lying

in a ring,

meaning in a circle, like a bracelet—

what is the law? [The sides of the dilemma in this and the following dilemmas are whether such an arrangement certainly indicates intentional placement, or whether it is possible that the coins fell unintentionally into such an arrangement.]

Rabbi Yirmeya further raised a dilemma: If he found them lying

in a row

[in a line], one next to the other—

what is the law?

Like a tripod,

like the three legs of a vessel, with each leg opposite the space between the other two—

what is the law?

Like a ladder,

with most of the middle coin lying on the bottom one, and most of the top coin lying on the middle one, in the form of steps—

what is the law?

And we say:

And we say:

Resolve from this,

one

[one of Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemmas], from the following statement of Rav Naḥman:

For Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: Anything such that if one inserts a splinter between them

[between the coins]

and lifts them all at once

by raising the splinter—

he is required to announce them,

because coins lying in such a stable arrangement that they can be lifted with a splinter evidently were placed intentionally. From here one can resolve the dilemma concerning the ladder arrangement, since when they are arranged like a ladder, they can be lifted together with a splinter. If so, he is required to announce them .