Bava Metzia 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If the coins were lying

like the stones of Beit Kulis [

Mar-Kulis, which is a type of idolatry; below it will be explained how these stones are arranged ] —

what is the halakha?

Ta shma

from an explicit beraita:

As it was taught: If one found scattered coins—

these belong to him. Like the stones of Beit Kulis—

he is obligated to announce his find.

And these are the stones of Beit Kulis:

One stone

on one

side is placed

here,

on one side,

and one—

here, and

one stone

on top—

placed

above them.

The Sages taught: If one found a sela in the marketplace, and he found [

encountered, in the presence of the finder ]

his fellow, who said

to him:

It is mine—the coin! And he provided identifying marks for it, such as these:

that it is

new, that it is a Neronian coin [

the emperor Nero is inscribed on it ],

that it is the coin of a particular king,

by providing all these identifying marks—

he has said nothing.

Moreover, even

if

his name

of that person

is inscribed on it—

he has said nothing,

and it is not given to him,

because there is no

the

mark

that constitutes proof

of

ownership of the

coin.

Because

we say [

that ],

perhaps he took it out [

perhaps this person who is now providing the identifying mark spent it, purchased something with it, and gave it to someone else ],

and it fell from someone else

the coin .

Mishna:

If one found behind

behind

the fence [

a fence made of wood or reeds ]

or behind the stone wall [

of stones ]

tied fledglings, or

if he found them

on paths in the fields —

he may not touch them.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

If one found a vessel in a garbage heap, if

it was entirely

covered

by the garbage—

he may not touch it,

even if it has an identifying mark. For this is not a lost object concerning which he is warned by “you may not disregard it,” since its owner intentionally concealed it, and it is protected.

But

if

he found the vessel

uncovered

in the garbage heap—

he takes it and announces it,

for it is indeed a lost object.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that if one found tied fledglings, he may not touch them? It is because

we say: These

fledglings—presumably

a person concealed them [

a person hid them ], for they were found in a somewhat concealed place and were tied by their wings.

And if he takes them

the finder—

their owners have no identifying mark in them [

there is no identifying mark in them that their owners could provide in order to receive them ]!

Therefore, let him leave them until their owner comes—

and takes them [

therefore, he should leave them in their place until their owner comes and takes them ].

And we question this:

But why

should the finder not take them and announce them?

Let the

the

knot

with which the fledglings are tied be

an identifying mark!

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said:

Our Mishna is speaking of

fledglings

that are

tied by their wings, for everyone ties them in this manner [

everyone ties them this way, and therefore this is not an identifying mark ].

And we raise an objection:

Let [

and let there be ] the

place

where the lost object was found be

an identifying mark!

Rav Ukva bar Hama said:

Our Mishna is speaking of

fledglings that, although they are tied to one another,

nestlings that, although they are tied to one another,

move by hopping

from place to place. Therefore, their owners cannot provide as an identifying mark the place where they were left, since the fledglings might have moved from there to another place.

And we question this:

If

it is speaking

of ones that move by hopping,

then it is possible that no person placed them there at all; rather,

they came from elsewhere [

they arrived from another place ], and they should be

permitted

to the finder, since they have no identifying mark and their owners certainly despaired of them!

The Gemara explains: In any event, there is uncertainty here. On the one hand,

it can be said that

they

came from elsewhere, and

on the other hand,

it can be said that

they

were concealed by a person

in this place.

And

if so,

it is a case of uncertainty whether they were intentionally placed [

that is, it is uncertain whether the fledglings were intentionally placed there or not ] .

And

it follows that

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that Rav said: Any object that is

a case of

uncertainty whether it was intentionally placed, initially—

one may not take it

from its place, lest a person intentionally placed it there; and if he takes it, he will cause its owner a loss, since it has no identifying mark.

And if

he nevertheless

took

the object from its place—

he may not return it

to anyone , since it has no identifying mark .

We learned in our Mishna:

“If one found a vessel in a refuse heap, covered”—

“he should not touch it. If it was exposed”—

“he takes it and announces it.”

And we raise a contradiction from a beraita: “If one found a vessel hidden in a refuse heap”—

“he takes it and announces it, since it is the way of a refuse heap to be cleared”

from time to time. And if the finder does not take the lost item now, when the refuse heap is cleared and the vessel is exposed, a gentile or an Israelite suspected of theft will take it! Therefore, the vessel is considered a lost item, and the finder is warned to announce it!

Rav Zevid said: It is not difficult: this

case in which we learned in our Mishna that he should not touch it refers to

large vessels and cups

[basins and cups, which are large vessels]. Whereas

that

case in which we said that he takes it and announces it refers to

knives and a small fork

[a type of small fork with two prongs, used for eating meat].

Rav Zevid now explains his statement:

With regard to the large vessels and cups—

he should not touch them,

since, as they are large vessels, it is reasonable to assume that their owner deliberately placed them there, and this is not a lost item; therefore, he should not touch them.

With regard to the knives and the small fork—

he takes them and announces them,

since, as they are small vessels, it is reasonable to assume that he inadvertently discarded them together with the refuse that he removed from the house , and therefore they are lost items—and he is obligated to announce them.

Rav Pappa said: Both this and that,

both our Mishna and the beraita refer to

large vessels and cups. And it is not difficult: here,

the case in which we learned in the beraita that he takes it and announces it refers to

a refuse heap that is customarily cleared

from time to time. And if he leaves the vessel in its place, it will be exposed when the refuse heap is cleared; therefore, it is a lost item, and it is forbidden to ignore it.

Whereas

here,

in our Mishna, the case refers to

a refuse heap that is not customarily cleared,

and therefore he should not touch it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If he placed the vessel in

a refuse heap that is customarily cleared—

it is

a deliberately abandoned lost item,

as the owner of the lost item should have anticipated that it would be cleared! If so, why is he required to announce it?

The Gemara explains:

Rather,

the beraita refers to

a refuse heap that is not customarily cleared,

and the owner of the vessel concealed his vessels there on the understanding that the refuse heap would not be cleared,

but then changed his mind about it

now,

to clear it,

and therefore this is a lost item, and he takes it and announces it.

We raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is what is meant by

the beraita teaching as its reason:

“Since it is the way of a refuse heap to be cleared.”

For indeed, this is the essential reason that he is obligated to announce the vessel: sometimes its owners change their minds about it and decide to clear it.

But according to Rav Zevid, what does “since it is the way of a refuse heap to be cleared” mean?

After all, this is not the reason that he is obligated to announce it; rather, it is because the case concerns small vessels, which it is reasonable to assume were discarded inadvertently!?

The Gemara explains: When we learned, “since it is the way of a refuse heap to be cleared,” the meaning is

since

it is

the way of a refuse heap to have

[vessels placed in it]

small vessels

from the house inadvertently.

Mishna:

If one found

a lost item

in

a

heap

[a pile of stones formed from an old wall that collapsed],

or

if he found it

in

a hole in an

old wall,

even if it is an item bearing an identifying mark—

these belong to him.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

But if he

found

a lost item

in

a hole in a

new wall,

the law is as follows:

If the lost item was found

from the midpoint

of the wall’s thickness

and outward,

toward the public domain, it is

his .

For had the homeowner concealed it, he would have placed it in the inner half of the wall’s thickness. Rather, it is reasonable to assume that someone from the public domain placed it there and forgot it .

But if the lost item was found

from the midpoint

of the wall

and inward—

it is

the homeowner’s,

because it is reasonable to assume that he placed the object there .

When does this apply? To the wall of a house in which the homeowner himself resides.

But

if

the homeowner

rented it to others,

and many tenants had already lived there, then

even

if the lost item was found

inside the house—

these belong to him,

because it is not known who owns the lost item, and it is reasonable to assume that its owner had already despaired of recovering it.

Gemara:

The tanna said:

The reason that if one found an item in a heap or in an old wall these belong to him

is that he can say to him

—the finder can say to the owner of the heap or the owner of the wall:

“They belong to the Amorites,

which our ancestors inherited when they entered the Land of Israel—

they are” ,

as those Amorites placed this object in their house .

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And still, why, if one found an item in an old wall, do these belong to him?

Is it so

[that] only

Amorites conceal items,

and

Israelites do not conceal items?

After all, this Israelite—the owner of the wall—has been using the house for several years, and it is possible that he was the one who concealed it. If so, if a lost item was found in the inner half of the wall , why should we not say that because of the uncertainty it belongs to the homeowner, who has possession of it?!?