Bava Metzia 25b — the Talmud in English

Rav Ashi raised a question:

If the coins were lying

like the stones of Beit Qulis [

Marqolis, which is a type of idolatry; below it will be explained how these stones are positioned] —

what is the law?

Ta shma

from an explicit beraita:

As it was taught: If one found scattered coins —

they are his. Like the stones of Beit Qulis —

he is obligated to announce them.

And these are the stones of Beit Qulis:

one

stone

is lying

here,

on one side,

and one —

here, and

a stone

one —

lying

on top of them.

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

encountered, at the time of finding it]

his fellow, and he said

to him:

It is mine

the coin! And he provided identifying features concerning it such as these:

It is new; it is Neronian [

the emperor Nero is written on it],

it belongs to such-and-such a king,

by providing all these identifying features —

he has said nothing.

And not only this, but even

if

his name

of that person

is written on it —

he has said nothing,

and they do not give it to him,

because there is no

the

identifying feature

constituting proof

of

ownership of

a coin.

Because

we say [

that we say],

perhaps he took it out [

perhaps this person who is now providing the identifying feature spent it, purchased something in exchange for it, and gave it to another person],

and it fell from another person

the coin .

Mishna:

If one found behind

behind

the fence [

a fence made of wood or reeds]

or behind the wall [

of stones]

tied nestlings, or

if he found them

on paths in the fields —

he must not touch them.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

If one found a vessel in a refuse heap, if

it was entirely

covered

in refuse —

he must not touch it,

even if it has an identifying feature. For this is not a lost object concerning which he is warned by “you may not ignore it,” since its owner hid it intentionally, and it is guarded.

But

if

he found the vessel

uncovered

in the refuse heap —

he takes it and announces it,

for this is indeed a lost object.

Gemara:

What is the reason

that if one found tied nestlings, he must not touch them? Because

we say: These

nestlings — it is reasonable that

a person hid them [

a person concealed them], since 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 feature in them [

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

Therefore, let him leave them until their owners come —

and take them [

therefore he should leave them in their place until their owners come and take them].

And we raise an objection:

But why

should the finder not take them and announce them?

Let the

the

knot

with which the nestlings are tied be

an identifying feature!

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is speaking

of

nestlings that are

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

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

And we raise an objection:

Let [

and let it be] the

place

where the lost object was found

an identifying feature!

Rav Ukva bar Hama said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of

nestlings that, although they are tied to one another,

shuffle

from place to place. Therefore, their owners cannot provide as an identifying feature the place where they were placed, since it is possible that the nestlings shuffled from there to another place.

And we wonder:

If

it is speaking

of those that shuffle,

if so, it is possible that no person placed them there at all, but rather

they came from elsewhere [

they arrived from another place], and they will be

permitted

to the finder, since they have no identifying feature 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

a person hid them

in this place.

And

if so,

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

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

And

therefore

Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: Every

object that is a

case of uncertainty whether it was intentionally placed, initially —

he must not take

it from its place, lest a person placed it there intentionally, and if he takes it, he will cause its owner to lose it, since it has no identifying feature.

And if

he transgressed and

took

the object from its place —

he must not return it

to anyone , since it has no identifying feature .

We learned in our Mishna:

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

“he shall not touch it. If it is uncovered”—

“he takes it and makes an announcement.”

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

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

from time to time. And if the finder does not now take the lost item, when the refuse heap is cleared and the vessel is exposed, a gentile or an Israelite who is suspect will take it! Therefore, the vessel is considered a lost item, and the finder is warned to make an announcement concerning it!

Rav Zevid said: It is not difficult: that which

we learned in our Mishna, that he shall not touch it, refers to

large jars and cups [A0011]—large vessels. Whereas

[large tubs and cups, which are large vessels]. But

that

which we said, that he takes it and makes an announcement, refers to

knives and small forks [A0015]—a type of small fork with two prongs, with which they eat meat.

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

And now Rav Zevid explains his words:

With large jars and cups—

he shall not touch it,

since, as they are large vessels, it is plausible that their owner placed them there knowingly, and this is not a lost item; therefore, he shall not touch them.

With knives and small forks—

he takes it and makes an announcement,

since, as they are small vessels, it is plausible that he threw them out together with the refuse that he removed from the house unintentionally , and therefore they are a lost item—and he is obligated to make an announcement.

Rav Pappa said: Both this and that,

both in our Mishna and in the beraita, refer to

large jars and cups. And it is not difficult; here,

that which we learned in the beraita, that he takes it and makes an announcement, refers to

a refuse heap that is intended to be cleared

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

Whereas

here,

in our Mishna, it refers to

a refuse heap that is not intended to be cleared,

and therefore he shall not touch it.

And we raise a difficulty: If he placed the vessel in

a refuse heap that is intended to be cleared—

then

it is a knowingly abandoned lost item,

for the owner of the lost item should have taken into consideration that they would clear it! If so, why is it necessary to make an announcement concerning it?

And the Gemara explains:

Rather,

the beraita refers to

a refuse heap that is not intended to be cleared,

and the owner of the vessel hid his vessels there with this intention: that they would not clear the refuse heap,

but then changed his mind concerning it

now, its owner,

to clear it,

and therefore this is a lost item, and he takes it and makes an announcement.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to Rav Pappa, this is why it teaches

in the beraita a reason:

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

For indeed, this is the principal reason that he is obligated to make an announcement concerning the vessel: because sometimes the owners change their minds concerning it and clear it.

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

For this is not the reason that he is obligated to make an announcement; rather, it is because these are small vessels, which it is plausible that he threw out without knowing!?

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

since

it is

the way of a refuse heap, to clear into it [A0061]—that are cleared into it—

[things cleared into it,]

small vessels

from the house without knowing.

Mishna:

If one found

a person found a lost item

in

within

a mound [A0070]a pile of stones formed from an old wall that collapsed,

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

or

likewise, if he found

in

a hole in

an old wall,

even if it is something that has a distinguishing mark—

these belong to him.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And if

he found

a lost item

in

a hole in

a new wall,

then the law is as follows:

If the lost item was found

from halfway

of the thickness of the wall

and outward,

toward the side of the public domain—it is

his .

For if the owner of the house had hidden it, he would have placed it in the inner half of the wall’s thickness. Rather, it is plausible that one of the members of the public domain placed it there and forgot it .

But if the lost item was found

from halfway

of the wall

and inward—

then it is

the owner of the house’s,

because it is plausible that he placed the object there .

In what case are these words said? In the wall of a house in which the owner of the house himself resides.

But

if the owner of the house was

the owner of the house

renting it to others,

and many tenants had already lived in it, then

even

if the lost item was found

inside the house—

these belong to him,

because it is not known who the owner of the lost item is, and it is plausible that he has already despaired of it.

Gemara:

The tannai [A0116]said: The reason that if one found [an item] in a mound or in an old wall, these belong to him,

states: The reason that if one finds an item in a mound or in an old wall, these belong to him, is

is because he can say to him

the finder can say to the owner of the mound or to the owner of the wall:

“They belong to the Amorites”

whom our ancestors inherited when they entered the Land of Israel

[they] are ,

for those Amorites left this object in their house .

And we raise a difficulty: And still, why, if one found [an item] in an old wall, do these belong to him?

Is it so [A0127]that only

[that] only

Amorites hide things,

and

Israelites do not hide things?

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 hid it; and if so, if a lost item was found in the inner half of the wall , why should we not say that because of the doubt it belongs to the owner of the house, who has possession of it!?