Bava Metzia 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

It is not necessary:

when it has become very rusty

meaning that the utensil has developed extensive rust, and it is evident that it had been lying there for a long time. Certainly, the homeowner would not have left it there for such an extended period; therefore, it belongs to the finder] .

We learned in our Mishna:

In a new wall, from its midpoint outward—

it belongs to him; from its midpoint inward—

it belongs to the homeowner.

Rav Ashi said: A knife

a knife found in one of the holes in the wall—

we follow the handle

we follow the handle.

If the handle is toward the inside, even if the knife lies beyond the midpoint of the wall, it is likely that the members of the household placed it there, since that is the way it is placed: one holds the handle and sets it down.

But if the handle is toward the public domain, even if the knife is inside the midpoint of the wall, it is likely that people from the public domain placed it there, and it belongs to the finder.

And

also with a

pouch

a money pouch—we go

after its straps

we follow the straps with which it is tied.

If the straps are toward the house, it is likely that the members of the household placed it there, since that is the manner in which it is placed from the inside. And if they are toward the outside, it is likely that people from the public domain placed it there.

And we ask:

But if so, the Mishna, which teaches

that

from its midpoint outward—

it belongs to him; from its midpoint inward—

it belongs to the homeowner,

why is the law so?

Let us see

we can see

whether the handle is inward

toward the inside,

or whether the handle is

outward

toward the outside,

or whether the straps are inward or whether the straps are outward!

And the Gemara explains: In

the Mishna,

the case concerns the finding of objects that are not utensils and have no fixed place by which they can be held, such as

wadding

wadding and

a piece of silver

a piece of silver, with no indication of from which side they were placed.

The tanna taught: If

the entire length of the hole in the

wall was filled with them

with the found objects, they

divide

them equally between the homeowner and the finder.

And we ask:

It is obvious!

For this is what we learned in the Mishna: From its midpoint outward it belongs to the finder, and from its midpoint inward it belongs to the homeowner!

And the Gemara explains:

It is not necessary—

when it slopes on one side

the case is one in which the hole slopes and inclines toward one side.

Lest you say

that

it simply spilled over

the find toward its other side, and originally it lay entirely in the higher half of the hole, in which case it belongs to the person on the side where the higher end of the hole is located,

it teaches us

that we do not say this; rather, they divide it equally.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he rented it

the house

to others, even if

the find was found

inside the house—

it belongs to him.

And we ask:

Why? Let us follow the last one

let us follow the last tenant who rented the house, and say that the find belongs to him! One of the obligations of tithes is ma'aser sheni, the Second Tithe, which a person separates from his produce in the first and second years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, and which may be eaten by the owners themselves only within the boundaries of Jerusalem. Since it is sometimes difficult for a person to carry the produce to Jerusalem, the Torah permitted him to redeem the produce with money, bring the money to Jerusalem, purchase food there, such as cattle, sheep, wine, and beer, and eat it there.

Did we not learn

did we not learn this in the Mishna:

Money found before cattle merchants

in Jerusalem

always,

whether during the Festival pilgrimage or not during the Festival pilgrimage, we say that it is money of

Second Tithe,

and it must be treated according to the law of Second Tithe, because most meat eaten in Jerusalem is purchased with Second-Tithe money.

The reason is that from the large amount of Second-Tithe money that a person brought with him when ascending to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage, he would purchase animals for peace-offerings, whose meat was eaten by the owners [as the Gemara in tractate Menachot derives the law of Second Tithe from that of peace-offerings by means of the gzera shava, “there—there”].

And since a person generally could not remain in Jerusalem until he had eaten all his Second Tithe, he would give the Second-Tithe money remaining in his possession to the poor of the city, or to his friends who lived in the city, so that they could use it throughout the year to purchase animals and eat them in Jerusalem. Therefore, most of the money used to purchase meat in Jerusalem is Second-Tithe money.

But if the money was found

on the Temple Mount,

even if it was found during the Festival pilgrimage, it is

ordinary חולין.

Although most money found in Jerusalem at that time, during the Festival pilgrimage, is Second-Tithe money, as explained above, nevertheless, since during the rest of the year most money found in Jerusalem is ordinary חולין, we follow the majority of the year and say that the money fell there before the Festival pilgrimage and is ordinary חולין.

And

if coins were found in the other marketplaces that

are in Jerusalem

[which do not belong to livestock merchants], the law is as follows:

If the coins were found

during the rest of the year,

and not during the pilgrimage Festival—then they are

ordinary funds,

as the majority of the coins in Jerusalem are ordinary funds.

But if the coins were found there

during the Festival—

all are tithe funds,

because during the Festival the majority of the coins in Jerusalem are tithe funds.

And Rabbi Shemaya bar Zeira said: What is the reason

that the law of the marketplaces of Jerusalem differs from that of the Temple Mount, such that we do not say that the coins fell there before the Festival?

Since the marketplaces of Jerusalem are swept

[cleaned by sweeping]

every day.

And if coins fell there before the Festival, the market sweepers would certainly already have taken them.

This is not so with the Temple Mount, which is not swept every day, since it is sloped, and therefore mud and dust do not become embedded there. Moreover, no person enters there wearing shoes or with dust on his feet.

Apparently, it is proven from here that in a place that is swept frequently,

we say

that

the first ones, the first ones, have gone

[the earlier coins have gone],

and these,

those found now—

are other ones,

and fell during the Festival!

Here too,

when one finds a lost article in a rented house, we should say that, since when a tenant leaves the house for another place, he searches carefully for all his belongings, takes them, and leaves , it is reasonable that

the first one

has gone, and these,

what is found now,

belong to the last tenant

[they belong to the most recent tenants]!

Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara:

Indeed, generally one follows the last tenant, but our Mishna is dealing with a case

such as where he made it

the homeowner

an inn

[a place where passersby lodge for a night or two]

for three Jews

at one time. Consequently, the one of the three from whom the lost article fell despairs of it, because he does not know which of the other two he should demand it from. And we raised a difficulty: If so,

derive from it

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even

when the majority are Jews!?

For this is what we said here: The owner of the lost article despairs of it and does not rely on its being returned to him, even when it has an identifying mark, since the Gemara did not distinguish in this matter. If so, why did the Gemara not resolve the question above from this beraita?

Rather, Rav Menashya bar Yaakov said:

It is not referring to a case where he made it an inn for three Jews. Rather,

it is a case such as where he made it an inn for three gentiles,

and if so, the lost article certainly became lost to the gentile, since he was the one who lived in the house most recently, and he is not obligated to return it to him .

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: You may even say

that it concerns a house that was rented

to three Jews ,

and nevertheless you cannot resolve from here that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even when the majority are Jews, because the case of a house made into an inn for three Jews differs from finding an item in a place where many people are commonly found.

What is the reason?

Because when a person’s lost article fell in a place where many people are commonly found, and the loser does not know all those passing there, he assumes that the finder will announce the lost article when the Festival arrives, and he will provide identifying marks and take it. Therefore, he does not despair.

But when he found it in an inn where there were only three people in that house,

the one from whom it fell

despairs.

Because

he says

to himself:

Since no other person was together with me

except these

[for only these people were with me in the house], and

I told them several times to return it to me, and they did not return it to me—will they return it to me now

[I told them several times to return it to me, but they did not return it to me. Will they return it to me now]?

If they intended to return it

they would have returned it to me

[if they had intended to return it, they would have returned it to me]!

And the fact that they did not return it to me

is because

they intend to steal it

[rather, the reason they are not returning it to me is that they intend to steal the lost article from me].

Therefore, the owner of the lost article despairs of it, and it is permitted to the finder.

And Rav Naḥman follows his own reasoning.