Bava Metzia 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

For Rav Naḥman said: If a person

saw a sela

precise page location

that fell from two people [that is, from among two people]—

among two people —

he is obligated to return it.

What is the reason?

Because

the one from whom it fell

does not despair .

For

he says to himself, the loser:

the person says in his heart:

Since no other person was with me

except this one [for there was no one with me other than this person who accompanied me],

if so,

I will seize him

[I will apprehend this person]

and say to him: You are the one who took it!

[And I will say to him: You are the one who took the sela!] And I will administer to him a shevuat hesset on this claim.

Therefore, the loser does not despair immediately when he realizes that the lost item is missing.

And if so, when the finder lifted it, he became obligated to return it [and although the loser will ultimately despair, the halakha follows Abaye, that despair not in the owner’s awareness is not considered despair ].

But

in

a case where he saw an item that fell from among

three

people, even if it has an identifying mark,

he is not obligated to return it.

What is the reason?

Because

the one from whom it fell

certainly despairs. He says

to himself:

Since there were two people with me

[for two people were with me],

if I seize this one,

one of them,

he will say

[he will say to me]:

I did not take it

[I did not take the lost item].

And if I seize this one,

the second one, -

he will say

he too:

I did not take it.

And if so, he cannot administer a shevuat hesset to them, since he cannot bring a definite claim against either one of them, but only an uncertain claim: Perhaps you are the one who took it. And one does not administer an oath on the basis of an uncertain claim, except in certain cases [taught in tractate Shevuot].

This is what we said, “And Rav Naḥman follows his own reasoning”: his statement here concerning an item that fell from three people accords with his reasoning above concerning an item found in an inn.

Rava said: This that you said

that

with three

people

he is not obligated to return it—we said this

only when there is not

in it

in the lost item enough to be

worth one peruta for each and every one

of them.

But if there is in it enough to be worth one peruta for each and every one,

meaning that the lost item is worth three perutot—

he is obligated to return it.

What is the reason?

Because

perhaps

they are

partners

in this lost item, and they trust one another, so one does not suspect his fellow of stealing his share. When the loser searched his pocket and did not find it, he did not despair, because he says in his heart: Certainly one of the partners found it, and out of spite he is remaining silent and not telling me; but he will certainly return my share to me in the end. And therefore they

did not despair

immediately upon learning that the item was lost. If so, it follows that when the lost item came into the finder’s possession, it came into his possession before despair, and therefore he is obligated to return it.

But if the lost item is not worth three perutot, he is not obligated to return it, for either way:

If all three are partners in it, there is no mitzva of returning a lost item here, since there is not enough value of a peruta to return to each one.

And if it belongs to one or two of them, the owners of the lost item certainly despaired. If it belongs to one of them, he despaired of it because he assumes that one of his fellows found it. After all, he had already asked them several times, and they had not returned it to him.

And if the lost item belongs to two of them, they too certainly despaired of it, since they assume that when they come to the third and demand the lost item from him, he will say to them: “I did not take it; rather, one of you stole it from his fellow.”

Some say

that Rava did not come to explain Rav Naḥman’s words, but rather to disagree with him. Thus

Rava said: Even though it is worth only two perutot,

so that it is not worth a peruta for each of them—nevertheless,

he is obligated to return it.

What is the reason?

Because

perhaps

all three of them are indeed

partners

in the find,

and

afterward

one of them relinquished his share to his fellow [and one of them waived his share in favor of his fellow]. If so, each of the partners has the value of a peruta. And since they were initially all three partners, they trust one another and do not suspect one another; it follows that the lost item came into the finder’s possession before despair.

that is, one of them waived his share in favor of his companion. Accordingly, each of the partners has a peruta's worth. Since they were originally partners, they trust one another and do not suspect one another, and it follows that the lost item came into the finder's possession before they gave up hope.

And Rava said:

If

a person saw

a

sela that fell

from someone, if he

took it before despair

[without waiting a short time for the loser to feel in his pocket and discover that the item was missing ]

with the intention of stealing it—

he violates all of them

[all the prohibitions and positive commandments listed below]:

Because of

what is stated:

“You shall not steal,”

since he intended to steal it.

And because of

the positive commandment of

“You shall surely return them,”

which is stated concerning a lost item, since he took it without intending to return it.

And because of

the prohibition of

“You may not disregard,”

which is stated concerning a lost item, since the meaning of the prohibition is that one must not disregard returning it, whereas this person took it with the intention of stealing it.

And although he returned it

[the finder returned the lost item] to its owners

after despair—

it is merely a gift

in general

that he gives him, while the transgression that he committed—

he committed

[the prohibition has already been violated].

And if he

took it before despair with the intention of returning it

to its owners,

and after despair

he intended to steal it, he violates

only

“You shall surely return them” .

But he does not violate “You shall not steal,” since when he lifted it, he intended to return it.

And he also does not violate “you may not ignore it,” since he did not ignore the lost item; rather, he picked it up in order to return it.

And if he

waited for it

the lost item, but did not take it,

until the owners had despaired of it—

and

then

took it, he violates only “you may not ignore it”

alone,

since he ignored the lost item and did not take it immediately when he saw it . But he does not violate “you shall not steal” or “you shall surely return them,” since the owners had already despaired of the lost item, and it was therefore ownerless.

Rava said: In the case of one who sees [

one who saw ]

that his fellow’s coins fell among the sands [

between the sand dunes ],

and found them and took them [

and found them and picked them up ]—

he

is not obligated to return them to him.

What is the reason?

Because

the one from whom they fell—

has certainly despaired [

he certainly despaired of the lost item ] .

And

even though he saw

the finder the owner of the lost item

bring a sieve and sift the sand with it [

who brought a sieve and sifts the sand with it ], he is nevertheless not obligated to return it, because we say that the one who lost it did indeed despair of it, except that

he says

to himself:

Just as my own item fell from me, so too an item fell from someone else, and I may find my item [

just as an item was lost from me, so too an item was lost from another person, and perhaps I will find it ].

Mishna:

If a person

finds

an item that has no identifying mark

in a shop

belonging to another person—

it belongs to him .

This is because the owners despair, since many people enter there.

And if he finds it

between the box and the shopkeeper [

the shopkeeper sits in front of the box, takes his merchandise from it, and places it before him on top of it, where he sells it. He also places in the box the money that his customers pay him ]—the lost item is

the shopkeeper’s.

Since everything that falls between the box and the shopkeeper fell from the shopkeeper’s possession, it certainly belongs to the shopkeeper. He does not despair, because no other people enter this part of the shop, and he is certain that he will find his lost item before anyone else does . [

The first clause concerns one who found the lost item in the part of the shop in front of the box, where the customers stand ].

The same law applies to one who finds coins

in front of a money changer [

a person who exchanges money ]. If he finds them in front of the table on which the money changer and the customers place their coins—

they belong to him.

For the table separates the money changer from his customers, and if the coins belonged to the money changer, they should have been found in the place where he stands, between him and the table.

But if he finds coins

between the stool [

the base on which the tabletop rests ]

and the money changer, they belong to the money changer.

For in such a case, they certainly fell from him.

One who purchases produce from another, or whose fellow sends him produce, and finds among it [

among them ]

coins—

they belong to him.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

But

if they were

the coins

bundled, he takes them—

and announces—

because in such a case there is an identifying mark in the coins, either in the manner in which the bundle was tied or in the number of coins.

Gemara:

Rabbi Elazar said: What we learned—that one who finds [coins] in front of a money changer, they belong to him—means

even

if the coins were

lying on the table,

and not only if they were found in front of the table. The reason is that those who come to exchange money also place their coins there, and the owner despairs.

We learned: In front of a money changer—

they belong to him.

This implies:

but

if the coins were found

on the table—

they belong

to the money changer,

and not as Rabbi Elazar said!

Say the latter clause: Between the stool and the money changer—

they belong to the money changer.

This implies:

but

if they were found

on the table—

they belong

to him,

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar!

Rather, from this,

our Mishna,

there is no proof to be derived [

this law cannot be learned ].

And as for Rabbi Elazar, this

the law that he stated,

from where did he derive it?

Rava said: Our Mishna presented him with a difficulty [

our Mishna was difficult for him ]. For if the law is that coins found on the table belong to the money changer,

why did it specifically teach

that if he found them

between the stool and the money changer—

they

belong to the money changer? Why not teach

a greater novelty: that if he found them

on

the

table,

even though customers also place their coins there, they belong to the money changer!

Alternatively,

let it teach

“one who found [coins] on the money changers’ tables,”

meaning in the money changer’s establishment, in which case it would indicate that the coins were found on the floor of the establishment,

just as it teaches

in

the

first clause concerning a shop:

“one who found [an item] in a shop”—

it

belongs to him!

Rather,

since the tanna did not teach this, but taught, “one who found [coins] in front of a money changer,”

conclude from it

that

even

if the coins were

lying

the coins

on the table—

they belong to him.

The expression “in front of” indicates even on the table in front of him.

We learned in our Mishna:

“One who purchases produce from another, etc.”