Bava Metzia 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: They taught

that these items are his

only

with regard to

a person who

purchases from a produce merchant

[who purchased the produce from a merchant who purchases produce from many people and subsequently sells it to others], as it is not known from whom the produce came, and therefore the purchaser does not know to whom to return the money. And announcing the find is of no benefit, since there is no identifying mark on the money].

But when one purchases from a homeowner—

he is obligated to return it to him

the money, as it certainly belongs to him

And similarly, a tannaitic sage taught before Rav Naḥman: This was taught—

.

And likewise, a tanna taught before Rav Naḥman: They taught— only when one purchases from a merchant.

But when one purchases from a homeowner—

he is obligated to return it.

Rav Naḥman said to him: Did the homeowner himself thresh it

[the grain]? Many laborers threshed it. Since that is so, it is possible that the money fell from one of them; why, then, is he obligated to return it to the homeowner?

He said to him: Shall I erase it

[shall I remove this beraita from my version]?!

He said to him: No,

that is not what I intended. Rather,

interpret the Mishna

as referring to

a case where he had it threshed by his Canaanite slave and maidservant,

for in such a case the money certainly belongs to the homeowner, whether it fell from him or whether it fell from his Canaanite slaves, since whatever a slave acquires is acquired by his master.

Mishna:

It is written in the verse: “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep straying and ignore them; you shall return them to your brother, and so shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost article of your brother that is lost from him and you find it; you may not ignore it.”

The garment, too, was included among all these

[within the general statement, “and so shall you do with every lost article of your brother,” as the Gemara explains].

And why was it singled out

in the verse by the specific statement, “and so shall you do with his garment”?

To juxtapose other lost articles to it

and

to tell you: Just as a garment is distinguished

by these matters,

in that it has identifying marks,

as garments generally have an identifying feature,

and

likewise

it has claimants,

as it was certainly made by a person and did not come from ownerless property

, so, too, every article

that has identifying marks and has claimants—

one is obligated to announce it

. But an article that has no identifying mark, or an article whose owners are known to have despaired of recovering it , there is no obligation to announce it.

Gemara:

We raise a discussion concerning it:

What

is the meaning of what we learned in the Mishna,

“included among all these”?

Rava said: Included

in what is stated in the verse: “And so shall you do with

every lost article of your brother

and you may not ignore it,” since this verse includes every type of lost article, including a garment.

Rava said:

Although the Mishna has explained why the verse specified “garment,” it is still necessary to explain

why it was necessary that the Torah wrote

and specified

the Merciful One

the other items:

“ox,” “donkey,” “sheep,” and “garment”?

Rava explains:

They are necessary

[the Torah needed to specify these items], because a novel ruling can be derived from each of these particulars.

If the Merciful One had written

the law of returning a lost article only with regard to

a garment, I would have said

that

this applies

only when one returns a lost article

on the basis of witnesses to the article itself or identifying marks on the article itself.

That is, when there are witnesses who testify that the lost article itself belongs to its owner, or when he has identifying marks on the article itself.

But

with regard to returning

a donkey on the basis of witnesses to the saddle or identifying marks on the saddle,

that is, witnesses who testify that the saddle belongs to him, or identifying marks on the saddle that establish that it is his—

I might say

that

we do not return it to him

the donkey on the basis of these identifying marks.

For this purpose

the Merciful One wrote

an additional verse,

“donkey,”

to teach us

that even a donkey identified by marks on the saddle

— it is returned

. We still need to explain

“ox” and “sheep,” which the Merciful One wrote—

why are they necessary?

What novel point do they teach?

“Ox”—

to teach us

that even its tail hair.

One must return even the hair at the end of its tail [if it was shorn from it]

And “sheep”—

.

And “sheep”— to

teach us that one must also return

its shearing

of the sheep.

We raise a discussion concerning it:

Let the Merciful One write “ox”

to teach us

that even its tail hair, and

we would know on our own that if one must return the hair of its tail,

all the more so a sheep with its shearing!

Rather, Rava said: “Donkey” in the context of a pit,

the word “donkey” stated in the verse concerning liability for damage caused by a pit: “When a person opens a pit, or when a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of the pit shall pay, etc.,”

according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that one is liable for damage to vessels caused by a pit, in disagreement with the Sages, who derive “donkey—but not vessels.” If so, according to his view this word is superfluous

, and

likewise the word

“sheep” in

the verse concerning

a lost article,

which is superfluous

according to everyone—

This is difficult!

We challenge this:

And perhaps

what is stated, “sheep,”

to

teach the obligation to return the animal’s

dung

of the animal

is what it comes to teach!

If only “ox” had been written, we would have thought that one must return only the hair of its tail. But dung, which is of little significance, need not be returned. Therefore “sheep” is stated to teach that even dung must be returned

! And we say:

Dung—

its owners render it ownerless

for the one who found the animal and takes the trouble to return it .

We challenge this:

Perhaps

what the Torah wrote, “sheep,”

to

teach us that a lost article is returned on the basis of

identifying marks is what it comes to teach?

For it was uncertain to us

below whether returning a lost article on the basis of

identifying marks

is

by Torah law

or

whether

by Torah law one returns it only on the basis of witnesses, who testify that the lost article indeed belongs to the claimant, and only

by rabbinic law

does one return it on the basis of identifying marks.

For this purpose

the Merciful One wrote “sheep,”

to teach us

that even on the basis of identifying marks we return it.

If so, we can resolve from here that

identifying marks are by Torah law!

They said: Since the tanna taught the matter of

the

identifying marks with regard to a garment, as he taught: Just as a garment is distinguished by having identifying marks and claimants—

one is obligated to announce every article that has identifying marks and claimants—

infer from it that “sheep”

does not come with regard to identifying marks,

but rather with regard to another matter, which we do not know.

The Sages taught:

With regard to what is stated concerning returning a lost article,

“that is lost”

it comes to teach that specifically an object considered a “lost article” must be returned;

excluding

a lost article that is not worth a peruta,

which is not considered a lost article

. Rabbi Yehuda says:

This matter is derived from the word

“and you find it,”

which indicates that one must return specifically an item that is considered a lost object,

excluding a lost object that is not worth a peruta,

which is not considered a lost object.

What is the difference between them?

What practical difference is there? Ultimately, both derive from the verse that a lost object that is not worth a peruta need not be returned!

Abaye said:

Indeed, there is no practical difference, but

the interpretive significance—

is the difference between them.

That is, from where this law may be derived.

The Master,

the first tanna,

derives it [

this meaning is derived for him ]

from

the words

“that was lost.”

And

if

the Master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

derives it from “and you find it.”

And we raised the following question:

And according to the one who derives it from “that was lost,”

the first tanna,

what does he do with this “and you find it,”

what does he derive from this verse?

And we said:

That

same verse

is needed for the teaching of Ravinai [

it is needed to derive from it the law stated by Ravinai ].

As Ravinai said:

It is written concerning the returning of a lost object: “And so you shall do for every lost object of your brother that was lost from him

and you find it.”

And the word “and you find it,” which is in the past tense,

indicates that it came into his possession [

that it had already come into his possession ]

.

And the verse comes to teach us that the phrase “the lost object of your brother,” which indicates that one is obligated to return only the lost object of a Jew, excluding the lost object of gentiles , does not mean merely that one need not trouble himself to lift it. Rather, if it has already come into his possession, he is obligated to return it. Instead, even if the lost object has already come into his possession, he need not return it; rather, it is permitted to him .

And according to the one who derives

the exclusion of an item that is not worth a peruta

from “and you find it,” what does he do with this “that was lost”?

What does he derive from it?

He needs it for the teaching of Rabbi Yohanan.

As Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: From where is it derived that a lost object that was swept away by a river

is permitted?

As it is stated: “So shall you do for every lost object of your brother that was lost from him and you find it.”

The wording “that was lost from him” indicates

one that is lost from him

but is found by everyone else

afterward.

Excluded

is

this

lost object that was swept away by a river,

which is lost from him

and

also

is not found by everyone else.

And since it was necessary to write “from him,” it also wrote “that was lost.”

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda, who excludes from “and you find it” a lost object that is not worth a peruta,

this

teaching

of Ravinai—

from where does he derive it?

He derives it from

the letter vav in the word

“and you find it,”

which is superfluous, and indicates that it was already found and is in his possession.

And the other one,

the first tanna, who excludes from “that was lost from him” a lost object that is not worth a peruta,

this

teaching of Rabbi Yohanan—

from where does he derive it?

He derives it

from the word

“from him”

that is stated in that verse, which indicates that it is lost specifically from him, but is found by other people. And “that was lost” comes to exclude a lost object that is not worth a peruta.

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the entire phrase “that was lost from him” is needed for this exposition, because the word

“from him”

by itself

does not indicate to him

that it should be expounded.

Rava said:

There is also a practical difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda:

A peruta whose value declined,

a lost object that was worth a peruta at the time it was lost, but whose value subsequently declined, so that at the time it was found it was worth less than a peruta—

is the difference between them.

The one who says

that an item worth less than a peruta is excluded

from “that was lost,”

if so, in the case of a peruta whose value declined

there is a peruta’s worth,

because the wording “that was lost” indicates the time when it was lost, and at that time the lost object was worth a peruta.

And

if

the one who says

that an item worth less than a peruta is excluded

from “and you find it”—

in such a case

there is not

a peruta’s worth, because the wording “and you find it” indicates the time when it was found, and at that time its value had already declined and it was not worth a peruta.

And we object:

But according to the one who says

that it is derived from

“that was lost,”

ultimately,

we require

that

“and you find it”

also be fulfilled,

but it is not, since at the time it was found it was not worth a peruta, as its value had ultimately declined!

Rather, a peruta whose value increased,

an object that was worth less than a peruta at the time it was lost, but whose value subsequently increased so that at the time it was found it became worth a peruta—

is the difference between them.

The one who says

that it is derived from

“and you find it”—

in such a case

there is

a peruta’s worth, since at the time it was found it was worth a peruta!

And the one who says

that it is derived from

“that was lost”—

in such a case

there is not

a peruta’s worth, since at the time it was lost it was not worth a peruta!

And we object:

But according to the one who says

that it is derived from

“and you find it,”

ultimately,

we require

that

“that was lost”

also be fulfilled,

but it is not, since at the time it was lost it was not worth a peruta!

Rather,

an object that was worth

a peruta

at the time it was lost,

whose value declined

afterward,

and

then

increased again

and became worth a peruta at the time it was found—

is the difference between them.

The one who says

that it is derived from

“that was lost”—

in such a case

there is

a peruta’s worth, since it was worth a peruta both at the time it was lost and at the time it was found.

And the one who says

that it is derived from

“and you find it,” one requires that it have the value required for a found object from the time it was lost until the time it was found.

For the vav of the word “and you find it” indicates continuity from the time of “that was lost” until the time of “and you find it.” If so, in this case, since there was a period between the time it was lost and the time it was found when it was not worth a peruta, he is not obligated to return it .

And now the Gemara returns to the question that was already mentioned earlier in passing.

It was asked of them

the members of the beit-midrash: Is the law requiring the return of a lost object on the basis of

identifying marks,

without witnesses—

a Torah law

or

or

perhaps it is only

a rabbinic law

that we return an object on the basis of identifying marks, whereas according to Torah law we return it only on the basis of witnesses?

What

practical difference is there?